---

Faith, morality have a place in politics

by
J. Edward Troy
Bishop Emeritus of St. John

Originally printed as a letter to the editor in the Fredericton Telegraph Journal
June 6, 2000

Mr. Fred McMahon's column ('Day must separate church and state', May 30) was a rather curious piece. He accuses Mr. Stockwell Day, a candidate for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance, of mixing religion and politics and then - rather inconsistently, it seems to me - he goes on to make a religious argument against this political practice.

As we read on however, we find that what Mr. McMahon really objects to is Mr. Day's pro-life and pro-family views.

Mr. McMahon's religious argument is based on his own peculiar interpretation of the gospels which would have us believe that Jesus was a moral and social liberal who would presumably endorse abortion and would see no difference between homosexual relationships and heterosexual marriages.

The purpose of my letter is not to support Mr. Day's bid for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance nor to defend his political views with which I am largely unfamiliar but rather to respond to Mr. McMahon's attempt to disenfranchise those who disagree with him on the issues of life and family.

Mr. McMahon is shocked and upset that Mr. Day failed to denounce Campaign Life Coalition - a politically active pro-life organization - which pointed out in its newsletter that leadership candidate Tom Long counts among his advisors and insiders self-proclaimed homosexuals who are not friends of pro-lifers and who were active in lobbying for equal rights for homosexual partners (which means putting them on a level with heterosexual spouses). The newsletter also indicated that Mr. Long is waffling on the pro-life issue.

Campaign Life is simply pointing out that people who are radically hostile to the cause of life and of traditional families occupy positions of influence in the Long camp. They are people who have a record of political activism in the public debate on the status of homosexual relationships. Campaign Life is entitled to inform readers that these individuals have promoted and supported policies and legislation which are opposed to the concerns of its membership. Is this what Mr. McMahon terms a "vicious attack" and "outrageous behaviour"?

What is vicious and outrageous here is Mr. McMahon's contention that those who do not share his version of religion and morality or do not accept the pro-abortion orthodoxy and the gay agenda are a threat to democracy and thus should be disqualified from holding public office. Perhaps he would have the country establish a position of Grand Inquisitor to ensure that pro-life and pro-family candidates are weeded out.

Surely Mr. McMahon does not hold that there is no room for morality in politics, in government, in public policy and in legislation! Surely we demand and expect ethical behaviour from our political leaders as well as from our ordinary citizens! Surely Mr. McMahon must be aware that in our society most of the standards by which conduct is judged to be good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable have been derived from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.

Of course, by arguing that it would be bad if Mr. Day were elected Prime Minister, Mr McMahon acknowledges that personal moral judgment has a role in politics and in political commentary, so long as it agrees with his own.

The legal system in our country is designed to sanction activities which the community considers unacceptable or criminal, while public policy encourages ways of acting that further the common and individual good. In this sense, government through its law enforcement agencies certainly has a role in policing morality. People who commit theft, fraud, murder, etc. are arrested and tried. The real question lies in deciding where the public interest lies, that is, in deciding which kinds of behaviour should be sanctioned or restricted by laws and which kinds of behaviour should be favoured by government policies or programs. If laws and policies cannot be changed and improved upon, then we would have no need of electing a new parliament every few years.

There is a consensus that sexual morality cannot and ought not to be regulated by legislation, except where and when the sexual activity in question violates the rights of others, offends the dignity and integrity of the human person or exploits children and others. However, even though it would be inappropriate as well as ineffective to legislate sexual morality, this does not mean that there is no public interest in the way people use or abuse their sexuality.

As for the state being an interested observer in the bedroom, only the recent bill recognizing same sex partnerships would seem to require that, since it is not otherwise clear how one establishes that two persons of the same sex living together are in a bona fide homosexual relationship.

Not all behaviour that is permitted serves the common good. It may be reasonable for the state to grant special recognition - privileges, entitlements, or exemptions - to those whose conjugal state advances the near or long term interests of the nation. There is precedent for this, for example, in family allowances, tax credits, child care deductions, etc.

Furthermore the government certainly gets involved in discouraging undesirable behaviour in other spheres, even though it may be legal. Just consider the campaign against smoking.

The media have reported lately - not for the first time - that the birth rate in Canada is well below what is necessary to maintain our population.

We are told again and again that our population is aging which will place growing burdens on the health care system; there will be more seniors to look after and fewer younger working people to support them financially. Can it not be argued that it would be in the long term public interest for the leadership of our country to put in place policies which encourage couples to have children, rather than to do everything to make abortion more accessible and normal?

Would it not be useful to promote a social and cultural climate which welcomes and cherishes children instead of regarding them as a burden standing in the way of a career or simply as a blob of tissue to eliminate?

One need not be a Christian conservative or indeed profess any religious faith to see wisdom in such policies. Of course I do not suggest that these considerations exhaust or go to the core of the anti-abortion debate; I merely allude to them to indicate that religious and moral conviction as well as religious and moral indifference have policy implications which need to be weighed and analysed.

In the view of Christian conservatives and vast numbers of other citizens, abortion is not only morally wrong but it is politically and socially wrong. Morally, it is an evil which destroys innocent human life, while politically and socially, it deprives our national community of its future human resources.

In a democracy such as ours, pro-life and pro-family candidates have a right to make their case and to seek to persuade fellow citizens of the good sense of their position. They are free to expose the mendacity of abortion advocates who often deny and always obscure the fact that a human being dies when an abortion is performed.

Mr. McMahon is worried that Mr. Day's religious (moral) views will influence his policy package. Is he worried about the religious views of the other candidates? Is he concerned about those of the present Prime Minister?

Everybody has moral and philosophical views, whether explicit or not, and they impact upon policy choices. If we like a candidate's ideas or find him or her appealing for other reasons, we vote for that person. t so far I haven't heard of their being a religious test or an official orthodoxy which would exclude him or her in advance of the ballot. Yours truly, +J. Edward Troy Bishop Emeritus of Saint John

J. Edward Troy
Bishop Emeritus of Saint John

 Back to Top

---

MORE NEWS: LifeSiteNews.com Home Page  Last 10 Days   Archives   Special Reports

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.