Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
That makes sense if we happen to be living under the tyranny of the church right now. We aren't. There is no "tyranny void" to fill.
|
Perhaps you're right, but it's also possible the the word "yet" needs to be tacked onto the end of your sentence. In my opinion, there is an increasing number of examples where the state is moving into the realm of legislating lifestyle and morality, such as gay marriages, abortion, healthy lifestyles, etc. Many of these are good causes and welcome changes, but for an opposite example look at some of the things foisted on the public through the Patriot Act in the US, and to a lesser extent through security legislation in Canada as well.
Gay marriage and gay rights are an example of how the legislative and judiciary bodies are getting involved in morality issues in a positive way. But just because one of their early examples is positive doesn't mean I want the judiciary/legislative powers to decide what's right and wrong for me. The legislative body (parliament) is at least elected, but the judiciary is not, nor is it answerable to an elected body even. It is a small body of the elite who I don't not trust to do what is right for the masses, or for individuals. As for the legislative body being up to the task, may I present Paul Martin, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, Stephen Harper, Ralph Klein, Ed Stelmach, ad nauseam as examples of why they're not.
Edit: I didn't see your edit until replying, and yes, that's basically what I'm saying. The masses will turn to someone or something else. I'm not saying it will be the state, but I'm sure the state will be vying for the role along with the corporate world and the mass media. I'm sure others will want to try to control the masses for their own agendas as well.