{"id":28424,"date":"2019-06-18T13:51:36","date_gmt":"2019-06-18T17:51:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=28424"},"modified":"2021-10-04T13:17:52","modified_gmt":"2021-10-04T17:17:52","slug":"quebecs-new-secularism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/intersection\/2019\/06\/18\/quebecs-new-secularism\/","title":{"rendered":"Qu\u00e9bec’s New Secularism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Quebec legislative building and church steeple<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Quebec government recently passed\nlegislation<\/a> that requires all government employees \u2013 from school teachers\nto police officers \u2013 not to wear any religious symbols.  That means no Jewish men wearing the\nyarmulke; no Sikhs wearing a turban; no Muslims wearing the hijab; no\nChristians wearing a cross lapel pin.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does all this mean for Christian charities?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, even if we do not live in Quebec, we may find ourselves facing similar attitudes, as we are living in a time of militant secularism. This is not a secularism that is neutral or indifferent toward religion. Rather, it is a forceful, anti-religious secularism that claims to be acting under the banner of separation of church and state or state neutrality. Unfortunately, this form of secularism takes on characteristics of an extremist religion, imposed by the state on all citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, the logic of this approach inevitably leads the\nsecular state to conclude that it can no longer approve or accredit religious\nenterprises, because to do so would be an endorsement of the religious entity\nand its beliefs. Already, we\u2019ve seen this logic on display at the Supreme Court\nof Canada in the Trinity Western University case, where the government insisted\n(and the Court agreed) basically saying, \u201cwe will not accredit a religious\nschool because if we do, we are approving the discrimination of that school\ntowards others.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Already, the new bill is going to be challenged\nin the courts<\/a>. It is questionable how far the court challenge will go,\ngiven that the Quebec government is using the \u201cnotwithstanding clause\u201d in the Charter<\/em>\nto override the religious freedom rights in s. 2(a) of the Charter<\/em>. The notwithstanding\nclause allows legislatures to temporarily pass legislation that they know will\nviolate Charter <\/em>rights. Some suggest that the clause is undemocratic \u2013\nhowever, it forms part of the Charter<\/em> which was passed by the Canadian\nParliament (and the UK Parliament) in 1982. It is meant to be a check against\nthe power of the judiciary, to prevent judicial interference in the will of the\nlegislature.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Fairmont Frontenac Quebec City<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

To accommodate religious garb and adornment is a very low\nbar in the grand scheme of things. To deny accommodation means we are intruding\non religious practices and denying the very beliefs that underlie those\nexternal symbols of faith. The justification for this Quebec policy originates\nwith the 2008 commission report on reasonable accommodation of cultural\ncommunities co-chaired by Quebec sociologist G\u00e9rard Bouchard and McGill\nphilosophy professor Charles Taylor. Their report recommended the banning of\nreligious symbols of judges, policy officers and prison guards. Charles Taylor\nnow says that recommendation\nwas a mistake<\/a>. Bouchard still maintains the recommendation was proper, but\nthat it is being carried too far to include teachers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What has happened, it would appear, is that the radical\nsecularists have taken the Bouchard\/Taylor recommendation and expanded it. Call\nit a \u201cslippery slope\u201d or an \u201cabuse\u201d \u2013 the fact remains we now have on the\nrecord legislation that is clearly anti-religious. That does not bode well for\nreligious freedom for individuals or religious organizations in the long term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than bemoan this reality, however, we can use the\ncontroversy over religion in the public square as an opportunity. The public\nspotlight does not have to be feared but can be embraced to educate society on the\ncontributions religious communities make every day. Yes, in some circles, religion\nis viewed as a problem for social cohesion. But we exhibit the exact opposite. The\nmembers of CCCC, now a community of some 3400 charities, are engaged in\ncomprehensive work to enhance our country\u2019s success. We assist all who are in\nneed without regard to their religious or non-religious positions. We lift\npeople out of poverty, we educate for competence in multiple fields of\nendeavour, we feed and clothe. The concern for our neighbour\u2019s well-being is\nmotivated by a religious imperative that guides our lives. This is who we are,\nand regardless of opposition, we can and should continue to care for others\nwith Christ-like compassion, dedication, and hope. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Quebec government recently passed legislation that requires all government employees \u2013 from school teachers to police officers \u2013 not to wear any religious symbols. That means no Jewish men wearing the yarmulke; no Sikhs wearing a turban; no Muslims wearing the hijab; no Christians wearing a cross lapel pin. … More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ts_fic_featured_image_caption":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[137],"tags":[138,187,141,367,142],"series":[],"class_list":["post-28424","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-law-and-religion","tag-quebec","tag-religious-freedom","tag-religious-freedom-in-canada","tag-religious-liberty"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28424\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28424"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=28424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}