| Home >> Politics

Extremist Religious Leaders Must Be Kicked Out Of Canada

An extremist religious leader being treated with justice and compassion.
[Source]

1) Introduction

Politics is not the same thing as Religion. We all agree on that general statement. But politicians cannot pretend that religions dont exist, or that the teachings of a religion can never have any influence on the citizens of a Country. More precisely, if a religion leader starts to transmit a doctrine, even an exclusively religious doctrine, but which threatens a Country's security, that religious leader must be kicked out.

2) Can a religous doctrine threaten a Country?

Strangely, I have all kinds of trouble convincing Leftists that religions are not subject to some kind of quality control. Indeed, Leftists tend to believe that all religions are naturally peaceful and overflowing with justice and compassion. Nevertheless, it's easy to imagine a religion which would teach very bad things, like "The Disciples of the Holy Machine Gun".

We can imagine a more subtle example. A religion could seem to teach very nice and noble things, and still transmit a moral poison to its disciples, a poison which would eventually cause incalculable damages to both the faithful of that religion, as well as the whole Country where those faithful live.

Let your imagination run wild. Imagine a religion which would teach that:

A subject may know full well the [moral law], yet have great difficulty in understanding «its inherent values», or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

This religion would say that we can know a moral law, for example "Thou shalt not put bombs on the airplanes of Air Canada", but that if we don't understand «its inherent values», we can decide not to respect that moral law without committing a sin!

Let your imagination run wild a bit more:

Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one's [religious leader of this religion], and to encourage an ever-greater trust in God's grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the [«sacred» book of this religion]. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one's limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.

So, if for example we have «the objective ideal» of not slitting the throats of people who are not in the same religion as us, we could still slit their throats, while comforting ourselves with the idea that «for now is the most generous response which can be given to God», and therefore that God is proud of us, even if we don't reach «the objective ideal»!

3) Conclusion: Which religious leader would be stupid enough to say such things?

You're telling me a religion would never teach such things? Go read Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis. Both quotes here above are verbatim.

Canada should arrest all "catholic" Bishops who are in this Country, and ask them if they agree with Pope Francis. Every Bishop who would refuse to sign a public declaration rejecting the teachings of Pope Francis should be stripped of his Canadian citizenship and be deported manu militari.

| Home >> Politics