No communion for Paul Martin?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/12/05 - 08:56 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: |
A side note to this, again bringing this back to Canada for a moment: A recent attempt by Muslims in Ontario to put Sharia (sp?), their religion's guidelines on marriage and divorce (specifically), on parity with provincial law was recently rejected by the premier there. |
You bring up an interesting point that (at least to me) is less of a side note and more reflects the very heart of this whole discussion.
There is precedence in Ontario provincial law as it has deferred in the past to both Jewish and Christian tribunals on issues of divorce and child custody. Recently the Ontario government put forward a motion to ensure that provincial legislation is the only legally recognized authority for settling divorce arbitration. The motion was triggered by a dispute over the findings of a Islamic Sharia law tribunal, however the motion bans all forms of religious arbitration in the province.
I fully support this kind of legislation, and believe that it is essential for peaceful co-existence in the kind of multi-cultural environment that exists here in Ontario. I believe that any decision in life based strictly on religious belief needs to be made out of an individual's free will and, quite frankly, loses all meaning if it needs to be legally enforced by secular law. This too applies to gay marriage. I don't think it makes a lot of sense for the Catholic church (or any other church for that matter) to feel the need to legally enforce their moral code in secular law. Especially when their moral code is in strong disagreement with the beliefs of large segments of society.
Secular law is for the purpose of defining an equitable social structure, religious law (coming from my combined Biblical and common sense understanding) is for the purpose of reconciling the hearts of humanity to God. I believe churches of all faiths need to do a better job of recognizing where the two need to remain separate.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 21:32 Post subject:
TO, just wondering this as to how your 'non-secluar' divorce would apply to these - not looking to trip you up.
If divorce could be granted based on the religious/spiritual tenets alone (i.e., no secular law to enforce), how would this work with a couple who have two beliefs with sharply divergent views of divorce (a Muslim married to a Christian, for example), and each respects the other's faith).
What of atheists (though some may claim atheism is actually a religion as well)?
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/13/05 - 07:55 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | TO, just wondering this as to how your 'non-secluar' divorce would apply to these - not looking to trip you up.
If divorce could be granted based on the religious/spiritual tenets alone (i.e., no secular law to enforce), how would this work with a couple who have two beliefs with sharply divergent views of divorce (a Muslim married to a Christian, for example), and each respects the other's faith).
What of atheists (though some may claim atheism is actually a religion as well)? |
Maybe you got the wrong impression from my post. I support the Ontario provincial government's motion to remove all forms of religious arbitration from provincial law. I believe its the only reasonable solution, especially within the multicultural climate of this province. I think its a misguided notion for people of faith to demand that secular law uphold religious law.
Eg. I'm a Christian and from my understanding of the Bible, divorce is not an option within the Christian covenant of marriage (except under certain circumstances) - my wife shares the same belief as me. I don't believe it's the secular law's responsibility to uphold our 'religious' interpretation of the marriage covenant. Secular law should only govern the aspects of our legal marriage contract (things that pertain to tax benefits and the protecting of our individual human rights). If my wife suddenly decides that she no longer agrees with the Biblical interpretation of marriage and wants a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences its the duty of the secular law to govern the equitable dissolution of our legal marriage contract. It's mine and my wife's choice and responsibility before God and each other to decide and govern our actions with respect to the religious interpretation of our marriage. The two should remain separate - I believe it strengthen's both social order and the validity of our faith based decisions for the two to remain separate.
I hope that's more clear.
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/13/05 - 11:12 Post subject:
Yup. I did run the wrong way with the ball. Thanks for straightening that for me.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
