St. Even
Active Member
At the end of the day, religion is a personal choice that MUST be respected in a democracy. But we must, in a pluralist society, treat all faiths and religions the same.
One of my issues with religious presence in government institutions is that so much doctrine is antithetical to the inclusivity of a modern democracy. Jews believe they are chosen ones and Jehovah's believe they are only ones going to heaven.
And I can't reconcile in my head that our Charter says women and men are equal but the Catholic Church is a few centuries away from hiring women as preachers. That's blatant discrimination, plain and simple. But we allow it. To me that's just wrong.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says we are free to choose whichever faith we wish, but it also means we are free not to choose. In my opinion, swearing an oath on a bible in a courtroom, or reciting a prayer before a sitting in Parliament if I'm an MP, impinges directly on my right not to be religious. If my government is forcing me to swear to a god I don't believe in, or forcing me to listen to prayers outside of a religious context, then I believe it is impinging on my rights not to be religious. If I were a Muslim, or Shinto, or Sikh, then I would be more than a bit offended at having to participate in Christian prayers before getting on with my job in the legislature.
All of that said, a lot of people derive great strength from their faith and the communities that form around faith....that's a good thing. But incorporating it into any non-religious context like government or school, and especially giving favourable representation to one faith over another is, in my humble opinion, inherently undemocratic.
One of my issues with religious presence in government institutions is that so much doctrine is antithetical to the inclusivity of a modern democracy. Jews believe they are chosen ones and Jehovah's believe they are only ones going to heaven.
And I can't reconcile in my head that our Charter says women and men are equal but the Catholic Church is a few centuries away from hiring women as preachers. That's blatant discrimination, plain and simple. But we allow it. To me that's just wrong.
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says we are free to choose whichever faith we wish, but it also means we are free not to choose. In my opinion, swearing an oath on a bible in a courtroom, or reciting a prayer before a sitting in Parliament if I'm an MP, impinges directly on my right not to be religious. If my government is forcing me to swear to a god I don't believe in, or forcing me to listen to prayers outside of a religious context, then I believe it is impinging on my rights not to be religious. If I were a Muslim, or Shinto, or Sikh, then I would be more than a bit offended at having to participate in Christian prayers before getting on with my job in the legislature.
All of that said, a lot of people derive great strength from their faith and the communities that form around faith....that's a good thing. But incorporating it into any non-religious context like government or school, and especially giving favourable representation to one faith over another is, in my humble opinion, inherently undemocratic.