Skip to main content

Rebuilt

In the comment thread to my post about Tory outreach to Quebec, Tom made some very good observations (he's got the advantage in that Quebec is his home province). He pointed out that the Catholic church has a bad name in that province because of it's long, cozy relationship with the government there. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about that, other than I know it's true and the resentment may well be justified. So... am I mad or what? Why suggest that Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, might be a useful way to reach out to that province? The reason I like my faith is not because want the Pope to rule the world like an autocrat. No, that wouldn't do at all. I like my faith because it's the most amazing philosophy I've come across. It also has an administrative side that, not surprisingly, has had problems. I say "not surprisingly" because putting ideas into action is always tough. Human frailties and difficult cases take their toll. In truth, however, there is no one form of government that is "Catholic." Monarchy has been popular for historical and philosophical reasons, it's true, but there is no official tie between them. One of the challenges that modern, North American Catholics face is to try and show that their faith can survive and flourish in a modern, democratic society. It's an important task because democracy is not without it's problems:
It is a grave error to presume that if the vote is widespread, meaningful participation in government is assured. This misconception contributes to the disintegration of intermediate institutions which can weigh against state power, and pits an atomized and disorganized mass of voters against those few who can pull the strings necessary to obtain political office. The so-called will of the people must always be represented, shaped and brokered, and will often be misrepresented, negated or ignored by those who understand how to wield political influence. In our own country [the U.S.], the standard means of shaping the chaos of the electorate into some semblance of order and strength is the political party.
In light of the sordid details justice Gomery is uncovering, those observations ring true. Counterweights to government power are needed. Canada used to have a a tripartite government of parliament, monarch and senate. Today we effectively have government by cabinet. It's hardly a healthy situation. We tend to oppose our oligarchy through our provincial governments, and who knows, maybe that can bear some fruit. There's also a host of smaller groups like unions available but their leadership and effectiveness has left a lot to be desired. Churches can play a role here. I don't personally want to see them get too close to the government (Federal or Provincial), but they can play a role in creating and maintaining a sense of shared community and human dignity that, with any luck, might help to steer our government away from passing envelopes back and forth in dark restaurants. It's a bottom up, voluntary association of people that care for their communities that I have hopes for. It's the kind of thing you do when you realize that if you don't do it, no one will. I think it can appeal to young people, many of whom are burning with distain for government over-reach. Can Catholic Quebecers rebuild themselves on those lines? I'd love to find out. Healthy communities generate healthier government, mostly by seeking less from it, and also by recognizing government illness at early stages and countering it when it arises. Interfaith dialogue is a step in that direction.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi