Faith in the Public Square: Does Religion Have a Place in Contemporary Politics?

We all make decisions and take actions based on a personal belief system. Everyone believes in something, if only themselves or the ability of the chair they are about to sit on to hold them off the ground. No one is belief system neutral. The decisions we make and actions we take, based on our personal belief system, affect others and end up being played out in a broader public forum. Of necessity, the same holds true in politics and the development of public policy. If everyone has a belief system of some sort, then those whose belief system is based on religion should not be put at disadvantage simply for that reason.

The “modern post-industrial world,” as some have described it, has experienced a number of voices seeking to relegate religion to the private sphere. The speakers of this message tell us that it’s okay to believe it in our minds and to express it in our homes or our four- walled places of worship but don’t let it be evidenced in public. The argument continues that in a pluralist and multi-cultural, small “l” liberal democracy, religion has no place in government or the development of public policy. And further, the argument says, we live in a secular society where all religions may be treated equally only if they remain silent in the public square.

Speaking at the opening session of the “Pluralism, Religion and Public Policy” conference at McGill University in 2002, the former Premier of Quebec, Claude Ryan, said: … silence, or at least restraint on the part of religious believers is more likely to foster social peace. But obliging some people to keep their opinions to themselves is in itself (when one thinks of it) an intolerant, fundamentally undemocratic way of buying harmony among citizens of a free society. However we find it may look on the surface, this so-called “liberal” approach, which is not truly liberal in my opinion, is a thinly veiled way of curtailing the freedom of expression of religious believers. While it may present practical advantages, it is unacceptable in principle.

The 2001 Census: analysis series report on Religions in Canada indicates that 84% of Canadians have religious affiliations, with 77% self-identifying as Christian, 2% as Muslim, and 1% each as Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh. A May 2003 Ipsos Reid poll indicated that for 61% of Canadians religion plays an important role in their lives.

An Ipsos Reid poll conducted for CanWest/Global on election day last year (January 23, 2006) indicates that Christians in English Canada split roughly along the same party lines as the rest of the country, in fact slightly higher for the NDP! Protestants voted 44% Conservative, 29% Liberal, 23% NDP and Catholics voted 35% Conservative, 40% Liberal and 20% NDP. In Quebec the Protestant numbers were almost even between Conservative and Liberal parties with a small percentage voting Bloc. Catholics voted about 35% Conservative, 18% Liberal and over 35% Bloc.

Faith in the Public Square Page 1 of 4 March 8, 2007

Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada www.evangelicalfellowship.ca

In fact, the expression of religion does not undermine or compromise democracy or pluralism – or even secularism. The free expression of religion adds something to all three; even if on occasion it offers only an alternative perspective on the issues.

Canada’s “free and democratic society”, as it is described in our constitution, has its roots deep in religion and religious principles. Our society has been shaped by religious values of respect for every human being and tolerance of the differences between us.

From St. Jean de Brebeuf through to perhaps the most famous student of the Jesuit school named after him, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, principles of Canadian pluralism and democracy were established based on Christian belief.

Brebeuf arrived as a Catholic missionary who sought to understand the culture and language of the Hurons. His assimilation into their society enabled him to share his faith in a way that was culturally relevant rather than attempting to impose upon them a European expression of that faith or of life in general.

Oliver Mowat, an active Presbyterian and president of the Evangelical Alliance of Canada for twenty years was, in addition to being Ontario’s longest serving premier, the primary author of the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments that became essential to the Constitution Act, 1867.

Agnes Macphail, a lifelong Sunday school teacher, was Canada’s first elected female Member of Parliament serving from 1921 until 1940, and first elected female Member of the Ontario Legislature, serving from 1943 until 1951. Macphail was Canada’s first female delegate to the League of Nations, predecessor to the United Nations. She worked tirelessly for international peace and civil liberties and led the fight for more humane prisons in Canada, including separate facilities for young offenders.

James Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, both ordained Christian ministers, led the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, now known as the NDP. Douglas was the first socialist government leader in Canada as Premier of Saskatchewan. He implemented provincially and led the fight for federal implementation of medicare, unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and federal control over interest rates. Douglas was recently voted “The Greatest Canadian” in a CBC poll.

William Aberhart and Ernest Manning, successive hosts of the radio show “Canada’s National Bible Hour,” were also successive leaders of the government of Alberta for over thirty years through the Social Credit Party. Manning coined the term “social conservatism.” His son, Preston Manning founded the Reform Party which became the Canadian Alliance before merging with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the Conservative Party of Canada, currently Canada’s “new government.”

Faith in the Public Square Page 2 of 4 March 8, 2007

Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada www.evangelicalfellowship.ca

Pierre Trudeau never let go of his foundational Jesuit education which taught him the principle of the dignity of all human persons. Following the teachings of Catholic philosophers Emmanuel Mournier and Jacques Maritain, Trudeau’s primary focus in life and politics became the establishment of a just society founded upon a constitutionally entrenched recognition of human rights. As Prime Minister of Canada, he led the fight for what we now call the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

With the Charter we are privileged to know that as a country we do not need to separate ourselves from our past in order to build upon it for our future. For a firm foundation, the Charter begins with a preamble recognizing the rights that follow are based on acknowledging “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

The Charter specifically recognizes that freedom of religion is fundamental to Canadian society and that no individual is to be discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion.

For the committed practitioner of most religious beliefs – certainly the major religions of the world – the authority of that belief touches not only on the believer’s personal life but also on how the believer relates to the world around them, including the political world.

In the case R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd, Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote these words on behalf of the majority of the court:

The values that underlie our political and philosophic traditions demand that every individual be free to hold and to manifest whatever beliefs and opinions his or her conscience dictates, provided inter alia only that such manifestations do not injure his or her neighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinions of their own.

In the case of Chamberlain v Surrey School District, Justice Charles Gonthier of the Supreme Court of Canada wrote:

… nothing in the Charter, political or democratic theory, or a proper understanding of pluralism demands that atheistically based moral positions trump religiously based moral positions on matters of public policy. I note that the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that ‘… Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.’ According to Saunders J. [of the British Columbia Supreme Court where the case was heard at trial], if one’s moral view manifests from a religiously grounded faith, it is not to be heard in the public square, but if it does not, then it is publicly acceptable. The problem with this approach is that everyone has ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ in something, be it atheistic, agnostic or religious. To construe ‘secular’ as the realm of the ‘unbelief’ is therefore erroneous. Given this, why, then, should the religiously informed conscience be placed at public disadvantage or disqualification? To do so would be

Faith in the Public Square Page 3 of 4 March 8, 2007

Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada www.evangelicalfellowship.ca

to distort liberal principles in an illiberal fashion and would provide only a feeble notion of pluralism. The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of modern pluralism.

To supplement Justice Gonthier’s thoughts – just as, if you will pardon the expression, the “faithfully” secularist should not be permitted to exclude the views of religion from the public square; neither should religion exclude the views of others. It is the very multiplicity of views that are brought into the public square for discourse that identifies and makes Canada an appealing example of democracy to so many in the rest of the world. This multiplicity of positions does not threaten our ability to make decisions, elect governments and determine public policy. It strengthens us as a nation.

Asking people to check their beliefs at the threshold of the public square would erect a new reverse form of religious test that Canada long ago properly rejected. To take away from one group the equal – not prioritized – guarantee of freedom provided under the Canadian constitution in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not only preclude from public service a significant number of Canadians who take their religious beliefs seriously, but would also be contrary to sustaining an open, plural and tolerant society.

This position is ably supported by the position taken by the leaders of all three of Canada’s primary national political parties during the last federal election in answer to the question, “What role do you think faith should play in developing public policy, and what is the place of religious institutions in contemporary Canada?” Their statements were published in the January/February 2006 issue of Faith Today magazine, and reprinted with permission by the Ottawa Citizen on January 12, 2006 and the Toronto Star on January 21, 2006.

Based on their responses, I echo the sentiment expressed by Preston Manning in his book The New Canada, “… voters have every right to inquire of a candidate for public office, ‘What are your most deeply held values and beliefs, and how might these affect your personal and political behaviour?’”

Belief systems should not be rooted out of the public square but made evident in order to better facilitate the discourse required in the making of public policy in a free and democratic society.

______

Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

Paper prepared for Glendon Political Science Association Science Politique (York University) panel discussion on “The Place of Religious Interest Groups in Canadian Politics” held March 8, 2007.

Faith in the Public Square Page 4 of 4 March 8, 2007

Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel, The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada www.evangelicalfellowship.ca