Podcast for Inquiry S05E08: Richard Carrier believes Secular Humanism is the best political philosophy

Richard Carrier is the author of Sense and Goodness without God, On the Historicity of Jesus, The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire, and many other books, chapters, and articles. With a Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, he specializes in the modern philosophy of naturalism, the origins of Christianity, and the intellectual history of Greece and Rome. 

In today’s episode, Richard defends the premise that a government run along secular humanist principles is the best form of societal governance. His two core tenets are that human interests matter above all, and that rational, evidence based reasoning makes everyone better off. Richard and Leslie explore these two concepts in depth, then compare secular humanism to other possible governing philosophies.

Further reading and watching:

• The Christian Nationalism vs. Secular Humanism “Debate” (more of a harangue, and does a poor job of representing either perspective) 
• Richard’s analysis of the “Debate”  
• Richard’s written debate on animal experimentation
• Richard’s paper: Objective moral facts exist in all possible universes  

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Secularism in Canada Webinar for Humanist Canada

 Last week I had the pleasure of presenting Secularism in Canada to the membership of Humanist Canada. The talk was well received and the questions following the webinar demonstrated people were attentive and engaged. The Q&A was private, but the presentation was recorded and you can view my updated talk on the history, current state, and future of secularism in Canada. 

I hope you enjoy.

Quebec’s Bill 21 Fails the Secularism Test

This essay first appeared in Free Inquiry.

On June 16, 2019, Quebec passed Bill 21, Loi sur la laïcité de l’État or An Act respecting the laicity of the State, into law.

The controversial aspect of the bill bars many public-facing government employees, including judges, government lawyers, police, and teachers, from wearing ostentatious religious symbols. Doctors and nurses, also provincial employees, are not covered by the legislation.

What is Secularism?

Political secularism is concerned with government’s relationship with religion, and how it treats the faith (or lack thereof) of its citizens. Bill 21 fails the secularism test no matter how it is defined.

Freedom of, and from, religion

Bill 21 infringes on freedom of religion by forbidding many government employees from wearing religious paraphernalia while they work. A provincial employee wearing a religious symbol does not imply that the provincial government endorses that faith - just as one cannot assume the editors of Free Inquiry agree with this article because they have published it. Absent a compelling argument that merely observing someone wearing a religious symbol is tantamount to religious coercion – and no such argument has been forthcoming – there is no countervailing violation of the secular principle of freedom from religion. Therefore Bill 21 violates secular principles.  

Separation of church and state

How can the government know if a man wears a bushy beard from aesthetic preference or religious observance? Is the state equipped to discern whether a woman wears scarf on her head out of respect for her deity or a personal fashion sense?

Absent an individual proclaiming that a symbol is worn due to religious belief, it is impossible for the state to make any such determination.

When religion controls government, it is theocratic. When government controls religion, it is authoritarian. Because Bill 21 puts the state in the role of determining, on behalf of the individual, whether a symbol is religious, the law intrinsically entwines church and state. It is therefore not secular legislation.

Government neutrality in matters of religion

The Centre for Inquiry Canada defines secularism as government neutrality in matters of religion. Put another way, government should neither support nor suppress religious expression.

As the Supreme Court of Canada has noted, “state neutrality neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever”.

By barring provincial employees from wearing the clothing or accessories of their choice, Bill 21 suppresses religious expression. Thus it violates the secular principle of government neutrality in matters of religion. 

Moral considerations

Canada’s constitution is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defines the rights that Canadians enjoy. These rights are not absolute. Section 1 states that all Charter rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." 

There is another way governments can exempt themselves from respecting Charter rights. Section 33 states that federal or provincial legislatures can declare an Act “shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.”. This is known colloquially as the “notwithstanding” clause. 

Supporters claim the restrictions Bill 21 places on provincial employees are reasonable. Yet if the Quebec government believed Bill 21’s provisions were defensible, it could have justified the law under Section 1. Quebec instead chose to invoke the notwithstanding clause to shield the legislation from judicial scrutiny.

While invoking the notwithstanding clause for Bill 21 might be a legally sound strategy, it is definitely a morally dubious approach.

Practical considerations

Regulations that precede Bill 21 already forbade teachers from evangelizing their faith in the classroom.

In October 2024, several teachers were found to have created a toxic work environment at an elementary school in Bedford, Quebec. The local mosque carried a “strong influence” on several of the school’s staff members. The science, religion, and sex education curricula were not being followed. Female students were not permitted to play soccer.

When this came to light, there was an investigation, and 11 teachers were suspended.

We can draw three conclusions from this incident:

1. A minority of teachers in Quebec are willing to give priority to their religious and cultural preferences and enforce them upon students in the classroom.

2. No religious symbols are required for malign influences (including religious ones) to enter the classroom.

3. There are effective mechanisms in place to discipline Quebec teachers who behave inappropriately without Bill 21.

What purpose does Bill 21 serve that is not already met?

Tactical considerations

"Prohibition only drives drunkenness behind doors and into dark places, and does not cure it or even diminish it." ~ Mark Twain

Forbidding a practice does little to change its prevalence – doing so only drives it underground. Sometimes, bans backfire, and lead to an increase in the proscribed activity.

For example: when the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abortions went up.

The purported harms that Bill 21 seeks to address – those inflicted upon members of the public who interact with a government lawyer, teacher, or public servant wearing a yarmulke, crucifix, hijab, or turban – are, at best, speculative. The harms of its implementation – the financial and social costs of removing many, especially female Muslim teachers, from their professions – are far more concrete.

Demanding government employees conform to a dress code that has no impact on their ability to perform their jobs is not the hallmark of a tolerant, secular society.

Conclusion

There is no shortage of secular violations in Canadian society. The Charter “recognize[s] the supremacy of God”. The English version of the national anthem beseeches, “God keep our land glorious and free.” The French version contains even more overt religious symbolism. Three levels of government directly and indirectly subsidize religious institutions by over $5.5 billion every year. Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta fund a Catholic school system, a benefit no other denomination enjoys.

Quebec’s Bill 21 violates secular principles, regardless of which definition of secularism is used. Any attempt to ban religious imagery requires the state to make a determination as to what is religious – something it is incompetent to do. The law serves no clear secular purpose, could have the opposite of its intended effect, and may cause significant harm while doing so.

Podcast for Inquiry S05E06: Is Quebec religious symbols law secular or anti-theist legislation?

No issue has split the secular community in Canada like Quebec’s Bill 21. Several secular organizations have come out strongly in favour of the legislation, with some saying its only flaw being that it doesn’t go far enough. Many other secular groups, including CFIC, have come out strongly against Bill 21. It was challenged in court immediately after its passage in June 2019, and the Supreme Court is in the midst of hearing from a record 38 interveners as this episode is released. 

In January, the New Enlightenment Project organized an online conversation between Michel Virard, founder of the Association humaniste du Québec, and Leslie Rosenblood, Secular Chair of CFIC. The conversation was moderated by Robert Hamilton.

This was an informed discussion between committed secular activists with a similar worldview and many shared values, yet who vehemently but respectfully disagree about the merits of 

Quebec’s Bill 21. I hope you learn from and enjoy this conversation as much as I did.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple YouTube Music Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Hear me discuss Bill 21 with a secularist supporter in January

This announcement was also published in the January 2026 edition of Critical Links. 

Few issues have split the Canadian secular community like Quebec's Bill 21. Though CFIC spoke out against the legislation when it was enacted in 2019, other secular groups, especially in Quebec, vociferously support the law.

With the Supreme Court hearing the case March 23 - 27, 2026, the time is right for secularists who disagree about the merits of Bill 21 to have a principled discussion. (You can find a primer on Bill 21 with many links to previous Critical Links articles here.)

Join Leslie Rosenblood, Secular Chair of CFIC (and host of Podcast for Inquiry), and Michel Virard, co-founder of Association Humaniste du Quebec, on Sunday January 18 at 11:00am ET for a conversation about whether Bill 21 advances the cause of secularism in Canada, or if it is a regressive piece of legislation that violates the rights of Quebecers. (Podcast for Inquiry's third and fourth episodes (released in February 2022) were dedicated to Bill 21; Catherine Francis believes it is a bad law, while Caroline Russell-King is staunchly in favour - with both arguing from a secular perspective.)

Register for "2 Solitudes of Secularism" here, organized and hosted by The New Enlightenment Project.

Review of Cardus webinar on Christianity and pluralism

This essay was first published in the November 2025 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

On September 9, Cardus (a Canadian think tank devoted to infusing faith into every aspect of society) held a webinar entitled, "Can Christians Fully Participate in 21st Century Pluralism?" I was interested in what they had to say, so I attended. 

Andrew Bennett is the Cardus Institute's Director of Faith Community Engagement. He was speaking with James Orr, Associate Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Cambridge. 

Instead of starting the conversation with a definition of pluralism, Orr launched into an etymological history of the word, how it was a philosophical metaphysical and not a political term, and that politics is downstream of metaphysics. There was much name-dropping ("William James claimed that pluralism was reacting against Hegelian philosophy, but for Figgis pluralism is rooted in Augustinian pluralism"), but the erudite back and forth between Bennett and Orr shed little light on how to think of pluralism in the 21st century.

After indulging in several more diversions only tangentially related to the webinar's core question, Bennett and Orr finally came to talk about pluralism in a modern context, only to grossly mischaracterize it. According to Orr, the "risk of violence is increased by opening up the moral community at scale and at speed." Whereas earlier forms of pluralism provided a mediating buffer against the state, operating within a broadly shared conception of mutual flourishing and common good, today is very different, according to Orr. The secular liberal state as envisioned by John Rawls has no common perspective amongst the citizenry, and liberal individualism demands that people have sheer autonomy, without any obligation to others. 

I am familiar with much of Rawls' work, and this is not an argument I have heard him make. 

Eventually, Bennett and Orr asked: Is Christian participation in society limited? If so, who is doing the limiting? Is it the state? Are societal norms and taboos preventing Christians from being a part of public discourse? Perhaps Christians themselves have bought into the concept of the atomization of individuals devoid of a social fabric and withdrawn without external coercion?

Bennett noted that there is lots of participation by Christians in the public square, so perhaps this wasn't a significant issue.

I thought this was a key insight and worth pursuing - perhaps the answer to, "Can Christians Fully Participate in 21st Century Pluralism?" is a simple, "Yes." But Bennet and Orr pivoted immediately to asking whether an official presence of faith in the public square helps or hinders Christian participation in society. 

Bennett observed that an official Church risks becoming indistinguishable from the state, and that Canada has no established Church. He asked Orr, "Is the Church of England less free to engage in debates because of its status?"

Orr responded, "Yes." But rather than explain why, or how, the Church of England is constrained, Orr spoke about the impact the Covid epidemic had on people. Orr then went on a rant against the Church of England (an odd choice, in my opinion) for participating in "madcap, highly contentious, politicized schemes", such as paying a hundreds of millions of pounds in reparations when the Church has only 11 billion pounds in assets, while "parishes are closing up and down country". And yet Orr also said that he can't think of a time when the country has needed more of what the Church can offer. 

The rest of the conversation was not about whether Christians can participate in society, but how to infuse more Christianity into the world. Orr claimed that belief in God has tripled in the UK among 18-35 year olds (a surprising statistic, as every source I have found makes clear that faith in Britain is declining, with younger cohorts increasingly non-religious). He also stated that New Atheists are expressing regret, citing Ayaan Ali Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson as examples. (If this trend is more widespread, I have missed it.) Orr also finds the "intellectual credibility of Christianity" striking. (Again, Orr must travel in very different circles than I do.)

Orr made many unsubstantiated claims, including "Christianity feels new now", "Standard liberal policing in the public square has been dissolved on the Internet", "Liberal multiculturalism has dissolved connected communities", and "Affluenza has enabled us to forget the important things." Orr did not elaborate on any of these, so his meaning remains ambiguous.

Bennett brought the conversation's focus to Quebec. He asked Orr what the impact was of growing Muslim and Sikh populations on the public square, and how we occupy public square together as members of very different religions. Orr stated that secularists believe that secular and religion are antonyms, and that everything in the religion box is basically the same. He accused secularists of "tone deafness" by failing to understand the differences between Augustinian Christianity and Salafist Islam. He then went on to claim that "Islam is not compatible with post-Christian secular society."

The Webinar ended with an appeal for Christians to "animate the sacred". Orr is aghast that the English Prime Minister and leader of the opposition are atheists; "at least Farage is a Christian, even if not a great one." Orr noted that the young are drawn to evangelical forms of Christianity. In Orr's view, the "great challenge" is to "reverse engineer the fourth century."

Overall, I found the webinar disappointing. The little time devoted to the question at hand indicated that Christians are indeed full participants in society, but that this is insufficient in an increasingly secular world. The problem, according to Bennett and Orr, is not that Christians are somehow prevented from participating in society - it's that Christians are insufficiently Christian in the 21st century. What Bennett and Orr decry as societal decay, I consider to be social progress. May secularism and pluralism continue to progress throughout the 21st century, and beyond. 

BCHA and Canadian Secular Alliance submit their brief on Quebec's Bill 21 to the Supreme Court of Canada

The following essay was first published in the October 2025 edition of Critical Links. 
The BCHA and CSA submitted their ten-page argument against Quebec's Bill 21 in September. (CFIC came out against Bill 21 back in 2019; see here and here and here and here for previous Critical Links articles).

There are fundamentally two arguments in the submission:

1. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated and reiterated several times that Canada is a secular nation, with a duty of neutrality in matters of religion. This duty is baked into the Charter.
2. What constitutes a religious symbol is a matter of personal perspective, and the state is incapable, even in principle, of making such a determination. Therefore, any law that requires the state to distinguish between religious and non-religious symbols is legally incoherent.

Let's get into a bit more detail on each of these points.

Canada is a secular nation beyond freedom of religion

The duty of state neutrality in matters of religion is an independent constitutional principle. It doesn't follow from freedom of religion; rather the freedom of religion clause of the Charter is an expression of the state's duty of neutrality. In fact, it is a democratic imperative, and is thus an inherent part of the Charter. There have been other unwritten principles read into the Charter, and it is appropriate to make this understanding, present and implicit since the Charter was ratified, explicit. State neutrality, as a duty, cannot be subsumed within a Charter right. Therefore the state must remain secular - neutral in matters of religion - even if the Charter provision guaranteeing freedom of religion is nullified by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

The state is incapable of determining what is a religious symbol

There is ample jurisprudence stating that "religious freedom is premised on the personal volition of individual believers" and variations on that theme. Therefore the practice of religion, and the meaning of its symbols, is individual and subjective. Some laws might have the effect of restricting religious freedom (e.g., wearing hard hats on a construction site), but that might be an acceptable cost for some social good (health and safety). But legislation intentionally restricting religion puts the state into the position of determining what is and is not religious expression. Christmas is a religious holiday, but are earrings in the shape of Christmas trees a religious symbol? It might be for some, and not for others. How is the state to decide? The state must maintain its neutral stance and not have a perspective, and thus Bill 21 is incompatible with Canada as a secular state.

Why did BCHA and CSA choose these arguments?

All interveners (38 of them - likely a record!) have just five minutes each for oral arguments, and only ten pages for a written submission. Given these restrictions, it's important to choose a limited number of propositions, so that they may be argued comprehensively. These arguments are at the heart of the purposes of BCHA and CSA, and if accepted will result in a just decision (striking down Bill 21) without the messiness of considering Section 33.

What other legal arguments are there against Bill 21?

There are several other ways to argue against Bill 21. 

One is that the use of the notwithstanding clause is inappropriate in this case, so the freedom of religion clause of the Charter still applies to this law. The Canadian federal government's submission, for example, will "urge the court to set limits on how the notwithstanding clause could be invoked" to avoid having provincial legislatures "indirectly amending the Constitution".

Another is to invoke section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says the rights and freedoms it grants are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Opponents of Bill 21 could argue that this law cannot be demonstrably justified.

Finally, there are sections of the Charter that are not covered by the notwithstanding clause. (Invoking the notwithstanding clause means certain rights guaranteed by the Charter do not apply to a particular piece of legislation, but other rights are not subject to this exemption.) Two such sections are s27 on multiculturalism, and s28 on equality between male and female persons. Given Quebec courts noted that the negative effects of the law, whatever its intentions, falls disproportionately upon Muslim women, the Court might rule Bill 21 to be unconstitutional on these grounds. Other interveners will be making this argument.

What will those who support Bill 21 say?

From a legal perspective, there are many arguments to be made in the bill's favour, . 

Quebec's duly elected government has passed this bill following the appropriate processes, and it is an overreach of the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in Quebec's internal affairs. The Quebec government's submission will likely be along these lines.

Other arguments will focus on the freedom of religion clause of the Charter and the fact that Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause. Some interveners may argue that Bill 21 does not violate anyone's freedom of religion, so such challenges to the law have no merit. Personally, I find this argument weak and doubt it will convince any of the Supreme Court Justices. However, a related one is much stronger: even if the bill violates freedom of religion and/or freedom of expression, these sections are covered by the notwithstanding clause and thus the bill cannot be struck down on this basis. This is essentially the logic of the decisions from the Quebec courts, and the Supreme Court may decide to rule similarly.

Another approach being taken by some interveners is to agree that Canada is a secular nation, and define secularism as the "separation of church and state". Since Bill 21 applies only to government employees, who are therefore representatives of the state in public-facing roles, Bill 21 is furthering the principle of secularism and there is no Charter violation. This is the basis of why several secular organizations support Bill 21.

This will be a long, complex, and hotly contested hearing. No date has yet been set, though it will likely be at some point in early 2026. A decision probably will not be published for at least six months after that.

CFIC will keep you up to date on this important case as it unfolds.

Two secular humanist organizations jointly apply for intervener status at Supreme Court hearing of Bill 21

The following essay first appeared in the June 2025 edition of Critical Links, the newsletter of the Centre for Inquiry Canada.

Two secular humanist organizations jointly apply for intervener status at Supreme Court hearing of Bill 21

The constitutionality of Quebec's Bill 21, which (among other things) bans provincial government employees from wearing of "ostentatious" religious clothing and symbols, is heading to the Supreme Court of Canada.

No issue has split the secular community of Canada like Bill 21. Several organizations, including CFIC, Canadian Secular Alliance, and BC Humanist Association, have come out strongly against the legislation. Humanist Canada has not taken an official position on the bill (though it did host a four part webinar series on the topic). The Mouvement Laïque Québécois - which stood staunchly against prayers to open municipal council meetings - is a major proponent of Bill 21. 

CFIC has covered the progress of this legislation extensively. CFIC came out against the bill back in 2019. In May 2020, Critical Links described the unsuccessful court case to suspend the bill until the full challenge could be heard. In November 2020, CFIC reported on the case as it was heard at the Quebec Superior Court, and again in April 2021 when the Quebec Superior Court rendered its verdict. The third and fourth episodes of Podcast for Inquiry were dedicated to secular arguments in favour (Caroline Russell-King) and against (Catherine Francis) the bill in early 2022. 

From the April 2021 Critical Links article: "The ruling largely upholds the provisions of Bill 21, with two notable exceptions: The bill would be “inoperative” for English school boards in the province, and restrictions would not apply to sitting Members of the National Assembly." Many groups still affected by Bill 21's provisions appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, as did the Quebec government, which was unhappy with the exemption for English school boards.

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case later this year or in early 2026. The BC Humanist Association and Canadian Secular Alliance have filed a joint application to be interveners in the case. (The CSA was an intervener in the Saguenay (municipal prayers) and Trinity Western University (see here and here for details) cases.) Both organizations, like CFIC, believe that Bill 21 is an unjustified infringement on religious expression, and will argue that Bill 21 should be struck down.

There was a large number of organizations that applied for intervener status in this case, and typically only a few such requests are granted. A decision is not expected for several months; Critical Links will keep you up to date on this case.

Secularism in Canada with Rocky Mountain Atheists

After my successful presentation of Stab Everyone You Love to Rocky Mountain Atheists late last year, I was welcomed back earlier this week to talk about the history of secularism in Canada.

It was wonderful to see some now familiar faces via Zoom and there was a lively Q&A session afterwards. The recording is now available. Watch and enjoy!

House of Commons recommends ending religious privilege

The following essay was originally published in the February 2025 edition of Critical Links.

If the primary purpose of your organization is "advancement of religion", and all your group does is proselytize, it is eligible for charitable status in Canada. Centre for Inquiry Canada documented that this single policy choice costs Canadians over $3.2 billion every year in its Cost of Religion in Canada reports.

Every year, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance publishes a report containing recommendations for the following year's budget. The latest report, published in December 2024, contained Recommendation 430: "Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose."

There are many reasons why this would be good public policy:

• Financial: In a time of high deficits, saving Canadians taxpayers over $3,000,000,000 annually is wise financially, and good politics.
• Philosophical: Canada is (or should be!) a secular nation, where the government is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor suppressing religious expression. Giving a multi-billion dollar subsidy to organizations that self-declare their primary purpose to be evangelizing is the government playing favourites.
• Protecting Canadian sovereignty: Canada did not decide the criteria Canada Revenue Agency's uses to determine which organizations are eligible to be recognized as charities. We inherited these rules from Britain, which made a decision over a century ago, based on the introduction to a law over 400 years old. Canada has never amended them. It's well past time for Canadians to decide what constitutes a charity in Canada.
• Accuracy: Trying to convince others to view the world as you do is certainly permissible, but it's hardly a charitable act. Such organizations should be non-profits, not charities.

To minimize disruption, the implementation could proceed in two phases: 

• Announce a deadline (say, the end of 2025) after which organizations may no longer apply to become a charity with the primary purpose of "advancement of religion".
• Give existing charities with a primary purpose of "advancement of religion" a deadline (say, the end of 2028) to either:
• Convert to a non-profit organization; or
• Declare an alternate primary purpose (advancement of education, alleviation of poverty, or other purposes beneficial to the community).

An administratively straightforward process should be created for religious charities to convert to a non-profit or designate an alternate primary purpose. 

Canada has just taken the first step on the path to becoming a more fair, just, and secular country. It's a long road from a Finance Standing Committee recommendation to implemented policy, and CFIC will continue to press for removal of "advancement of religion" as a charitable goal until this becomes a reality.

I was a guest on the Apostate Sisters YouTube channel

I met Nancy and Patti, the Apostate Sisters, at BAHACON in August. I gave a brief impromptu talk about CFIC and they liked it so much they invited me to be a guest on their YouTube channel. It was a fun conversation, and I'm pleased with how it came out. This is a great introduction to my views on activism, secularism, Humanism, parenting, changing society, and much more. Enjoy!

Podcast for Inquiry S3E19: Kate Cohen believes atheists should be out and proud

Kate Cohen talks about her journey from privately knowing she was a non-believer to writing We of Little Faith: Why I Stopped Pretending to Believe (And Maybe You Should Too). She discusses how being an atheist and a commitment to honesty informed how she raised her children, and how being forthright about her lack of belief in social interactions has simplified her life. We also talk about some of the challenges associated with being an open atheist.

Kate is a Washington Post columnist and some of the articles she references in the conversation are below. 

• A Car Ride with Lena
• In America you have to opt out of religion in public life. That's backwards. 
• America doesn't need more God. It needs more atheists. 

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple Google Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Podcast for Inquiry S3E18: Greg Oliver asks: Why is religious discrimination official provincial educational funding policy?

Greg Oliver, founder and president of the Canadian Secular Alliance, believes that governments should not favour one faith over another, nor believers over non-believers. That three Canadian provinces continue to this day to fully fund a Separate school system for a single faith - Catholicism - is an egregious violation of secular principles that should guide our public policy. Greg explains why Catholic schools are funded, how two provinces stopped funding sectarian schools, addresses many myths about the separate school system, and what we can do about it. (Check out the new organization Alumni to Amend Section 93.)

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple Google Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Podcast for Inquiry S3E11: The Founding Myth with Andrew Seidel

Andrew Seidel (@AndrewLSeidel) is the author of The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is un-American, and works for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He and Leslie discuss the birth of the United States and its founding documents. Andrew reveals that America was not intended to be in any way a Christian nation, yet a significant minority has come to believe that is not the case. Andrew also talks about the very real threat that today’s Christian Nationalists pose to American democracy. 

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple Google Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Cost of Religion in Canada at Toronto Oasis

I was the guest speaker at the March 17, 2024 meeting of Toronto Oasis. I opened my remarks with two startling claims: that I have psychic powers, and that Canada subsidizes religious institutions by over $5.6 billion every year. 

I proceeded to explain how the latter number was derived, based on rigourous research by the Centre for Inquiry Canada, but remained mum about my purported clairvoyant abilities. 

My presentation runs from 1:05 to about 25:20, followed by an extensive Q&A session with members of Toronto Oasis. 

Toronto Oasis is a secular community that meets online every Sunday morning for community discussions on engaging and sometimes controversial topics.

Enjoy!

The God Gig is Easy!

Keith Semple has started a podcast, where he talks about being a Northern Irish Humanist living in the United States. I was his guest and talk give a Canadian perspective on politics and secularism, as well as my own journey to secular Humanism. It was a fun conversation, and I hope you enjoy it too.

My favourite quotation from Keith: "Leslie, I think you have a career in simply making bumper stickers for secular people."

It's available via The Semple Truth wherever you listen to podcasts, on Keith's Semple Truth website, or you can watch it below:

Let me know what you think.

Putting a Number on the Cost of Religion in Canada

Last month I had the pleasure of being part of a roundtable discussion with the BC Humanist Association, hosted by Humanist Canada, about the cost of religion in Canada. It was a fun and engaging conversation, covering most of what was discussed in CFIC's Cost of Religion reports, plus some additional insights based on original research done by the BCHA.

Watch and learn how just a few policy choices from all three levels of government costs Canadians over $5.6 billion - yes, with a "b" - every year, in direct and indirect subsidies to religious organizations. 

Podcast for Inquiry S03E04: Maryam Namazie and The Paris Appeal

Maryam Namazie (@MaryamNamazie) is the spokesperson for One Law for All and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. In December 2023, the CEMB released The Paris Appeal, calling for Laics of all countries to unite. Maryam explains the purpose and content of The Paris Appeal, and along the way gets into the difference between laïcité and secularism, and reveals the religious court system in England that denies many women the rights they ought to enjoy. Maryam also talks about World Hijab Day, what the hijab means, and concludes with a passionate analysis of Québec’s religious symbols law.

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple Google Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Podcast for Inquiry S03E03: Sandra Dunham asks: Why does Canada give $5.6 billion annually to religious charities?

Canada allows organizations that do nothing but “advance religion” to be classified as charities. This policy decision costs Canadians at least $5.6 billion every year, according to the Centre for Inquiry Canada's Cost of Religion reports. Sandra Dunham explains what this amount includes, how it was calculated, and the many benefits that religious institutions enjoy in addition to this figure.  

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple Google Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Calgary Police Service provides Honour Guard to Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast

I wrote the following article for the December edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter from the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

Calgary Police Service provides Honour Guard to Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast

You might recall "Bob", the Calgary Police Service Sergeant who has had his complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission officially recognized (see articles from the June and August Critical Links). While we wait for his case to be heard, CFIC learned from Global News that "On Oct. 19, members of the [Calgary Police Service] honour guard escorted keynote speaker Nigel Hannaford to his seat at the Calgary Leaders Prayer Breakfast, as part of the opening ceremonies." There are several things problematic about this decision by the CPS:

• According to Global News, last month was the 55th year of the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast. There has been no demonstrated safety or security need for a police presence at any previous event.
• The purpose of the CPS Honour Guard is to represent the service. Some events, such as the Stampede parade and Remembrance Day, always have an Honour Guard. Other events are at the discretion of the Honour Guard Executive and the Chief. That the leadership of the Calgary Police Service gave its implicit endorsement to an organization that "affirms our faith in God through prayer, testimony, scripture reading, and fellowship" lends credence to Bob's claim that the CPS favours Christianity over other faiths. The police service must remain neutral in such matters of religion, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Saguenay case in 2015 (listen to or watch the Podcast for Inquiry episode on this topic) and affirmed in the Trinity Western University decision in 2018 (read my analysis of the TWU ruling). While the CLPB has every right to endorse Biblical teachings and exhort government to follow Christian precepts, CPS providing an Honour Guard to the CLPB is a violation of state neutrality and should not recur. 
• The content of this year's keynote address, by Nigel Hannaford, contains much that must make many active Calgary Police Service officers uncomfortable (at best):
•  Hannaford rails against many Canadian laws. He describes Medical Assistance in Dying as "Doctors killing people", in violation of the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Murder". He pities the "Christian doctors [who] find themselves up against the government" about abortion. He even takes aim at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lamenting that "The Bible-based morality that you grew up with, that once informed Canadian law, was quietly but explicitly rejected in 1982 [when the Charter was adopted]." CPS officers are sworn to uphold the law. Why would it endorse someone who is asking his audience to reject it?
• He claims that there is "No proof that Christians murdered indigenous children" in residential schools. While there is much to be learned about the extent of abuse, there are thousands of documented deaths at residential schools (see the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission). And while he does call for "these sites to be examined," referring to unmarked graves, notably absent was a call for the release of records from the Catholic Church, which continues to refuse to allow access to its voluminous documentation relating to Canada's residential schools. First Nations members of the Calgary Police Service (among others) doubtless would not approve of Hannaford's remarks.
• Hannaford calls for Canada to become (or return to) a theocracy. He says, "Once, Canada's laws reflected a Biblical understanding of truth. [...] Then Canada adopted the Charter. Their [nine Supreme Court justices] job now is to interpret the law with the Canadian consensus, not the Bible." Later, Hannaford regrets that "We are now finding that Canadian law is often, and increasingly, at variance with our Bible-based worldview." Again, while individual Calgary officers are welcome to attend such an address as private citizens on their own time, why did the CPS endorse the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast, and by extension its keynote speaker's call for Bible-based law in Canada? 

The decision to provide an honour guard to Nigel Hannaford at the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast shows tremendous disrespect to the diverse community CPS is tasked with protecting, as well as offending a sizable proportion of its own members.

Bob's human rights complaint against the Calgary Police service because of its "Christian-default" practices continues to wind its way through the system. If you know an Alberta lawyer with human rights experience, please contact Leslie Rosenblood, CFIC Secular Chair.