Should not literacy and sanity tests be imposed on candidates for public office?

[fpb]

An example of what passes for discussion of public issues in Canada:

...Mark Holland, Liberal MP for Ajax-Pickering,... claimed that marriage could be whatever anyone wants it to be because 'cultures change over time.' He said that religions have nothing legitimate to say on the subject because "the religious definition of marriage, the idea of marriage being a religious ceremony, did not come into being until the 16th century." Though Mr. Holland did not specify which culture's history he was revising, he asserted that, "It was in the 14th century that the clergy began to get involved in religious ceremonies performed by the state because the clergy was literate, so we undertook a change then."

I can only say that as a historian, I find it offensive that such a pitiful moron should be able to take part in the governing of a modern state. And if I need to explain to anyone that this is brutish, dim-witted, pathologically incompetent nonsense, then I can only recommend that that person should go back to his/her school and sue them for their complete failure to educate him/her in elementary history.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You see, you think of Muslim marriage laws as being "less restrictive than you would think" is because your cultural background is Christian, and the worst thing that could happen to your ancestors is to be stuck with a criminal or a moron with no way to break with them this side of death. However, the dangers that threaten an Islamic bride are different. You have not been told that the man alone has the right to divorce, and that he can do so at his pleasure, dumping his wife as he pleases. The woman never can, and if she leaves her husband for someone else she can be charged with adultery. And I prefer not to tell you what Shariah law prescribes for women found guilty of adultery. You must bear in mind that there is a natural instinct among Muslims to soften the hard edges of their traditions and understate the ferocity of much of their law, when speaking with others - after all, nobody likes to see someone they are talking with suddenly become shocked, or assume that over-bright insincere attitude that tells you that you have just disgusted them and they are too polite to tell you.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

No, I asked about a woman's right to divorce - I'm sure it's different in different countries, but apparently in Pakistan, they can ask for a divorce, but they have to make sure they put a clause into the marriage contract that says so.

I've heard about what some countries do to women charged with adultery.

Don't think I consider their way of doing things "okay" - I don't. My friend, though she's living in Australia, though she was born and grew up in Australia, faces the very real possibility of that "semi-arranged" marriage, and trust me, she's not happy about it. But it's not as bad as I thought. Keep in mind that I consider certain Catholic practices and laws restrictive and unnecessary. :) But that's another story altogether.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Of course; you're not Catholic. People are not converted by marriage laws. If you ever come to accept that the Church is the bearer of some serious and important trutns, then it will be time to talk about specific laws.