It seems odd that Canada and America should head in different directions when it comes to protecting religious free exercise. After all, our countries share more than just a border\u2014we also share a commitment to democratic government, the rule of law, and individual liberties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
South of the border, the U.S. Supreme Court has been busy expanding free exercise protection under the Constitution\u2019s First Amendment. But faith groups north of the border are growing steadily less confident in their ability to defend religious conscience rights under Canada\u2019s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A wake-up call came in 2018 when Canada\u2019s highest court decided, 7-2, that it was \u201cproportionate and reasonable\u201d to limit the religious freedom of an evangelical Christian university. Trinity Western, in British Columbia, planned to start a law school, but several provincial law societies declared they wouldn\u2019t recognize Trinity law graduates. They objected to the university\u2019s student code of conduct, which is based on a traditional biblical understanding of marriage. Canada\u2019s Supreme Court sided with the law societies, and Trinity\u2019s law school proposal died.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The implications of this decision are astounding. A Christian institution, with traditional religious teachings, can simply be dismissed as socially and legally unacceptable by quasi-judicial bodies that hold a monopoly on accrediting the legal profession in Canada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s not only issues of sexual norms. Since 2019 Quebec province has enforced a state secularism law that bans some government employees from wearing religious dress. The law has especially hit Muslim women who wear head coverings, who\u2019ve lost jobs and been refused employment, but it also targets Sikhs who wear turbans or kirpans and Jews who wear yarmulkes. Quebec premier Fran\u00e7ois Legault wants to extend this state secularism law to forbid public prayer. \u201cSeeing people praying in the streets, in public parks, is not something we want in Quebec,\u201d he said at a recent press conference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What\u2019s driving this less-than-enthusiastic approach to religious freedom protection in Canada?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Open Versus Closed Secularism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Political secularism\u2014or secular governance\u2014is often misunderstood. For some people of faith, the word \u201csecular\u201d is a red flag; it doesn\u2019t sound like something they should support. But they\u2019re mistaken. More than any other political concept, secularism is the reason that America today is a haven of religious tolerance. This bedrock principle of Western liberal democracy simply means the state shouldn\u2019t have religious opinions and it shouldn\u2019t favor one religion over another. It was this political idea that eventually consigned the bloody wars of religion, which had bedeviled Europe for centuries, to the history books.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Secularism, however, comes in different flavors. America has a unique version, expressed in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which is aimed squarely at allowing religion and religious expression to thrive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n America\u2019s founders may have been a mixed bag when it came to orthodox Christianity\u2014Thomas Jefferson, who crafted his own miracle-less Bible, had perhaps the least conventional approach\u2014but they did agree on one thing: If religion flourished, the American republic was also more likely to flourish. They believed that religion benefited society and that civic virtue, the bundle of personal characteristics that makes a good citizen, was best cultivated through the practice of religious and moral virtue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOf all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports,\u201d wrote George Washington in his famous 1796 Farewell Address. John Adams agreed, writing, \u201cOur constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Clearly, the establishment clause wasn\u2019t inspired by hostility toward religion. Far from it. Separating church from state carved out a protected space in society for individuals to pursue obedience to God in accordance with their own conscience, without government interference. This utterly revolutionary idea\u2014that individuals can break from majority religion and still have equal treatment under the law\u2014can also be found in Article VI of the Constitution, which shocked many at the time by doing away with religious tests for public office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Canada, however, a different flavor of secularism has developed. It\u2019s one influenced by the French concept of la\u00efcit\u00e9, a reverence for the secular state, not as a bulwark of religious freedom, but as something to be pursued and policed as an end in itself. In a 2014 interview venerable Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor called this flavor of secularism \u201cclosed secularism,\u201d which he said is fueled by a \u201ccultural discomfort\u201d with religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut you can\u2019t just say in our current world, \u2018You make me uncomfortable, so please stop or go away,\u2019\u2005\u201d he said. \u201cYou need to cite an acceptable reason.\u201d And this \u201cacceptable reason\u201d is to accuse some forms of religious expression of being incompatible with a secular state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When this happens, said Taylor, secularism no longer \u201cdefends everyone\u2019s freedom of conscience, whether religious or nonreligious\u2014what I call \u2018open\u2019 secularism\u2014it becomes a secularism wary of religion, and always ready to set limits to it. Nonreligion becomes the common principle, although you tolerate religion if it stays in its place.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n From this perspective, secular governance becomes less about freedom for<\/em> religion and more about on freedom from<\/em> religion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n America\u2019s Future?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Secular governance is a good thing until people forget the reason behind it, and some in America today are becoming forgetful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Constitutional protection for religious freedom may be at an all-time high, but at the cultural level, attitudes are shifting toward closed secularist thinking. There\u2019s growing discomfort with some types of religious expression\u2014a discomfort surely made worse in recent years as evangelical Christianity, America\u2019s largest religious category, has become a de facto political identity as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This drift toward closed secularist thinking is seen in state laws that target the hiring practices and administration of religious institutions and charities. It\u2019s seen in the adoption and foster care practices of some states that routinely screen out applicants with conservative religious views on sexuality. It\u2019s seen in calls for the federal government to curtail student loans and grants for those attending Christian colleges and universities. It\u2019s seen in attempts to pass the Do No Harm Act, which would blunt the operation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes, politicized religion remains a threat to secular governance in America today. Those who defend religious freedom for all, not just for majority religion, should continue to call it out.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But just as dangerous are those on the opposite end of the political spectrum who distort the purpose of church-state separation; who forget that our establishment clause exists, not to control and limit diverse religious expression, but to allow it to thrive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It seems odd that Canada and America should head in different directions when it comes to protecting religious free exercise. After all, our countries share more than just a border\u2014we also share a commitment to democratic government, the rule of law, and individual liberties. South of the border, the U.S. Supreme Court has been busy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1290,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-liberty"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1289"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1289\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1291,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1289\/revisions\/1291"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1290"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}