This article was originally published in Faith Today, March/April 2013.
Canadians are told in the media – almost daily it seems – that Canada is no longer Christian, Canada is less religious, Canada is secular, and Canada has no place for religion in public life. These statements used to make my blood boil.
But a better response – for all of us – is to find in such comments the inspiration to speak the truth. When we do so together, we undercut this anti-religious undercurrent.
Constructive response has long been evident in the EFC’s work. Consider, for example, how we responded to allegations that the biblically based position on marriage is “homophobic” and unacceptable in contemporary Canada under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The campaign to keep the pre-2005 Parliamentary definition of marriage was a fight “for” not a fight “against,” and the EFC made that clear.
One result of our intervention was the Supreme Court of Canada affirmation that if the government changed the definition it could not require religious officials to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. The court noted that “religious freedom is broad and jealously guarded in Canadian law.”
When Parliament changed the definition of marriage by passing the Civil Marriage Act in 2005 it declared in the legislation that “Nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs,” and “It is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage.”
More recently, in EFC presentations on proposed anti-bullying legislation in Ontario, we expressed interest for all students, concerned that the emphasis on gay and lesbian students detracted from the needs of more than 90 per cent of those who experience bullying in Canadian schools.
We directly confronted the continuing improper use of the word “homophobic” as a slur in public debate, including in the media and political speeches. We did so before government as well as in the media, including my article “Is It Homophobic in Here or Is It Just Me?” that was linked to a National Post homepage story in May 2012.
Good news! We have contributed to a righting of this bias. In December 2012 the Associated Press, one of the world’s oldest (est. 1846) and most respected standard setters in journalism, changed its style guide. The AP states the word “homophobia” is not to be used in political or social contexts because its use has been imprecise and inaccurate.
Another oft-repeated misstatement concerns “the separation of church and state,” a legal doctrine in the United States of America that is based on the U.S. constitution. This concept was intended to protect churches from interference by the state. Ironically, most of the people who raise the subject in Canada today want to suggest just the opposite – that the government needs to somehow be protected from the influence of churches!
In Canadian legal history, our churches too were protected from the interference of government. This protection was affirmed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which lists “freedom of conscience and religion” as the first of the fundamental freedoms Canadians enjoy. The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted this constitutional guarantee to apply both to individuals and to religious communities including educational and service institutions as well as congregations.
The court has also affirmed that Canadians can’t be disqualified from participation in developing public policy because of our religious beliefs. Canadian religious individuals and organizations are welcome to engage in Canadian politics and public policy, as well as work co-operatively with government as appropriate to accomplish its purposes.
It’s up to all Christians to ensure that anti-religious undercurrents are not permitted to cut away at truth. We need to be attentive to and engaged in the world around us, or such undercurrents may undermine our very presence.