No One Actually Believes in Freedom of Religion
I have to say, the childish credulity of the professionally faithful is kind of amazing. We all knew that the Harper government was creating the Religious Freedoms Office because his religious base would love it. I don’t think until this week that I realized how truly silly they are, how willing to accept even the most piddling and pointless of scraps from the master’s table. To wit: Catholic priest turned National Post columnist Raymond de Souza and Christian TV personality and occasional Globe & Mail columnist Lorna Dueck, who on previous occasions has claimed that God intervenes in court cases.
(He does not, however, intervene to prevent the crimes from being committed in the first place, which in my humble opinion would be rather more helpful.)
Anyways, this new office can be easily refuted. We don’t have offices to promote any of the other Constitutional freedoms. The new “ambassador” won’t have any power to prevent religious atrocities. It’s a safe bet the Canadian government would never jeopardize any real economic interest, for instance, in order to prove a point about freedom of religion. Yet Dueck happily lists several recent persecutions of religious people as though Canada’s new Religious Freedom Ambassador, if he were already on the job, would have instantly hopped on a military jet and flown off to rescue the people involved. This is at best an office which will be long on talk and short on substance. You know, like church.
But I don’t think anyone needs me to repeat the tired arguments about the pointlessness of this office. Instead I want to tangle something a little bit more fundamental, which is the fact that the legion of conservative Christians who have suddenly re-discovered their libertarian streak don’t actually believe in freedom of religion either. Not, at least, as de Souza defines it here:
Religious liberty is the first liberty… If a person is not free before God,… then there is no basis for his freedom before the state, and his property and other rights are of little avail. The state that claims the right to interpose itself between man and God is by definition a totalitarian state, even if should be a softer sort of totalitarianism, at least at first.
Let’s suppose — to take a story that in this context isn’t entirely random — that you believe God has told you to hold a human sacrifice to prove your loyalty to him. At this sacrifice, moreover, the victim won’t just be some unfortunate passerby you swipe off the street: it will be your son. Now, I don’t think de Souza or anybody else thinks that in this situation it would actually be wrong, let alone “totalitarian” for “the state” to “interpose itself” by arresting you and locking you away in jail.
I don’t imagine de Souza would find it totalitarian if we arrested people for practicing infant genital mutilation, either. Nor do I imagine that he, Dueck, or anyone else of their persuasion are troubled by the possibility that the new Religious Freedoms Ambassador will condemn, let’s say, the Saudis for arresting someone on the charge of converting to Christianity (to use one of Dueck’s examples), even though doing so would be our state “interposing itself” between the Saudi officials and their God.
We can continue with this list of examples as long as we like, but I’ll just skip to the main point: none of us actually support freedom of religion as a “first right” from which all other rights derive. At best freedom of religion is a derivative right — because we have freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, that means we must be free to believe things about the divine and to speak about those beliefs. The religious have it exactly backwards here: religious freedom flows from our other basic human rights, not the other way around.
Which is why the skeptical among us wonder why there’s an Ambassador for Religious Freedom and not an Ambassador for Freedom of Conscience, an Ambassador for Freedom of Expression, or even, for that matter, an Ambassador for Democracy.
Interestingly, the same Muslim legal interpretation which leads to the jailing of Christians in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is also the basis of jailing and/or executing atheists. But that doesn’t seem to concern any of the religious who are so excited about the new office, and I don’t imagine it will concern the new ambassador as much, either. It’s not nearly as worrying when the Egyptians jail someone for refusing to believe in any God as it is when they jail someone for believing in the Christian God, is it?
Tweet
anonymous
The Reformers are becoming unbearably tiresome with their insistent whinging about the necessity of dragging all Canadians down their ugly dead end street.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlGTOndrhnk
Stig
When someone believes they have power over a being, who apparently can do anything, even annihilate whole galaxies on a whim, it shows pretty clearly what they must think of themselves. If only it were true, and with only a simple prayer, the world would be made right, a heaven on Earth without want or death. If only it were true… makes you wonder why it isn’t and what exactly it is these believers are actually praying for?.
MoS
Given that most modern butchery arises out of the exercise of religious fundamentalist extremism – Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu – why not an ambassador to promote freedom from religion?
Sixth Estate
Simple answer: because no one who would appreciate such an ambassador would vote for Harper anyways.
Chompy McGruff
“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:” – the first line in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Supposedly put there as a sop to some politicians who wanted more references to their god in our Constitution, it is amazing to me that our very Charter starts with an undefined term that is given absolute power over all Canadians! The religious have argued that their god is the source of all rights, that without their god then there are no “natural” rights, only those assented by the government, and that those rights can be rescinded at whim.
Christianity, in particular, asserts that we don`t have any rights at all. The Religious Freedoms Office wasn`t created to promote freedom in any sense, and your article neatly explains why that is so. Unfortunately, I doubt this office will be closed by any government that replaces the current one since that would provide ammunition to their opposition who could (would) assert that closing the office indicates that their administration supports religious suppression and antagonism. I can`t think of a single politician right now brave enough to confront that kind of accusation.
I have a great sense of trepidation as to what is going to be the net effect of having this “Office” and I can`t see this going well. Our “ambassador” is not likely to actually intervene in any meaningful way in the world. I expect they will ignore religious persecution in supposedly friendly countries while amplifying it in supposedly unfriendly countries.
As an “aggressively sedentary” (read ‘atheist’) Canadian this office not only doesn`t represent my views, the ambassador is likely to decide that my views represent the antithesis of his/her mandate and react accordingly.
jrkrideau
Nice little picture over at Dammit Janet’s blog
http://scathinglywrongrightwingnutz.blogspot.ca/
Sam Gunsch
SE said: “or even, for that matter, an Ambassador for Democracy.”
Some form of this office/position would be quite valuable I believe.
A Democracy Auditor General for auditing Canadian democratic systems that enabled citizen-led audits would be ideal.
The schema I would support as an organizing framework is found here:
http://www.idea.int/publications/aqd/index.cfm
Explanation here:
http://www.democraticaudit.com/audits-worldwide
Canada is a member state of IDEA.
Hugh Segal, a former board of director.
IDEA’s work mostly focuses on developing countries that have often recently thrown out dictatorial regimes.
I don’t know if there are any democracy audit techniques specific to throwing out regimes with corporatist governance and elected-dictatorship tendencies in long established supposed democracies.
Hence IDEA may not be of much use to us.
Sam Gunsch
Sam Gunsch
A Democracy Auditor General/Ombudsman might be able to investigate abuse of the judicial system by the fed’s like this…
See this today: http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/22/BC-Fracking-Lawsuit/
speculative but given the context/history provided by Nikiforuk, persuasive to me.
See this today: http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/02/22/BC-Fracking-Lawsuit/
Feds Throw Wrench in High Profile Lawsuit
by Andrew Nikiforuk
Feb. 22, 2013
Jessica Ernst on her land along Rosebud River in Alberta. Her suit claims gas drillers ruined groundwater, violating her rights. Photo by Colin Smith.
In a stunning move the Harper government has thrown another hurdle before a high profile Alberta lawsuit that seeks to put the regulation of hydraulic fracturing on public trial.
Last week the Department of Justice appointed Honourable Barbara L. Veldhuis, a Court of Queen’s Bench judge presiding over the landmark case, to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. The promotion effectively removes Veldhuis from the multi-million dollar lawsuit.
Moreover, Veldhuis was about to rule on whether or not Alberta’s energy regulator could be sued by a landowner for failing to uphold provincial rules, protect groundwater and respect the constitutional rights of Canadians.
The Harper government’s appointment now means another judge will have to be appointed to hear the case, which has attracted global attention including the United States, Australia, Poland and Ireland.
RossM
Can’t wait for the parliamentary debate that will decide which God is the one to which the Charter refers and to whom we shall all submit.