Question for the Blogosphere: If Sharia law was made the law of the land in Canada – and it was arrived at by democractic means – would you accept the “will of the people” and that “democracy has spoken”?
My two cents:
“Democracy” (as it is understood within our current political system) and freedom are not necessarily synonymous.
The further we remove ourselves from Western principles – especially the Judeo-Christian ones – the more we will see a divergence between democracy and freedom. Instead of being related to one another, they will turn on each other, and the very system of governance which served freedom will instead be used to subvert it.
Freedom of religion – and by this phrase I mean “religion” in general including the Sex & State god worshipped by the current culture of death – can as easily be used to lead to tyranny as a being invaded by a totalitarian State.
Look at the way Britain and other European countries are heading now. Every day they are ceding the Western culture to the Islamicists’ culture. And they are allowing this capitulation through the very democratic system that has formed the basis of advancement of western civilization.
What does this demonstrate?
It demonstrates that freedom itself – cut off from the search and acknowledgement of the objective truth – will kill us.
“Freedom” is a brittle and empty shell if it is devoid of any moral fibre or an acknowledgement of our Judeo-Christian heritage. With the decline of Christianity, there has been a marked decline in all spheres of western life including family, freedom, and social cohesion. Or, are we to say that it is just one big coincidence?
And the reason for this is quite simple. Secularism mandates that we consider all religions equal. Yet, while we are prepared to say that perhaps(!) Sharia is not such a great thing, we are not prepared to admit that indeed not all religions are created equal. Because if we were to do that, then that would necessarily mean giving one religion preference over another – at least in some capacity.
In its Declaration on Religious Freedom, the Second Vatican Council said this:
2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.
It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.
In other words, where a “religion” starts to subvert the public order and encroach on inalienable human rights – like free speech – it must be confronted and suppressed by the State in some form.