An excerpt from the VanSun several days ago:
People could question whether Clark is playing the religious card (Christian, Sikh and other) to shore up her low poll numbers. But I would caution against reading too much into what she said on the evangelical TV show, which as The Vancouver Sun‘s ace Ottawa correspondent, Peter O’Neil, discovered, was:
“We learn … in the Bible it’s much easier to make a short-term decision that will make everybody happy or that will make your life a little bit easier, than it is to make a long-term decision that’s good for the future but may be tough in the short run.”
Even though Clark has identified herself as an Anglican, that does not mean a lot in today’s world because Anglicans are all over the map on social, sexual, moral and political issues. What kind of Anglican is Clark? It’s not particularly clear.
Some conservative Anglicans, for instance, are adamantly against abortion, homosexual relations and assisted suicide. Some read the Bible ‘literally.” Those would generally be the values upheld by 100 Huntley Street hosts, who have for decades promoted socially conservative positions.
But many liberal Anglicans in Canada, particularly in B.C., would support a person’s right to choose on abortion, homosexual relations and euthanasia. They would say they “take the Bible seriously, but not literally.” Many Canadian Anglican clergy, for instance, are gay or lesbian. And many Anglican priests formally bless unions between same-sex couples. In addition, Anglicans support political party of every stripe in Canada.
My main point is that by suggesting that anyone “inspired” by the Bible is not fit for public office, Bushfield (whose impressive bio says he has a masters degree in physics and a desire “to make the world a better place”) is in effect arguing the only people who can run for political office are atheists.
By logical extension, wouldn’t Bushfield be compelled to reject any politician inspired by writings by Christians (such as Martin Luther King Jr.), Buddhists (the Dalai Lama), Hindus (Gandhi), Muslims (Malcolm X), Jews (Eli Wiesel), Sikhs (Guru Gobindh Singh), neo-pagans (Starhawk) — or poets with a spiritual bent, like Shakespeare or Tennyson?
Unless he is singling out the Bible (which is important to Jews, Christians and Muslims), Bushfield must believe people inspired by any form of spirituality would threaten the separation of what he anachronistically calls “church and state.”
That does not seem like a very tolerant, pluralistic or even humanistic approach; values for which Bushfield claims to stand.
The concept of the separation of religion and state, as one discovers reading legal history, does not preclude people who are religious from serving in public office.http://blogs.vancouv...le-inspiration/
As unreliable as Wikipedia is, I'm quoting from there and from 01 census that 36% of BC reports no religious affiliation. (http://en.wikipedia....ritish_Columbia
) Are we then to only allow those to serve as political leaders, thus excluding the majority of the province from having their voice heard in person in Victoria?