Secularism is simply the principle that government should be neutral in
matters of religion. Neutrality implies that governmental bodies should
neither support nor suppress religious belief or its expression among
consenting adults. Michael Den Tandt, in a June 25 Ottawa Citizen
article, "
When religion meets politics,"
seems to equate removing unjustified governmental support for religious
institutions with a campaign to remove all public declarations of
supernatural belief.
The article asks, "Why should [...] churches, temples, mosques and a
staggering 86,000 registered charities receive exemptions from paying
business tax? Why should they be
allowed to issue tax-exemption receipts to donors? And why [...] should
churches get a pass on playing
politics when, say, The David Suzuki Foundation does not any longer?"
Why indeed.
Instead of answering these highly relevant questions, however, Mr. Den
Tandt deftly avoids them. He first accurately acknowledges that once a
serious discussion begins on the special treatment religious
institutions receive in Canada, it quickly becomes clear the status quo
is unjustifiable. Rather than directly confront this, however, Mr. Den
Tandt dodges by calling it a "can of worms" that "would have been wiser
to leave unopened." This is not how one should address serious questions
of public policy.
The remainder of the article meanders into largely irrelevant
tangents. Of course many Canadian
politicians, past and present, espoused strong religious convictions
of various sorts. But Bill Blaikie and Tommy Douglas (among others) are
remembered for their contributions to the fabric of Canadian society,
and to the continued well-being of millions of Canadians. Pierre Trudeau
and Paul Martin may have been practising Catholics, but that did not
stop them from liberalizing divorce laws or legalizing same-sex marriage
(over the strenuous objections of the Papacy) during their tenures as
Prime Minister. Their
religious affiliations are of interest to biographers and historians,
but are as relevant to their political legacies as their height or
favoured sports teams.
Religious belief may inspire one to advocate for any given political position. But it is not a
reasonable defence of public policy. It should be a basic tenet of
governance that justification for a law be accessible to all, not just
those that deem a particular scroll to be sacred. Insisting on objective, demonstrable criteria is not an attack on any
faith group - adherence to this principle ensures that all of Canada's
many religions (and the increasing number of those that profess none)
are able to fully participate in all aspects of the political process.
The article then confuses cause and effect. Mr. Den Tandt openly
acknowledges that "today's NDP is a dominantly secular party," and
observes that the United Church agrees with most of its platform. This
is not because the United Church has significant influence within the
NDP, however; it indicates that the United Church, more than most other
religious institutions, has allowed secular ethics to determine its
stand on
many issues such as same-sex marriage.
Instead of defining a non-secularist approach or defending its
morality, Mr. Den Tandt instead rambles about the wisdom of "picking a
fight with the churches." Of what relevance is this to the question of
why
religions receive over one billion dollars every year in public subsidies through tax credits?
The final two paragraphs are an interesting contrast. "Tighten
up on the books, by all means. Reinforce the rule that says
registered charities - whether religious or secular - should devote no
more than 10 per cent of their resources to political work." This is
excellent advice - something that most secularists would heartily
endorse.
But the final lines then pose a mystery: "But then, for
Heaven's sake, leave the churches alone. Let them say what they please,
about what they choose." If the churches are anywhere near as
politically active as Mr. Den Tandt states, enforcing the law that
restricts political activism from charitable organizations would have a major effect on religious institutions.
Conversely, one could grant churches the right to participate
in all
aspects of the political process, including fund raising, campaigning
for candidates, and soliciting legislation favourable to their
philosophical perspective - as all other organizations, corporate and
non-profit, can today (within limits). In return, churches would be
taxed on their property, no longer receive tax credits merely for
proselytizing, and clergy would pay income tax on their salaries - as
all other organizations, corporate and non-profit, must do today.
"What was Senator Eaton thinking?" I surmise that she believes it is time for Canada to openly embrace a secular approach to
governance. It is a sound, wise, moral, and - given the reaction of Mr.
Den Tandt and others - courageous action to publicly call for it. Bravo, Senator Eaton.
