Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

We recommend "Landscape" print layout.
 

Part 2: "We Believe in Tolerance and the Separation of Church and State!"

By Carman Bradley

This article continues the series exploring reasons why the Christian witness made so little impact on the same-sex marriage decision. It is the second essay of three: "Part 1: Open My Eyes to See Who I Should Vote For – Jan 2006" and "Part 3: The Left, Centre and Right as Voting Options for Christians in Election 2006."   The paper scrutinizes the low  priority given to stopping marriage redefinition during Election 2006 by an illustrative example senior evangelical minister.  Believers shouldn’t be surprised to find that the last opportunity to stop same-sex marriage slipped away as many Christians displayed a contradictory and irrational voting “witness.”   
 

 
And he went on to say, referring to a quote from David Lam, Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia:
 

The issue of “tolerance” has huge bearing on the Christian misperception and application of the dogma of the separation of church and state.  The word’s origin is in the Latin “tolerare,” meaning “to endure.”  The machinist works within tolerance from design specifications and the doctor speaks of tolerance to pain or drug toxicity.  The state exercises tolerance through rights given or patience shown to opinions and practices that may be less than exemplary, in minority or both.  For example, in 1969, the heterosexist state declared a new level of tolerance towards homosexuals when private sexual acts were decriminalized.  The release of George Klippert, jailed for gross indecency (sodomy), typified the genesis of what the state said would be a private “bedroom” space for gays and lesbians.  However, the 70s and 80s were hardly years of private sexual expression.  Lesbians and gays content to remain in the “closet” were “outed” by political activists within their own communities.  Leaving aside a raging pandemic caused by the deadly ecological consequences of legalizing sodomy, we find that decades of liberalized tolerance of homosexuality has not brought peace between the minority being tolerated and the majority demonstrating the tolerance.  Rather homosexuals have now persuaded themselves that gay and straight are co-equal and the deconstruction of all heterosexual privileged space, including marriage is warranted.   In response to such activism, Kristi Hamrick, Press Secretary for Family Research Council, makes an astute point:
 

This is why lines must be drawn, standards discussed, and battles fought.  Because when people push the envelope of morality and get away with it, they don’t sit back to enjoy the sensation.  They reach further – touching the lives of the people around them – touching the lives of your children, and someday, mine.[i]
 

Crashing down on our lukewarm cleric’s liberal utopia of “pluralism” and “tolerance,” “where everyone gets to be free” is God’s Word and the societal consequences of moral indifference.  God is not indifferent to homosexual behavior.  And God does not tolerate sinful behavior; it is never free, it always has a cost.  E.L. Pattulo observes that gays and lesbians can spare no sympathy for what he calls “wavering children” - kids who are capable of going either way.  Through gay affirming programs in our schools, wavers are now told to experiment with their sex drives.  Pattulo is astonished that heterosexuals, few of whom actually believe one orientation is as good as the other, contentedly accept changes in society that have that result - promoting indifference, advocating total tolerance of homosexuality.[ii]   Norman Podhoretz, in “How the gay-rights movement won,” writes:
 

Yet if I do not doubt that some young boys are in effect doomed from the beginning to a choice between homosexuality and chastity, neither do I doubt that other young boys are what E.L. Pattullo has characterized as ‘waverers’ who are capable of going either way. They can yield to the temptation of homosexuality if they are encouraged or seduced into it…Such boys, however, are no longer helped by the world around them to resist the homosexual temptation and to overcome their fears of a normal life. They are instead being abandoned to the ministrations of a culture that not only legitimizes homosexuality but glorifies and glamorizes it, even to the point of representing those who die of AIDS as martyrs and heroes and even as angels.[iii]
 

Regarding the homosexual bid for same-sex marriage, still playing out in Election 2006, this claim goes beyond tolerance to a demand for “sameness” under the pretext of “equality rights.”  The enactment of same-sex Civil Partnerships or Civil Unions, adopted by all the Scandinavian countries, Britain and France, and advocated by the Conservative Party of Canada (see Part 3 ) would have been  an unprecedented Canadian expression of social tolerance to homosexuality.  On the other hand marriage redefinition, advocated by the NDP and Liberal Parties goes beyond tolerance.  Redefining marriage to include homosexual couples deconstructs (erases) the last vestige of state sponsored heterosexism.  Enactment of same-sex marriage fully converts the state from a heterosexist worldview to a homosexist ideology; and in this homosexist state the voice of traditional (also Christian) heterosexist morality is no longer tolerated.  In the state’s new worldview there is no longer an ideal model for marriage or family.  Under homosexism morality is situational and experiential, not absolute, certainly not religious.  The guiding principles are taken from homosexual culture - non-judgmentalism, liberalism, pluralism, experimentalism, inclusiveness, indifference and everyone gets to be free.  The goal of obtaining zero discrimination, “where everyone gets to be free,” requires that there be no social standard or model, no absolute right or wrong.
 

Pluralists and dogmatists for the separation of church and state might rush to applaud such a tolerant view held by the state, this time naively implying that the government has no place legislating morality, the domain of religion.  Not recognizing the paradox in his own assertions, our senior cleric says that he is for tolerance, diversity and a pluralistic society and against a “syncretism where nothing is of value or distinctive.”  But in a so-called “tolerant” and “diverse” state who will stand for morality – uphold things of value?  Not the religious.  In a homosexist state they are silenced from public voice.  The dilemma for our lukewarm minister, in adopting his tolerant, diverse, pluralist worldview, is that the homosexist state will not back away from morality, but rather will take on a major role in legislating values, particularly focusing on influencing the next generation.  The new state morality will no longer be rooted in religion, but in homosexist secular humanism.  And this combination of worldviews will underpin future governance in custody, parenting, adultery, reproduction, biogenetics, death and countless other societal areas.  Note that these topics are the very issues that the Roman Catholic Church highlighted in their correspondence to Catholic voters in Election 2006.  They advised their membership to consider: “Abortion, traditional marriage, family, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and assisted suicide.”[iv]

In his book The Plague Years: A Chronicle of Aids The Epidemic of Our Times, David Black reveals a key lesson from the application of unfettered tolerance of individual freedoms, acquiescence to rights-based legislations, and the expanding separation of church and state.  In the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, straight politicians felt trapped.  Politicians, likle New York’s Mario Cuomo, knew if he did nothing to stop the infections, he’d be attacked and if he did something, he’d be attacked.  Much like today, in a tolerant, diverse, pluralist society where everyone gets to be free, it had become heresy to suggest that moral questions should be publicly confronted.  Black comments on the state’s intent to essentially reinstate (in bathhouses) the anti-sodomy law struck down a little more than a decade earlier:   

But why shouldn’t a society confront questions of morality?  The danger comes not from the debate but from the belief that moral questions are legislatable.  In fact, the courts, simply by addressing a moral issue, undermine morality…Even if the law did have an effect - especially if it had an effect - it removed from the individual the burden of behaving morally.  The question becomes not what is right?  But what can I get away with?  As morality changed from a spiritual to a legal issue, it lost its private hold over people.  Courts replaced conscience.  The fight over the bathhouses confused the moral question (what sex acts should someone with AIDS allow himself to perform?) with the legal question (what is the government’s responsibility in promoting public health?)[v] 

A fundamental flaw in the parallel arguments for: (1) “Christian liberalism” – social tolerance towards things (individual freedoms) such as abortion, divorce, pre-marital sex, homosexual behavior, same-sex marriage,  and (2) for the “separation of church and state,” is that neither of these dogmas is biblical.  Believers are to be a light unto the nation.  The Christian vision of God’s will for Canada is not to be severed from impacting national governance through the misapplication of out-of-date dogma.

What is the intended message in our lukewarm minister's declaration a week before Election 2006?  The Christian worldview is an interlocking package of values and guidance, which is not discretionary.  Spiritual integrity can be described as the full integration of religious, political, social and family values into the one Christian worldview.  And here lies the cognitive flaw among those proclaiming personal faith in Christ, but choosing not to adhere to the Gospel value system in state affairs, whether as a voter or as an elected official.  Humanists and secularist activists would never dare abandon their beliefs at election time or at any time when deciding state governance.  An editorial in the Calgary Herald aptly illustrates the error of separating God and state: 

The original historical purpose of separating religion and state as advanced by the framers of the American republic in their foundational documents was that there ought to be no institutional control of the organs of government by a particular denomination or any religion, or vice-versa…Then as now, the Church of England was established as the official state religion in both Great Britain and its American colonies….This had critical implications in matters of worship for people of other faiths, and when the colonists had a chance to separate the church from the state, they took it.[vi]

The disestablishment of the church from the colonial states ended state coercion of the church through appointed clergy, government paid ministers and favoritism to one denomination.  The declaration of the Cambridge Platform in 1648, by Puritans, for example, freed citizens to private religious interpretation and established that government had no authority in spiritual matters.  That separation, however, was never intended to compel voters or politicians with faith to set aside their convictions in the conduct of state affairs.  The same editorial claims:

…if one were to banish religious impulses from decision-making in politics, why not banish irreligious convictions that originate in feminism, environmentalism or atheism?...Finally, insofar as politicians with faith are concerned, there is a risk of great personal hypocrisy if they do not follow at least some teachings of their church in matters of state, presumably ones that are grave….Setting aside deeply-held convictions for the sake of political expediency does not constitute the proper separation of church and state, but the separation of one’s conscience from one’s deeds.  It is in fact intellectual and spiritual suicide.  

The chorus of anti-Christian voices insisting on the separation of church and state should be cause for careful reflection on this dogma of separating God from the state.  In his book Straight from the Heart, the ‘free-thinking” Jean Chrétien wrote:

My family has always been rouge (red), Liberal in the free-thinking, anti-clerical, anti-establishment tradition of the 19th century. At that time people were ex-communicated for their liberalism, which advocated the separation of church and state among other radical measures.[vii] 

LifeSiteNews.com reported on January 28, 2005 how the Liberal government reaction to the unexpected building tide of opposition to its same-sex 'marriage' bill was becoming extreme.  Referring to comments by Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, LifeStiteNews reported: 

The National Post reports today that Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew declared that because Canada has “Separation of Church and State,” the Church is obliged to remain silent on the issue of same-sex unions. ‘I find that the separation of the Church and the state is one of the most beautiful inventions of modern times,’ Pettigrew said. The National Post reported he said that government and churches 'should not get involved in each other’s affairs.’

While our lukewarm cleric declares the same dogma as Pierre Pettigrew, LifeSiteNews records the Catholic reaction tp Pettigrew's comments:

Christians are reacting with outrage at the suggestion from an elected representative and Cabinet Minister that Christians have no right to influence the formation of Canadian government policy.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops (OCCB) today issued an uncharacteristically stern response to Pettigrew's comments. The bishops’ conference has demanded a retraction and called Pettigrew’s comments ‘extremely irresponsible,’ and a violation of freedom and freedom of religion. The statement said, ‘The separation of church and state is a tool that advocates use when they find religious views to be inconvenient to their political views.’

The statement reads, ‘They would require people to leave their religious beliefs at the door when they enter public debate. This, of course, contradicts both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. All Canadians have the democratic right to participate in social debate. That is a hallmark of our democratic society.’

The bishops’ statement warns that once the principles of representative democracy and freedom of speech are abandoned in the Liberals’ rush to re-construct Canadian society, no group is safe from silencing. ‘If religious people are being told today that they cannot participate in the public debate on certain issues, then who will be told the same tomorrow? Will environmentalists be told that there are issues on which they ought not to comment? Will trade unionists be told that they must remain silent on other issues?’

Tom Reilly, the General Secretary of the OCCB said, ‘The debate should not be chilled by remarks that have no foundation in the Canadian constitution or accepted political practice.’

Pettigrew’s comments come as Muslim, Sikh and Christian organizations across the country, announce that they will be mobilizing their congregations to fight a change to the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual partnerings. Pettigrew said from Fredericton that he would be supporting the upcoming legislation.[viii] 

Again, what is our lukewarm minister’s purpose in trumpeting “separation of church and state,” five days before the event?   His guidance is void of the motivations that united Muslim, Sikh and Christian organizations across the country the year before and in Election 2006.  Given the context in which he raises the dogma of separation of church and state, along with the connected statement “where everyone gets to be free not just those we agree with,” the message received is that the church has no place in the affairs of the state, including election campaigns; and that redefinition of  marriage need not be considered a pivotal voting issue in a pluralist secular state.

How far is this denominational leader prepared to apply his principle of the separation of church and state?  In Canada, prayer has been removed from pubic schools; in the U.S. advocates are calling for removal of “In God We Trust” from currency and for the removal of the “Ten Commandments” from all judicial venues.  Others are calling for the reference to “God” in the Oath of Allegiance to be removed.   All these claims are made under the principle of separation of church and state.  In Canada, on June 8, 1999, MP Svend Robinson sponsored a petition initiated by the Humanist Association of Canada that would erase all mention of God from our Constitution and end all pretext of honouring His will in our governance.  Humanists also want all prayer[ix] and religious liturgy banned from public venue, i.e. to purge Christ from Christmas and erase the Cross from Easter and to disassociate the Cross from Remembrance Day.  The Honorable Member asked Parliament to amend the Preamble statement in our Constitution from (1) to (2):

(1)  Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God…

(2)  Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of [intellectual freedom]

That God still plays a role in the lives of a majority of Canadians was identified by Michael Adams in his 1997 book Sex in the Snow; Canadian Social Values at the End of the Millennium where he noted that 83 percent of Canadians polled indicated that they believed in God.[x] 

Proponents of the separation of church and state, on either Christian or humanist sides of the coin are really co-arranging for the retreat of religion and the advancement of the secular humanist state.  Christians indoctrinated in the dogma of the separation of church and state need to acknowledge that Canadians are no longer threatened, as the Puritans were, by a state-favoured religious denomination; no, the threat is now state sponsored secularism and preference for homosexism.  Robinson’s failed petition in 1999 really only asserted what was already in practice in the Courts.  In considering the legal implications of the Constitution Preamble in the 1999 case R. v.Sharpe, the British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the Preamble statement as a “dead letter” and declared that BC justices had "no authority to breathe life" back into it.[xi]  Ironic, for advocates of separation of church and state, MP Robinson’s petition created a huge fervor in Parliament and in public.  He was banished to the backbench by the NDP Leader for his action.  Nelson Riis, NDP MP for Kamloops, said his fellow New Democrats were angry, embarassed and disgusted by Robinsons behaviour and the demotion was the ultimate gesture of disgrace. Later, in the House of Commons, Alexa McDonough read a statement supporting the reference to God.   

However, the theological hypocrisy of the political Left, who appear to be ok with “God” in the Constitution, is that their support comes with a Gnostic view (a neutered notion) of God, which ultimately makes their recognition irrelevant.  Although they are not prepared to publicly declare God dead, the NDP act operationally as if the God of does not exist.  [See also Part 3.]  Based on the testimony of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), given in 2003, there should never be governance implications resulting from this thiestic Preamble reference.  The CLC, voice of 2,500,000 workers, said before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

The religious beliefs of some groups should not be state-sanctioned to the extent that other religions are prevented from marrying gay and lesbian members of their congregations or to the extent that civil legal rights and human rights are denied to a group of citizens who historically have faced discrimination. The separation of church and state is an important part of Canadian democracy. [xii]

A further dilemma for Christians who assert or adhere to the dogma of separation of church and state is that this voluntary withdrawal of influence almost invariably results in the elevation of anti-Christian principles in Canadian governance.  To observant Christians the enactment of same-sex marriage accomplishes in principle what MP Robinson’s petition could not.  God is acknowledged in the Constitution Preamble, but the principles that recognize His supremacy become a mystery shrouded by the characterization of God as a projection - whatever anyone says that God is.   Based on the CLC interpretation of church and state, the two millennia-old world religion of 2.1 billion Christians (and 76 percent of Canadians) holds no more sway than the latest upstart faith, be it Raelianism or the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, or a counterfeit "Christian" church like the United Church of Canada.   

A letter to Catholic voters in January 2006, from the Catholic Organization for Life and Family, endorsed by the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), challenges the dominant notion of the separation of church and state.  The organization wrote:

As we prepare to vote for those who will direct the destiny of our country in the years to come, we believe it is important to draw attention to a phenomenon that is increasing in Canadian society and which threatens our very togetherness. We are referring to an erroneous understanding of the separation of Church and State – a misunderstanding with ramifications for religious freedom.

We are witnessing an obvious effort by some in society who wish to relegate religion to the private lives of citizens. This aggressive secular ideology refuses religion the right to exist in the public square. In the name of pluralism and secularity, then, there is a desire to exclude from public dialogue those who promote religious values, even when these can be defended by human reason and experience.

As Catholic citizens, we not only have the moral duty to exercise our civic and political responsibilities, but also the right to be involved in the life of society, each according to his or her own area of expertise, and without denying the Gospel values that are central to our lives. We are not obliged to suppress our moral conscience in order to live in society. There should be no separation – but instead coherence – between our faith and our daily choices, made evident in our personal, family, professional, political and cultural decisions.

In a democracy, the state is to ensure that believers have the opportunity to contribute freely to society. Because they are full citizens, they must be able to contribute to the evolution of the country, proposing a vision for the future and solutions to current problems, as do other citizens who may promote other values.[xiii] 

MP Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Liberal.) comments on the separation of church and state:

Religious leaders and Canadians who embrace religious values not only have the right but the duty to speak out in this debate. This is our country too, and we have every right to oppose this most serious threat to the cornerstone of our society: marriage and the family. The argument that we must be silent as per some erroneous and nebulous notion of the separation of church and state displays an incredible ignorance of Canadian history and the very founding of this nation in 1867.[xiv]

The choice before Christians is a bona fide zero-sum dynamic; neutral or lukewarm alternatives are not plausible:

Either we will discriminate against homosexuals, or we will discriminate against the Word of God.  We will either aim to convert the homosexual and have him transformed into the image of Christ, or we will aim to convert the church’s thinking about God’s Word and transform the Christian ethic into the image of homosexual values.[xv]

The dogma of separation of church and state is often unwittingly used to attempt to accomplish both – avoid reimaging Christ and avoid discriminating against the homosexual.  The social-spiritual maneuver requires a mind-set whereby Christians (voters) declare an orthodox biblical stand while at home, on a denominational pastoral retreat, or within the perimeter of their church properties; however, in the public arena Christians acquiesce to whatever direction the state wishes to take.  The church in this approach is held to have no right to meddle in the affairs of state.  Christians consequently become separated from the state, complacent in witness, and are even at peace with state-sponsored abortion and/or homosexism.   Like-minded Christians see no irony in believers going overseas to impact societies for Christ, while Christians at home take no responsibility for their national governance.

This essay closes with a final comment on the danger of making an idol out of "tolerance."  Once again, I refer to the guidance from our lukewarm minister, who writes, quoting from David Lam, Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia:

Bill C-250 is a private members bill initiated by MP Svend Robinson in 2000.  The bill adds “sexual orientation” to a specified list of identifiable groups to be protected from public communication of hatred.  You ask, so who can be against stopping the spread of hatred?  Indeed, the homosexual newspaper, Capital Xtra, dated  October 6, 2003, puts a perspective on where the legislation will lead: 

"The hate crime legislation…is more important to everyone in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community than the right to marry."[xvi] 

The Kinsey Institute, in its New Report on Sex, defines homophobia as the "fear, dislike or hatred of homosexuals."[xvii]  And the Religious Tolerance Organization defines homophobia as:

…engaging in a behavior aimed at restricting the human rights of persons who have a homosexual orientation and/or who engages in homosexual behavior. This behavior can take many forms: signing a plebiscite; sending an Email to one's senator or representative; participating in a demonstration; voting on a school board; voting to elect a homophobe; talking to coworkers or friends, delivering a sermon; etc. These rights include what many believe to be the most important human right: to be married; to have their spousal status recognized and registered; and to be assigned benefits and obligations by the government. Other rights are protection from hate-motivated crimes, protection in accommodation, and employment security..[xviii]

And Svend Robinson, author of Bill C-250, says in his online guest lecture presentation:

Where does homophobia come from? ‘Homophobia is about fear. Phobia is fear. Fear of homosexuals. It is important that we have to confront homophobia and fear, but we also have to confront heterosexism as well which isn't necessarily based on fear. It could be based on hatred or bigotry, but not necessarily based on fear. Where does it come from? I'm sorry to say that too much of it comes from those who call themselves religious, many on the religious right.’[xix]

Bill C-250 takes aim directly at traditional religious values and the ability to publicaly witness to one's faith.  If there is such an identifiable group as the "religious Right," the way that Mr. Robinson refers to them, they need to be added to the hate crimes protection list.  Svend Robinson has no tolerance for Christianity as it has been practiced for two millennia.  In his mind “confronting homosexuals” with God’s Word equals homophobia equals hate and must be silenced. 

To speak of the virtues of tolerance in this light and to assert a “pluralistic society where we as Christians (and anyone else) can love freedom” as a national goal ignores the reality of a massive collision of rights and interests.   Furthermore, to assert on the eve of Election 2006, the dogma of separation of church and state "where everyone gets to be free not just those we agree with,” is to grossly underestimate the consequences on Canadian Christendom of the state adopting a homosexist worldview.  The state, through adoption of same-sex marriage legislation, in effect declares that a comprehensive anti-Christian worldview is now state policy.

Copyright © 2008 StandForGod.Org