Quote:
Originally posted by MolsonInBothHands@Apr 11 2005, 04:36 PM
A deeply relgious person can successfully make the separation of church and state, and can make the distinction between personal values and national policy. A deeply religious person strives to live their own personal lives as they see fit. How they live their personal lives is for them to reconcile with their belief system. It is not for them to dictate how others live their lives. Members of government take an oath to represent the people, not force religious values upon the people, and they usually make this oath by swearing to their god. In other words, it would be sacrilege for a deeply religious person to break an oath before god and force his/her values upon the people.
|
So if Day is in a position to vote an issue (let's say some sort of abortion issue) where the "majority" of Canada wanted some sort of pro-choice decision, would he vote against his religious beliefs knowing it would cause the deaths of what he considers to be people (fetuses) or would he break his oath to represent the "people"?
The problem is obvious. I can't trust a religious fanatic to make decisions for the people or in the best interest of country. They are too conflicted. They have a higher power to report to so I can't see how their oath to represent my interests and the interest of the rest of Canada can come ahead of that.