In the Globe and Mail today, I read an article that discussed the "US Christian Right" weighing in on Canadian Politics. A day or two previous to that, another article appeared discussing the divide between Faith based organizations pushing for more 'family-oriented' or religious interpretations of human rights and other issues. The writer, who's name has escaped me, was indeed correct. Secular representation and faith-based representation are worlds apart, but would we have them any closer?

I for one would not. This is not because I support the ultimate right of the secular to impede the moral reasonings of people of faith, but because all faith is based on the voluntary nature of ones acceptance of the rules, mores, values etc. within that same faith. It is this voluntary nature that allows those individuals to access the other main strength and characteristic of their faith: belief. To be a full member of a faith is not simply to be a practioner within its structure, it is to adopt and embrace the structure individually, without undue influence. The path is structure, the power is belief, the initiation of the journey is its own voluntary nature. It is the movement towards a goal, towards the end of whatever journey people are on that differentiates faith from the secular. For the secular, there is no place to go, no added structure to follow and only the belief in the laws and governance that make up some of the structure of society which we may fall back on.

Where one runs into problems when trying to combine faith with the secular, is when these structures overlap or become entwined, particularly when dealing with the expansion of law based on religious belief. It is here that we find a departure from the voluntary nature of faith, it is here that belief evaporates and is lost. Without belief, there is no power to hold together a structure of prescriptive measures by which to add extra governance to ones life. I find it ironic that some of the very people who argue for the reduction of government also argue for the enactment of laws that bridges the gap between finding order and instilling virtue and morals in all. The moral codes followed by people of faith are an extension of governance and the extension of control over the unwilling should laws of this nature be adopted. It is for this reason that there is the separation between church and state. State is not voluntary and must exist (in whatever form) to equalize different segments of the population. Faith based institution does not purport to equalize the playing field, nor does it protect the rights of all citizens: like the prescriptive measures it is founded on, the protections it offers are at best highly selective, at worst tragically discriminatory.

Faith is an inherently individual practice, an exercise in bettering the self similar to exercising for better health. We would not institute a law that required every citizen, regardless of ability or desire to run a kilometer each day. This would be folly. One cannot force an exercise regimen on a population any more than one can force a legal structure whose basis is found in belief. There will be those who are resistant to extra controls on their already pre-ordered lives, those who are unable to participate through inability that excludes them, and those who may wish to abide by the ruling but cannot for one barrier or another that prevents them. These are average citizens, with equal rights under law. To adopt faith-based legislation is to needlessly segregate these groups... unless of course they 'voluntarily' convert.