I made a brief and bitter comment on Facebook recently about the endorsement of the Russian invasion of Ukraine by Kiril, Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. At the time of his ascension to power in Russia, Vladimir Putin’s power base sprang from his promise to re-vitalize the Russian economy, and to bring prosperity to its people. But with time, after filling his personal pockets to over-flowing, his aspirations grew to include re-capturing Russian dominance in eastern Europe and re-establishing the glory Russia had enjoyed as the leaders of the Soviet Union. To assist him in those endeavours, he roped in the Russian Orthodox Church which was only too happy to be co-opted in this fashion, given that Putin returned to the Church many of properties that had been confiscated by the Bolsheviks at the time of the Revolution. The Russian Orthodox Church has approximately 60 million adherents in Russia. Those people now hear the Putin propaganda machine’s messages validated by their trusted religious leaders who have stated that this is a Godly war and they should regard the Putin presidency as a “miracle from God”. The power of the church to influence the outcome of the war is enormous, and Putin has harnessed that power to his own needs.

I doubt that Vladimir Putin has a religious bone in his body. When the excesses of his cronies looting the wealth of Russia became a little too obvious, he took on religion as a cloak for “networks of corruption, rent extraction and extortion (that) required religion and an ideology of national greatness to restore the legitimacy lost during the looting (the Economist).”

In the United States in 2016, 81% of Evangelical Christian voters supported Donald Trump for President, largely on his apparent support of their anti-abortion views. It is difficult, of course, to know exactly what Donald Trump supports because he can and will say whatever outrageous thing comes to his mind as long as he believes it will please his current audience and win him some support. In an article in The Atlantic, McKay Coppins writes “In speeches and interviews, Trump routinely lavishes praise on conservative Christians, casting himself as their champion. “My administration will never stop fighting for Americans of faith,”…

But in private, many of Trump’s comments about religion are marked by cynicism and contempt, according to people who have worked for him. Former aides told me they’ve heard Trump ridicule conservative religious leaders, dismiss various faith groups with cartoonish stereotypes, and deride certain rites and doctrines held sacred by many of the Americans who constitute his base.

Why is Trump creating a religious public version of himself? Simple. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Religion makes money. Joel Osteen, an American evangelist whose net worth is estimated to be $50M preaches the “prosperity gospel” which equates Christian faith with financial success. Others such as Pastor Joyce Meyer and Paula White have also grown filthy rich in the television evangelist business. One publication reported “A 2006 Times poll found that 17 percent of American Christians identify explicitly with the movement, while 31 percent espouse the idea that “if you give your money to God, God will bless you with more money.” So, Trump pumps up the religious right and they help deliver the votes and share some of the wealth. Quite a bit of the wealth, actually. An October 2020 article on opendemocracy.net (rated as left-leaning but high for factual reporting) reported that as much as $280M was donated to Trump’s coffers by right wing Christian groups.

I could go on, but I will not. Credulous people the world over are manipulated by religious leaders who con them out of money, send them to kill and maim in God’s name, and have them oppress their fellow humans over any policy that the leader chooses to adopt.

I was raised as a Catholic, in a strongly Catholic environment. I have come to reject Catholicism. If you’re Catholic and/or in my family, please don’t be offended. I also reject all other forms of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buuddhism – in short, I have come to regard the practice of religion as a suppurating sore in the side of humanity. It causes far more pain and sorrow in the world than it resolves. I think if people only did things for which they could articulate a rational and morally defensible reason, we’d all be better off. If the rationale for a decision or an action is that someone has told you that it’s what God wants, you need to need to give your head a serious shake. There has to be a better reason.

Religious practice is not an essential element of Canadian life. Survey Data by the Pew Research Centre says that 29% of Canadians identify themselves as having no religious affiliation. And among those who do consider themselves to have a religious affiliation, there are a great many who don’t actively practice religion. Almost 50% of Canadians surveyed say they seldom or never attend church or other worship services. In a landscape where 3 in 10 have no religion, 5 profess to be Christian even if they don’t practice it, and 2 adhere to other faiths, religion is NOT a common element of societal beliefs and should NOT form any part of government policy making or administration. 

So here’s what I think we need to do. I think we need to consciously, legally, formally take actions to ensure that we are, and remain a secular society. The Province of Quebec has made an excellent start along that path with their much reviled and infamous Bill 21. I believe that Quebec has made some mistakes with Bill 21, but there is much to be admired and adopted in that bill. Let’s take a look at it.

The bill starts off with a set of principles, to wit:

The laicity of the State is based on the following principles: 

(1) the separation of State and religions;

(2) the religious neutrality of the State; 

(3) the equality of all citizens; and 

(4) freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

I don’t think those principles should generate a lot of opposition except perhaps from those enlightened individuals who insist that “by God this is a Christian country and religious neutrality is a left-wing conspiracy that favours those friggin’ Muslims, and I expect my MP to defend my religion and if any goddamn rag-head doesn’t want to live in a Christian country they should go back where they came from.” 

I am pleased to believe that those people are a minority in this country, and I urge us to act while we may to ensure that they stay a minority. Because the threat is that the growing popularity of the Christian religious right is spreading northward from the US into Canada, bringing religious intolerance with it, and threatening to become a major factor in government policy. And the way to fight that trend is to affirm the principles articulated by Quebec, and to de-emphasize the importance of religion in public life.

So, if Quebec started down a good path, where did they go wrong? 

Well, first of all, I see no reason for them to have invoked the Notwithstanding Clause. (I believe that the Notwithstanding clause should be removed from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that’s another story altogether.) Invoking Section 33 simply confirms that Quebec knew that some elements of their law were going to be offensive, but they decided to go ahead anyway. And why did they do that? I think the answer is “because it was politically expedient”. If you can get significant juice in the polls by feeding the racist fires of your voter base, well, go for it.

The second way they went wrong is that they just went too far with a good thing. The bill requires that anyone providing a government service have their face uncovered and not wear religious symbols. Section 3 of the Bill says “State laicity requires parliamentary, government and judicial institutions to comply with the principles listed in section 2, in fact and in appearance, (my emphasis) in pursuing their missions.” I think that’s a reasonable expectation. I’ve read some commentary on the bill that poses some examples. How would you like to be a Palestinian immigrant appearing before a Jewish judge wearing a kippah? How would you like to be a Jewish male sitting before a Muslim female judge wearing a niqab or a burqa? Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done, and that is what the law purports to be trying to achieve. 

The law then goes on to equate government services in general with judicial services. You shouldn’t have to go into a government office seeking a service, which may involve seeking a judgement of some sort, and find that you are demonstrably, visibly, on opposite sides of a long-running religious antipathy. The law establishes a list of organizations to which the law applies and a list of people within the organization who must comply in order to ensure that government services are being delivered on an impartial basis. And some of those make sense. Justices of the Peace, Commission members, arbitrators, prosecutors and the like. The person who hears your request for Social Assistance… in fact anyone who controls the disbursement of government largesse must be, and must be seen to be, impartial. But what about your bus driver? Is it really necessary that the bus driver be stripped of religious symbols and forced to bare his or her face? The elementary school teacher? The day-care worker? 

Section 7 of the Act says that “personnel members of a body” means any member of a body listed. Section 8 says that any personnel member must have their face uncovered. Schedule 1, which lists affected organizations, includes public transit authorities and any other operator of a shared transportation system, school boards, and day care centres.  So as I read that, this law impacts the bus driver, the subway conductor. Similarly teachers and daycare attendants are members of bodies which must enforce this law.

Now, I admit that I haven’t confirmed that interpretation. But I note that Schedule I starts off with “1 – Government departments 2- Budget Funded Bodies….” So I believe that if the source of your paycheck is government, you are impacted by this Bill regardless of whether the government service you provide carries any authority, judgement, or discretion with it.

Taking that big a bite of the apple is just unnecessary, and in fact one might argue that it is an over-zealous application of principle 1 (separation of state and religions).

The third error in the Bill, in my oh so humble opinion, is that having written a very prescriptive and all-inclusive bill prohibiting wearing religious symbols or face-coverings, they then went ahead and cut the testicles off that bill. They grandfathered just about everyone currently occupying a government position. Section 6 of the Bill is the one which prohibits wearing a religious symbol. Section 31 provides exceptions for people in Schedule II paragraphs 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 &10. The wording varies slightly depending on the paragraph to which the exception is referred, but in essence, if you stay in the same job within the same organization or under the same contract, you can wear whatever you like. Schedule II only has the ten paragraphs, so the only positions to which the law applies immediately are the President and Vice-President of the National Assembly. 

What those transition provisions did was avoid a lot of fuss from the incumbents (largely older, white, Christian) while ensuring that the law was going to apply to new-comers (diverse both ethnically and in religion). Maybe that’s appropriate – I often argue that you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game. A school-teacher (say your classic Catholic nun) who has been wearing religious symbol on the job for twenty years shouldn’t be forced into a career ending choice just before they get eligible for a decent pension. But somehow it feels wrong to me. It feels like the law is targeting the next generation and aimed directly at immigrants by virtue of the way it’s being implemented.

Opponents to Bill 21 say that it is discriminatory, and I think the scope and the implementation clauses do have a sniff of discrimination about them. But the opposition to the Bill is overstated.The Canadian Civil Liberties Association says “People should not be forced to make the choice between their religion, their identity and their profession. The government should not be allowed to impose their beliefs on the people of Quebec, nor should they be dictating to individuals what they can and cannot wear.” I really can’t support that statement. 

Let’s assume that this bill was appropriately targeted – that it applied only to positions where significant decisions are being made, where impartiality is important and needs to be demonstrated. That would mean that positions like government commission members, judges, prosecutors, police, Social Services and Child Family Services would be included in the law and the bus drivers, administrative clerks, school teachers and the like would not. In those circumstances the requirement of impartiality would, and should, in my opinion over-ride the religious freedom expectation. 

Let’s be clear. This bill does NOT remove freedom of religion. No-one is challenging the person’s beliefs, nor their right to practice the religion. They are challenging a symbol. And the symbol isn’t the person. If you identify as a Muslim and you wear a niqab, and you take it off to shower, you do not identify any less as a Muslim while you are naked. If there’s a good reason not to wear the symbol, then take it off! It’s just a goddamn symbol.

I identify as a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. I sometimes wear a Leafs jersy. Were I not retired, I could wear that sweater to my workplace as a lower level employee. If I did well at my job and progressed up the organization, I would eventually reach a position where a Maple Leaf jersy would be inappropriate attire and I would have to choose between publicly identifying as a Leaf fan, or taking a promotion. And if I take the promotion and stop wearing the jersy in the workplace, I am no less a Leaf fan. As one of the 29% who couldn’t care less about religion, I assign no more importance to the wearing of the religious symbol than I do to my right to wear a Leaf jersy. And if you’re that Leaf fan, or that religious adherent who simply will not live without the symbol, then please accept that it is your lot in life to remain in the lower echelons of the workforce. I’m sure your God will reward you appropriately.

So, Quebec’s Bill 21 has, as they say, good bones. We should learn from it and make it Federal Law. And that’s not all we should do. We should also:

1. Modify the Canadian Bill of Rights to remove the first clause in the preamble, which reads “The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God…”. The remainder of the preamble which acknowledges “the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions” is sufficient, although it could be re-written to make it gender neutral. Close to a third of Canadians don’t acknowledge the supremacy of God, and the two thirds who do cannot stop fighting about which God they acknowledge. Furthermore, while the remainder of the preamble clauses might someday show up in a legal argument, the clause about the supremacy of God is absolutely meaningless. I cannot imagine a legal argument relying on the supremacy of a being about which there is such diverse religious opinion. So, let’s get rid of it.
2. The Bill of Rights provides for freedom of religion. But it also provides for security of the person, enjoyment of property, freedom of speech, equality before the law etc. Specific to those rights, I believe that we should explicitly assign religious symbolism to the back seat. In short, the right to security of the person (your own or anyone else’s) should take precedence over any religious symbol that might threaten that safety. There have been a number of court findings (turbans vs hard hats, ceremonial daggers in school) that have trended in that direction, but there have also been some rulings that have placed religion before safety. For example, for turban wearing Sikhs, British Columbia has provided an exemption to the requirement to wear motorcycle helmets. I believe that is a mistake, as it creates a precedent for any number of similar arguments. So – provide for religious freedom, but define symbols as secondary characteristics of a religion that cannot override other requirements of the Bill of Rights, or Acts such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be revised to establish a clear distinction between religious freedom and religious symbolism.
3. We should stop treating religions as a charity. Every Sunday morning you go to church and you put $20 into the collection plate. Every Sunday morning, I go and play golf and I put $40 or more into the green fees for my round. My passion for my sporting obsession is no less than your passion for your religious obsession. So why are your church donations tax deductible, but my golf membership is not?

Well, church members will say, because churches are committed to good charitable works – they are charities. The CRA Regulations for registering a charity currently require that it meets one of these criteria:

• purposes for the relief of poverty
• purposes for the advancement of education
• purposes for the advancement of religion
• other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the law regards as charitable. 

In my world, we’d get rid of number three and then require churches to justify their charity status under one of the other criteria. Are they helping to relieve poverty, or advancing education, or helping with food banks or shelters or assisting the disabled? Then they might be legitimate charities. 

However, other criteria within the current regulations that would be applied would be:

• the benefit should generally be tangible (so not simply religious advice)
• the organization may not otherwise benefit private individuals except under certain limited conditions

What those requirements mean is that the charity would be required to show that a substantial portion of the organization’s earnings were spent on the alleged charitable purposes of the organization, and not just on the living expenses and housing of the pastor. 

And speaking of those housing needs, there is a residence deduction for clergy in the Income Tax code, and we should get rid of that too. 

• We should provide realistic property tax assessments against church property. Why do they get a free ride? Until and unless they are providing charity benefit to citizens that does not depend on the spreading of religious superstition, they should be no different from the neighborhood bowling alley. 

At best, our society should tolerate religions. We should reflect tolerance, not encouragement, in our government laws, rules and practices.