Thread by @sunnshiiny

Kristin Raworth criticizes the questioning and criticism of Andrew Scheer’s Catholic faith. Rendering it off limits to discussion or politicalization. Stating it’s “unfair” to question Scheer’s faith.

https://twitter.com/kristinraworth/status/1167119079670345728

The US & many other countries separate church and state functions specifically in their constitutions.

It’s meant to protect persecution of different faiths. Currently the US is being challenged by deeply religious politicians & religious leaders.

Canada doesn’t separate church and state like the US. In Canada, religious freedom has always presented the combination of church and state as a possibility, but convention (social norms), & past US influence has prevented it from occurring in recent history.

Any faith, for that matter, is problematic when considering modern interpretations, law & policy regarding human rights and individual freedoms. The Charter of Rights & Freedoms, were codified into law in 1982, and Canadian courts have expanded their interpretation since then.

Using Religious dogma, beliefs and values to inform Canadian policy means the contemporary legal code, court interpretations and social norms could be changed to reflect religious belief and ideology.

That has wide reaching implications and is inherently political in nature.

Religious Dogma proscribes behaviour for the faithful. Restricting human rights and freedoms based on religious text and its interpretation. Often in contradiction to secular laws and contemporary social norms.

Questioning a Canadian politicians’s faith then is entirely appropriate. How faith informs policy is directly relevant to voters.

How else can a voter determine support for a deeply devoted religious candidate? Especially if the voter doesn’t share the faith.

Not only is the level of adherence to faith relevant, so is the faith itself.

Catholic dogma has strict guidelines on procreation. Restrictions on bodily autonomy of women is permitted, even encouraged, due to dogma of the faith.

Doctor assisted suicide & drug based contraceptives are also prohibited within the Catholic faith.

All are current issues being debated within Canadian politics. If a politician uses his/her faith to inform policy, their policies could restrict access through legal means.

By separating church and state, the faith of an individual becomes irrelevant.

Questioning the beliefs & values of the devoutly faithful and the dogma their faith proscribes was off limits, taboo, forbidden. It was an unwelcome intrusion of personal privacy & strictly enforced.

However, with the obvious surge in the devoutly faithful moving into the political realm of society, possibly using their faith to inform policy, that is no longer true.

Private beliefs & values are off limits. And should be. Private legal conduct should not be political.

But once devotion to faith is used to influence & inform public policy, it is no longer off limits; faith then becomes political; in the public domain. Open territory for criticism and examination.

Canadians need to decide if they want religious dogma to inform policy. Personally, it is not within my comfort level to elect a devoutly faithful politician who uses his/her faith to inform policy.

But the decision is not mine. This is a national debate.

In a pluralist society, which faith is deemed appropriate to draw from to design social & economic policy? Only Christian faiths? What about Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and a host of other less known faiths who have faithful believers in Canada? Whose dogma do we use?

What about agnostics and atheists? Indigenous faith?

Using religious belief to inform & design social and economic policy makes the dogma and ideology of ALL faiths political.

Back to Andrew Scheer. Andrew Coyne laughs of questioning Scheer’s Catholic faith since 7 of the last 9 PM’s are/were Catholic.

But much has changed within the Church in the past couple decades. A schism of sorts has emerged. Like Protestants, Catholics now have different sects.

Modern Catholics are more humanist in their faith expression. Long known as the stalwart stoic faith, modern Catholics have embraced contemporary beliefs and question the adherence to strict dogma. Many don’t. But they still consider themselves Catholic.

Pope Francis is a modern Catholic. He is unconventional. The first years of his papacy are full of public rejection of long held Catholic canonical beliefs. He’s invited the divorced to take communion, welcomed LGBTQ back to the fold of the church, washed the feet of the poor.

His predecessors, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II were both traditional Catholics. Those are the stalwart stoic leaders who uphold strict adherence to canonical law.

Pope Francis has caused quite a rift in Catholic faithful and leadership. Two camps have emerged.

Modern vs Traditional. Morally opposed to one another and fighting for control of the faithful.

Trudeau and Scheer are from opposing factions within the Catholic Church. Their beliefs and values are at moral odds.

Modernists are more likely to be progressive politically & don’t use church dogma to inform policy.

Traditionalists are more likely to be conservative, promote the use of church dogma to inform policy, & support criminalization of abortion, assisted suicide & contraception.

The difference between Trudeau and Scheer is political and stark in comparison. Both represent ideological beliefs and values on opposite sides of the political spectrum, yet both are Catholic.

The faith of the two men most likely to be the next PM, and the belief systems they draw upon for policy development, are directly relevant to Canadian politics. And should be open for debate and examination.

If you are using religious belief to inform you policies, it’s fair game to question those beliefs, values and how strictly you intend to adhere to your faith when tabling legislation that will impact the entire nation and every citizen.