Eugene Forsey Liberal has left a new comment on the post "On "Bold" Policy":
A prosaic point important enough to make me comment here: this is clearly a matter of personal conscience that would require a free vote, if it ever got that far. As a result, it's something for individual MPs to advance, and not any party, unless a party had a fairly united philo-theological-moral view on the question, which seems unlikely.
These kinds of questions cut across parties and are terribly divisive. One should be careful about how and when one approaches the question, should one desire to do so.
Not to cheat, I should note I disagree with the proposed policy, though that is neither here nor there, politically. To be fair to myself though, I would suggest people research some of the "mistakes" that have happened as a result in Holland & Switzerland. Once done, can never be reversed, obviously. Emmanuel Levinas did a very fair, deep, humanistic philosophical inquiry into the question - I don't know how good anyone's French is, but le Devoir had a useful piece on his views:
http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/ethique-et-religion/ 272055/le-devoir-de-philo- emmanuel-levinas-s-opposerait- a-l-euthanasie
Post a comment.
Unsubscribe to comments on this post.
Posted by Eugene Forsey Liberal to Far and Wide at 12:54 AM, February 16, 2010
PS. KC, you are clearly a sentient being. Hence you have views. Enough indeed, to post comments on blogs about politics. I assume then that you try to advance your views, as you are doing now, in fact, whether through discussion, politicking, etc.. Hence, you, like all people, wish your views to win, and are glad when they do. Whenever they do, whatever small part you played in making your view the winning one, you have "imposed" your view on others. If your view was that there should be no discussion of the reality that people's theologies & philosophies are behind their politics, then you would be unwittingly holding a religious &/or philosophical view: to be anti-religious or anti-philosophical is to hold a religious or philosophical view, obviously.
So it is that your reaction to the phrase "unless a party had a fairly united philo-theological-moral view on the question" indicates a sensitive spot, instantaneous anti-religious sentiment. This is quite common and understandable, as the individual almost always has some valid reasons to feel this way. Upon reflection, the only term you object to is "theological". But to describe our views as moral and philosophical, and ignore the theological underpinnings of those very same morals and philosophies, and this goes for all cultures, not just "Western", would be a negation of reality. At the very least, our endless generations of ancestors believed in gods and theologies of one kind or another, and their cultural heritage has been passed down to us. Indeed, this is a recurring problem in politics, noticeable in QC, for example, where large numbers of people behave in a most catholic manner even as they denounce catholicism, religion, etc.. Not to know and understand how one's cultural heritage affects one's psychology, mentality and behaviour, how generations of theology has seeped into one's fibre, means one is leading one's life as if driving without a rear-view mirror, indeed, without even realising that such an old technology as wheels are rolling one along. It is to be blind to oneself and the world.
But beyond these two simple insights, how knee-jerk anti-religiousness is a form of religious belief, and that one is always at the mercy of theology in one's own thinking, however unaware one may be, there is also the simple and obvious point that an awful lot of people, still a good majority I imagine, do base their political and social views on their interpretation of one theology or another, and this from right to left, and every combination imaginable. So to pretend one can engage in political-social discourse without religion coming into it is necessarily incorrect, just as a matter of fact. And does one have the right to require they abandon religion? That they no longer mention it in their discourse? That would be most illiberal.
Liberalism, in my limited understanding, is based in the idea that the individual is the source of all legitimacy, and as result, "your rights end where mine begin". But as noted, no man is an island, hence we are necessarily political beings. So it is that a liberal acquiesces only to those authorities he recognises as legitimate. Since society exists, unless you're a hermit, and no man has the right to physically impose his views on me, the liberal believes that the norms and codes that allow society to function are only legitimate if arrived at through free discussion and debate, and no man being inherently superior to another, no man's views are inherently superior. We are convinced on the merits, and not by questions of status.
So it is that liberalism is neither pro- nor anti-religious. Liberalism is for open discussion between equals. If there is a question that pits, to take a current example in QC and France, religious freedom against other perceived individual rights, it is neither liberal nor illiberal to favour one or another view, necessarily (though I think the very problem of the ongoing laïcité overreach is an unwillingness to respect liberal ideals, which in France at least, circumscribed the notion itself for over a century, until anti-muslim fear and bigotry led to recent legislative excesses; in QC, these same sentiments have led to a desire to import laïcité, holus bolus, a miscontextualised and misunderstood concept in QC, as a way to repress muslims in a seemingly philosophically respectable manner - Bloom, among others, noted the danger of importing deracinated foreign magics without understanding their potency and danger). The liberalism is the debate itself. Liberalism is not about winning or losing, it's how you play the game.
This is why Harper's behaviour re. Orders of Parliament is so shocking. He is not playing by the liberal rules. It is why Steve V's is so disagreeable: he is not playing by the liberal rules.
So I am sorry to be the bringer of bad news, KC, but you impose religious views on others, unwittingly, if you insist on trying to void public discourse of any mention of religion. Indeed, anti-religious views are in and of themselves religious, and based in theological inheritance - most militant atheists are aware of this, at least at a subconscious level, which is why they are so angry: there is no frigging escape!:) In this you are no different from anyone else.
But you do yourself and others a disservice by objecting to the open discussion of views which are clearly derived from some theology or other. Since liberalism is about the individual, and individual rights, foremost free speech, without which we as a society can't discuss society's workings, ie. Politics, then trying to shut down debate, or prevent recognition of the values which underpin the debate, means one is effectively taking an anti-liberal position, not to say authoritarian, at best.
I hope you will read, reflect and reconsider your views. Your misunderstanding is one often encountered, whence my willingness to expand my thoughts, so as to help you place the debate in context. You may want to read some Graham Greene as a fun and easy way to pursue your reflection. I recommend the Power and the Glory, though they all make pretty much the same point(s).
Best,
EFL
No comments:
Post a Comment