Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism
N E W S P E A K
Couldn't help it, I just had to respond to this page I found which is a typical example of Orwellian Newspeak.
The page comes from catholiceducation.org and can be found at: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0065.html
The article is titled: "Thinly Disguised Totalitarianism" by Raymond J. De Souza.
So what's this all about? Well, in the first paragraph we read:
Ah, the court in Ontario gave freedom to "marry" because laws against it were "unconstitutional, as they violated the equality guarantees of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms." In other words, the courts expanded freedoms and rights heretofore denied.
What is the response from those that disagree? At the end of the paragraph we read:
This same "debate" is going on in America too. Let us look a little deeper shall we? Just what is meant by "religious liberty" being "under attack"?
The statute law in Canada (and America) has nothing to do with religion.
The word religion does not appear anywhere in the courts' decision nor is there any reference to the subject.
The courts' decision does not take any liberty away from any individual on the grounds on their religion.
What it comes down to is this: Religion claims that "marriage" is their PROPERTY. They OWN it. Only THEY have the RIGHT (the liberty) to determine what is or is not "marriage". They will not come right out and state this of course because the very idea that any institution can OWN the idea and practice of "marriage" is absurd on the face of it. No one can copyright marriage. It cannot be patented. It cannot be owned. But, their every word and action shows that that is at the very bases of their argument. (Pope Pius IX in the 'syllabus of errors' #74: Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals.) The court decision can be seen, from their point of view, as undermining religions 'liberty' to exercise their unstated absolute property rights to determine what is or is not "marriage".
He then says:
This is an exemplary example of a "lie-accuse" that is completely contrary to reality. They, the Catholics themselves are the totalitarian ideology has "infected the Canadian body politic."
The opposite of Totalitarianism is individual freedom. The ultimate of individual freedom is Anarchy. On a scale of 1 to 10, Anarchy is at the extreme end of the spectrum from Totalitarianism. Giving more and more and more freedom moves one away from Totalitarianism NOT towards it. The USSR, for example, was NOT the land of Anarchy.
1--- -- ------2---- -- -----3------ -----4--- --- -----5----- ------6-- --- ------7--- --- -----8-- --- ------9--- -- ------10
Now we get down to the issue:
The sentence should read, "The freedom of churches to administer or withhold the sacraments. . ." If the church were so concerned with the issue why is it they are not fighting the fact that a "Justice of the Peace" can administer this so-called 'sacrament'? A ship captain at sea can marry people.
Then we read:
Politicians that are elected to be the people's representatives must follow the dictates of the Vatican when enacting civil law. The reaction to the Vatican involving itself in Canadian Politics was swift and unhappy.
Mr. De Souza then goes on to complain that his religion is also not getting its way on the issue of "emergency contraception" called the "morning-after pill". The government, having granted a monopoly to pharmacists over the dispensing of drugs, meant that they had a responsibly to do just that. Their license did not grant them the 'right' to refuse to dispense drugs for personal reasons.
He then quotes Pope John Paul II
First off, how does he get to speak on the subject of democracy? The Catholic Church is NOT a democracy. The Church is an OLIGARCHICAL COLLECTIVISM! Oligarchical Collectivism is the antithesis of Democracy.
Second, Canada is not a democracy. Like the US it is a Representative Republic based on constitution law.
Sentence one: Authentic democracy is possible only in a state ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. Just who determines the "correct conception" of a person?
Sentence two speaks of advancement. . .of the individual through education and formation. . . This from the institution that brought the world "the Dark ages". Religious educational systems are notorious for their restrictive curriculum.
Sentence three. I have never heard anyone claim that agnosticism and skeptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. I have heard them ask why it is that agnostics and skeptics are frozen out of political life because of the monopoly that religion has in the public arena.
Sentence four contains the incredible idea that: truth is determined by the majority. . .
Majority rule NEVER determines "truth." Majorities can be wrong. The church's teaching convinced the majority that the earth was flat.
Truth stands or falls by its own internal merit or lack thereof. "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782)
Truth remains constant only so long as the knowledge and information that supports it are consistent. New knowledge and information can alter today's truth for tomorrow.
The next sentence talks about ultimate truth. Many people have learned long ago not to trust those that speak in terms of 'ultimate,' 'absolute,' 'supreme,' and 'perfect' truth. Ultimate truth, ultimate knowledge, ultimate wisdom, ultimate experience . . . ultimate BS! Ultimate truth is the catch phrase authoritarians like to use. It means I know what the truth is, you don't. It means you must conform to my truth because my truth is "Ultimate". Ultimate truth too can and has been manipulated for reasons of power.
Just where is an example of THAT? Show us just ONE! Just ONE, , , that's all I ask!
The fact is that Canada rejects and is moving away from totalitarianism. The values Canada upholds are those of individual freedom and equal justice. If the church wishes to have a monopoly on what 'marriage' means to those within their institution that is just fine. Canada rejects the idea that the Church has the right to force their religious view of marriage on the entire population of Canada.