Previously, this column has discussed the connection between religion and politics as well as religion and the formulation of public policy. These discussions emphasized how widespread these interrelationships have been throughout history and in modern times.
Once again this became evident in response to a truly bizarre situation. Recently, an innocent passenger travelling on a bus from Edmonton to Winnipeg fell victim to a gruesome attack by another passenger. The victim, Tim McLean, was stabbed repeatedly and then beheaded. He neither knew his attacker, nor had he in any way provoked any kind of altercation.
Despite the international media attention that followed the event, his family planned a quiet, private period of bereavement. In response to this tragic event, some members of the Westboro Baptist Church, an unaffiliated American sect, illegally entered Canada and had planned to picket McLean’s funeral.
This group had taken the position that the murder of McLean was justified in that it reflected the wrath of God directed at a Canadian as punishment for Canadian policies and laws relating to abortion, homosexuality and adultery. Already well-known for its protests at the funerals of American soldiers, the sect has been considered by some as little more than a hate group. Fortunately, the protest at Mr. McLean’s funeral did not, in fact, occur, however, the threat was hurtful to both the McLean family and the memory of an innocent victim.
Surely, any individual can espouse personal or religious views on a given public issue. Religion has been described as a specific fundamental set of beliefs, practices and theology generally agreed upon by a number of persons. Politics has been described as the art of influence.
However, we should not turn religion into politics by attempting to influence policy-makers to subscribe to a particular set of religious values, norms and policies applicable to all. There have been many examples of religious leaders taking action to force their views on society as a whole and to attempt to influence a national agenda.
It is particularly objectionable when, in the name of religion, a group or individual uses someone’s personal tragedy (such as the McLean murder) to advance a political agenda.
United States’ presidential candidates publicly express their adherence to faith in order to raise campaign funds and, indeed, in order to win votes. Just recently it was reported in the National Post that in order for Barack Obama to win the upcoming presidential election, “his future rests in the hands of… evangelicals.” The appeal to faith-based groups is now an accepted norm of U.S. politics. Almost every country has experienced this phenomenon. We are all aware, for example, of the influence of religious parties in the formulation of Israeli public policy.
Religion codifies or provides us with our values – moral tenets that we apply in our daily lives. It is understandable that we would want our values to be reflected in the public policies and laws established by our various levels of government. However, it is not acceptable to expect governments to adopt particular religious interpretations as a result of attacks on individuals or groups. The planned disruption of McLean’s funeral is an example of insensitivity and emotional violence against innocents to further particular religious or moral precepts.
The Canadian Jewish Congress espouses certain views on public issues. But the issues, although sometimes based on aspects of Jewish theology, are universal in their appeal to individuals of all religious persuasions. Who can argue against the elimination of child poverty, the cessation of genocide in Sudan and the curtailment of hate propaganda? They are, to be sure, desirable policy objectives. These objectives represent the present policies and subjects of advocacy of Congress. We, as a community, do not argue that everyone should subscribe to particular tenets of our faith, but rather that all persons respect the basic norms of decency, civility and human rights.
Politics is politics and religion is religion and ne’er the twain shall meet. Or, at least let us be reasonable and moderate in mixing these social influences. The practice of religion and the formulation of public policy should both remain strong and healthy activities but should do so within their respective spheres.