Originally published in Faith Today, March/April 2012
Bruce J. Clemenger, President, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
Canada, like all countries, has a plurality of institutions its citizens participate in: family, place of worship, business, school, government, voluntary associations. Every one of these is oriented by a religion or faith - ultimately who or what they serve - as well as being shaped by the surrounding culture.
How we try to manage all this as a society, a task often faced by all levels of government, can quickly trigger vigorous public debate. Often people search for a neutral standpoint or neutral method to deal with diversity. This is where a recent Supreme Court of Canada judgement becomes important.
It states that "trying to achieve neutrality in the public sphere is a major challenge for the state" and "We must also accept that, from a philosophical standpoint, absolute neutrality does not exist."
As Christians, we agree. There is no neutral place. It is our confession, in the words of the Apostle Paul about Christ: "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
Neutrality is an attractive fiction. It would make life much easier if it were possible to step above the diversity and from the vantage point of neutrality treat all fairly. But the Court has acknowledged that's impossible. Government action cannot be perfectly free of bias. The same is true in the media - the idea of "journalistic objectivity" is now widely recognized as an unachievable ideal.
The Court made this admission after a case about mandatory religious diversity education in Quebec known as S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes. The EFC intervened in the case because of the mandatory nature of the educational course.
The Quebec government basically argued it is better to include instruction about religion than ignore it. And I agree. In the late 1990s an education commission here at the EFC promoted this approach. Religion is a vital aspect of the lives of Canadians. To exclude it from the curriculum sends the message that it may not be an integral part of life or that it is a private matter and therefore best shunned from the public square and from education.
The challenge is to help students understand the religious diversity that surrounds them without teaching them that all religions are the same or favouring one religion over others. Either would make the mandatory nature of the course problematic for parents and children of deep religious conviction.
As our provinces develop and teach such curricula, we must keep in mind the point made by the Court: there is ultimately no neutral ground, no non-religious standpoint from which to teach about religion.
The Court went on to encourage a "realistic and non-absolutist approach." It explained that "state neutrality is assured when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including having no religious beliefs whatsoever, while taking into account the competing constitutional rights of the individuals affected."
This means governments are to be realistic and respectful towards religion.
Yes there may be biases in the curriculum as well as in its delivery. But we - as Christian parents and citizens - can work with governments and schools to minimize these occurrences and to decide on a good process for handling problems of bias. This is realistic and can be done respectfully.
In the end, parents still have the primary responsibility for the education of their child, and they must have the freedom to opt out of the portion of any curriculum that contravenes the teachings of their religion - something the Court neglected to affirm.
Yet our parental responsibility can also be expressed in looking for opportunities for constructive participation with governments and schools to find good ways of educating children about religion.