Secularism is one of CFI Canada’s core areas of focus. Our position is that secular society, one which is not defined or directed by religion, is a key to creating a more peaceful and integrated society. A secular society is one in which the government and all its institutions — from its military to its courts to its schools — are religiously neutral.
A secular society
- respects and protects both freedom of religion, and freedom from religion
- supports the right to an education that is free from all religiously motivated requirements
- upholds the rights of all citizens to hold and practice religious beliefs that differ from those of other citizens, and from those of the government (including the right to no religion)
We do not seek to ban religious practices in public spaces. However, we do seek to eliminate any special considerations afforded to such practices, and as such we oppose anti-blasphemy laws, government funding of religious organizations, public funding of religious schools, religious tax exemptions, and other legal exceptions that provide special treatment for faith-based organizations or practices
Recent events in Quebec have raised questions as to how best to attain the goal of a secular society. The government of Quebec has a unique view of secularism, for which they use the English term “laicity” (a translation of the French laïcité, a term which has its roots in the French Revolution.) Further, the CAQ government states that Quebec, as a nation, “has its own characteristics, one of which is its civil law tradition, distinct social values and a specific history that led it to develop a particular attachment to state laicity.” But some have challenged Quebec’s approach as racist (or at least xenophobic), and raised questions as to whether this “laicity” is really just an implementation of “cultural Christianity”.
In a secular society, there must be neither special accommodations nor special sanctions applied to any persons, writings, or actions for purely religious reasons. In today’s pluralistic society, it is important for all people, whether or not they are religious, to understand the principles of secularism, and work towards a society which balances embracing diversity against the freedom of each human being to make their own choices with respect to their faith or lack of faith.
What do you think?
The current way Canada operates is disgraceful as it caters to giving MORE rights for a specific type of belief in an ideology (religion).
Here is my take posted on March 2014:
Secularism, the foundation for multiculturalism and equality
http://ricky-ryan.blogspot.com/2014/05/secularism-foundation-for.html
Why Humanists should pay attention to abusive proselytism
It is my intention to provide here a different perspective on a touchy subject: should the governments limit freedom of expressing religious beliefs in certain situations ?
At the time of writing, the current Quebec government has tabled a bill affirming the secularity of the province of Quebec. Within this bill, there are provisions for banning the expression of religious beliefs under certain circumstance for some, but not all, civil servants during their working hours. According to a recent poll, the government has the backing of 65% of the Quebec population for his intention to ban ostentatious symbols for civil servants in position of authority including primary and secondary school teachers.
Following that disclosure, the English press, including CBC, managed to fan the flames of anti-Quebec sentiments, producing an outcry in the Rest-of-Canada, where ignorant people ended generally by treating Quebecers of «racist» and «xenophobic» despite the fact secularism is not about race or ethnic identity but about religious matters relating to the State. This is a regrettable confusion which has been poisoning the discourse on secularism since the beginning.
The Association humaniste du Québec has already produced position papers, in French, on those questions but simply translating them would not do because they do not address the usual objections from the Rest-of-Canada. They do not address the roots of the misunderstanding. Hence this paper.
Misunderstanding #1- ostentatious religious signs are not merely a «fashion statement», as some would like us to believe. At face value, they are «religious statements» and it is not possible for us to determine if those signs are purely for internal consumption (between me and my god) or used as territory markers or because the wearer likes them, with or without “deep conviction”. But, as we shall see, the intention of the wearer is not the concern of the State. It is the effects of those signs which are of importance, regardless of the opinion, the intent or the humor of the wearer.
Misunderstanding #2 – freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are the same thing. No, they are two different beasts, unfortunately often confused even by those who should know better. For those inclined to call the Universal Declaration of Rights to their rescue through the article 18,
«Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.»
I shall bring to their attention the article 29 (2).
«2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.»
In other words, every single article of the Declaration is subject to possible LIMITATIONS. Actually, not all. It is not possible to justify a limit on freedom of thought or freedom of conscience because we don’t see how those freedoms could conceivably be used to curtail the rights of others. Those two are pretty well the only ones we can call “absolute liberties”. All the others are then subjected to limitations
That leaves “freedom of religion” on a limb but first let’s see what is included in “freedom of religion”. The Canadian courts did provide a kind of definition through their judgments, like this one:
«“the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practise or by teaching and dissemination” »
Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996]
Freedom of religion quite clearly includes the right to worship, to follow religious rules, and, most important in our case, the right to «disseminate» one’s own belief, that is, to proselytise.
Thus, you are perfectly entitled to entertain crazy ideas in your head and your are entitled to teach your crazy ideas to whoever is willing to listen to you (subject to limitations on hate speech, however). And no one can complain since a freedom of religion without the freedom to try to convince others would not be a real freedom of religion. Note that in some countries with one state religion, some other religions are tolerated but not allowed to proselytise.
You can also advertise your faith through non-verbal medias, such as billboards, posters, beautiful paintings, magnificent sculptures and the like, and no one should complain as long as you do that on private properties and with your own money.
So we have establish that the freedom to proselytise is indeed part of the freedom of religion yet, that freedom could be curtailed should it impinge on other people’s freedom.
You should be aware that the confusion between freedom of conscience and freedom of religion is not always an innocent mistake. Fusing an “absolute liberty” with a “relative liberty” with possible limitations is done often with the goal to make freedom of religion an absolute liberty, which it never was, at any time, in any country.
Misunderstanding #3 – Exposing children or teenagers days after days, month after month to the same image of an adult in position of authority has no measurable effect on their present and future religious inclination. In other words, they won’t be influenced by this repeated image of a person they consider a model. Therefore there is no reason to ban ostentatious religious signs in a State classroom.
I must say this is the most common misunderstanding I have found so far. Actually, this flies in the face of what we know regarding the power of image. But I prefer letting the experts in advertising explain the why and how on this fascinating subject.
This is an excerpt from the website “Measuring the results of your advertising» and it is a Canadian government website dedicated to helping fledging businesses. (https://canadabusiness.ca/managing-your-business/marketing-and-sales/promoting-and-advertising-your-business/measuring-the-results-of-your-advertising/)
Of interest to us are these two paragraphs:
«Image advertising should keep your business and/or brand name in the forefront of customers’ minds. This kind of advertising should help you positively influence the attitude of the public toward your business and your offerings. You remind people week after week of the products or services that you regularly offer, and tell them about new or special services or policies.
Image advertising is harder to measure than immediate-response advertising because you cannot always attribute specific sales to it. However, you may notice that an ad or a series of ads that announce a particular brand start to pay off when you begin to get customers who want only that brand and ask no questions about competing brands. In short, the message lingers in the minds of those who have seen or heard the ad. Sooner or later, these people may act upon the message.»
Translated to the “religion” product, it means the repeated image creates a positive feeling toward a particular religion which will later facilitate other forms of proselytizing, i.e. “closing the sale”.
We have examples of that with the former recruiting of novices for Catholic monastic orders. One of our AHQ member is a former nun. She was enticed to become a nun herself (against the will of her own family) by the constant proximity of her teaching nuns all along her schooling. They were the “model” she wanted to imitate. So, when the recruiting priest came for girls with a “vocation”, it was not a hard sale at all and she welcomed the idea to become a Charity Sister, then a Carmelite. Eventually she realized her monastic condition was brutal, sadistic and meaningless and left the Carmel. All this misery can be traced to misleading images as well as misleading messages from the “models” at school. As a teen, she wanted the Catholic “brand” and asked no questions about competing brands.
If your are still convinced the power of the image exists merely in the imagination of deluded “xenophobes”, then there is the money test. How much money is spend in Canada, each year, on billboards, posters, full pages in magazines in order to produce “image building” ?
No, much more than that 🙂
The whole advertising industry in Canada is about $7 billions, of which about $900 millions goes to static media such as billboards and posters. Thus, if you still believe the image of an admired person, seen 6 hours per day, 5 days a week, months after months, has no influence on the children and teenagers he or she supervises, then you are telling the advertising agencies of this country they do not know what they are doing, you are telling these agencies they are managed by idiots who are wasting the advertising money of their clients.
I confess I believe they know very well what they are doing.
That means without any doubt that children continuously exposed to ostentatious religious signs will develop a «positive attitude» toward the religion so advertised and this is thus a form of abusive proselytism, the effect of which will be felt in a diffused fashion and quite possibly much later. This is clearly a violation of the freedom of (and from) religion of the children, the defence of which, we, Humanists, have been at the forefront since we exist.
Why Humanists should accept this form of influencing on the mind of their children? To «respect the freedom of religion» of one person, are we ready to compromise the freedom from religion of his/her captive audience ?
Michel Virard
March 2019