Dr. Benson asked a third and final question of me based on my
opening remarks in the Chesterton debate. His question is indented below; my answer follows.
Chief Justice Brian Dickson in Big M Drug Mart stated
that religious freedom is prototypical - meaning it has led the way to
other rights such as freedom of speech, assembly etc.. It would
seem then that once we have religious freedom of all including freedom
of politicians to live in accordance with his/her religious principles,
we have a greater chance of protecting all the other freedoms. This
being the case, as well as the strong evidence
(referred to in my opening comments) about various public goods (such
as charitable works, volunteerism etc.) being strongly correlated with
religious adherence, do you not agree that religion needs to be
protected from moves to narrow its public as
well as private influences?
Paragraph 123 in Big M:
Religious belief and practice are historically prototypical and,
in many ways, paradigmatic of conscientiously‑held beliefs
and manifestations and are therefore protected by the Charter . Equally
protected, and for the same reasons, are expressions and manifestations
of religious non‑belief and refusals to participate in religious
practice.
It
is my view that freedom of religion and its more general right, freedom
of conscience, are essential for a democratic country, as well as the
closely related principle of freedom of expression. So in that sense,
yes – religion deserves protection. But I do not think that it needs
additional, special privileges above and beyond those accorded to all
voluntary associations within society. Protecting the freedoms of
expression and conscience are sufficient to guarantee religious liberty.
Consider
this: religious liberty itself is constrained in countries where
citizens do not enjoy full freedom of conscience and expression. The
Economist reported in December that 19 countries punish their citizens
for apostasy - leaving their religion - and in 12 of those nations it is
punishable by death.
55 countries (including several
Western democracies) have laws against blasphemy; a conviction could
lead to a prison term in 39 nations and execution in six. Blasphemy laws
have been abused almost everywhere they are enacted, frequently to
suppress religious minorities, persecute political rivals, minority
sects, or stifle inconvenient speech. It is important to realize that
Canada is not exempt; we too have a blasphemy law, which was last used
to censor a Monty Python film, in a failed attempt to prevent its
distribution in Canada. I've never understood the rationale for
blasphemy laws; surely those who believe in an omnipotent God know He
does not need the support of a human law, while those who do not believe
in God view blasphemy as the ultimate victimless crime.
Mr.
Benson claimed in his opening remarks that "secular is a sort of
exclusionary violence to freedom and rights". Yet it is precisely the
devout, particularly those who belong to minority faiths, would should
be the most committed secularists. The principle of secularism -
government neutrality between and among faiths - is the best protection
for religious minorities that are persecuted in far too many places in
the world. Anyone genuinely concerned about religious liberty, and
freedom of conscience, must oppose tonight's resolution, for a secular
state is the only one that guarantees full freedom of religious worship
and expression. A secular state is not concerned with purported acts
heresy or apostasy. No one need smuggle a bible into a secular country; a
secular nation has no pogroms.
And let us not forget
that those that adhere to no religious tradition are equally deserving
of protection - and are often specially targeted for persecution. Even
in the United States, with its official separation of Church and State,
politics is so infused with religion that atheists are banned from
holding public office by the constitution of seven US states. Contrary
to Mr. Benson's insinuations, it is not the secular minded folk who lack
tolerance.
Regarding religious adherence and various
public goods, Professor of sociology Phil Zuckerman asks an intriguing
question: "Is a society to be considered moral if its citizens love the
Bible a lot (as in the United States), or rather, if its citizens
virtually wipe out poverty from their midst (as in Scandinavia)?"
More
generally, however, there are very good reasons for keeping God out of
politics. As lawyer and philosopher Ron Lindsay put it, "We can't base
our laws based on the word of God in part because we don't know what God
is saying. The Jewish and Islamic god says you can't eat pork; the
Christian god says that's okay. The Islamic god says Friday is a holy
day, the Jewish god says Saturday, the Christian god says Sunday. The
list of disagreements can go on and on and on. As soon as you introduce
religious precepts into a public policy discussion, you are essentially
shutting out of that discussion anyone who is not a follower of that
religion."
Let us ground our politics in evidence and
values accessible to all members of society. We can best protect freedom
of religion by keeping it as far from politics as we possibly can.
