I've Been Thinking About "Religious Neutrality"

My column for the In Port News, to be published today:


     One thing that I’ve been following fairly closely recently is the debate in Quebec about preventing public servants from wearing religious symbols while at work. It’s an interesting debate. What, really, is the role of the state in deciding that people shouldn’t be exposed to religious symbols? Does the state even have such a role? A colleague of mine who has served in the past in Quebec has suggested that people from Ontario and elsewhere in Canada really need to stay out of this debate – that such interference is only going to enflame the passions and possibly revive the separatist movement by doing so. Possibly. I’ve never lived in Quebec, so I don’t have a real handle on how sensitively such “interference” will be taken. There is, though, a deeper issue that seems (as far as I’ve seen) to have gone largely unaddressed. Apparently as a part of this move, the Quebec government is going to establish a so-called “Charter of Human Values” which enshrines “religious neutrality” as a value. I struggle with that concept.

     Is religious neutrality actually a value? I wonder if you can make a blanket statement that neutrality is always a value. There are things we should just stay out of because it’s none of our business, and neutrality is the direction we have to take, no doubt. But is there really a sentiment growing that says that in general terms taking a stand on religion – having deep religious convictions – is not a value, while being “religiously neutral” is a value? Or is this “religious neutrality” really a way of saying that unbelief is fine and dandy, but anybody who actually believes anything – who actually has a faith – is denying our values? In other words, if “religious neutrality” is a value, then what is religious conviction? A weight on our society that needs to be thrown off?

     Some would say that’s true. Some blame religion for everything bad that’s ever happened. Some see violence committed in the name of religion and say that religion is evil and religion is poison and it must be done away with. And, of course, they’re entitled to that opinion. But religion isn’t the only thing that causes conflict and even violence. Should we make, for example, political neutrality a value, and implicitly say that political conviction is an evil to be stamped out? There’s been a lot of violence done in the name of ideology over the years! Should we ban sports? I’ve seen riots and mayhem break out after sporting events. I’ve known family members who rarely speak because one supports one team and one supports another. Seriously! So should we declare “sporting neutrality” a value? Of course not.

     The reality is that as a society we need people who will stand up and be counted for what they believe. What we don’t need is an entire society that becomes afraid to take a stand on anything – be it religion or anything else.

     I’m quite happy to leave it to Quebec to decide what their public employees should or shouldn’t be allowed to wear while on the job. Quebeckers need to sort that out for themselves. But, in general terms, I fear the idea of “neutrality” – religious or otherwise – being entrenched as a “value,” simply because of what it seems to say about those who have convictions – about anything!