Certainly, I do respect the scientific method of enquiry and scientific rationalism. It provides us with a reliable way to identify, qualify and quantify natural phenomena. It has allowed us to progress rapidly in our understanding of the natural world and to make startling advances in the technologies. My problem arises with the dualism established in the position that scientific rationalism provides the one way to knowledge as opposed to religious belief, which yields absurd delusion. Not all opinion is equally valid, to be sure. A position based on three-hundred years of assiduous scientific enquiry is of incomparably greater value than an opinion based on a self-referential truth claim such as: the bible is absolutely true because it says it’s true. Indeed, more than in degree, the two claims differ in kind. One is the presentation of demonstrable and rigorously demonstrated fact, the other, a profession of faith. However, our attempts to make sense of the human experience present a far more complex picture than this dualism of science/religion suggests. There are the arts, for example, which might well be described as the soaring and affirmation of the human spirit from its nexus at the intersection of hope and despair. This affirmation is expressed in music, sculpture, painting, dance, literature and all other forms of artistic expression. The fruit of their study may not be demonstrable fact, to be sure, but they can yield interesting insights which might help us develop further understanding about what it means to be a human being.

In addition, this dualistic vision of science versus religion poses a serious danger. The one reality that most immediately threatens the very survival of humankind is environmental degradation and destruction. Overvaluing science and technology may impair our ability to estimate the role of capitalist driven technology in bringing us to this point. In addition, it may incline us to rely disproportionately on the possible techno-fixes to our environmental problems. While science can help us develop more efficient wind generators and solar panels, etc., the technicians in the laboratories of Monsanto are also doing science. Perhaps it would behove us to be more nuanced in our evaluation of the reasons for our dilemmas. In seeking solutions, perhaps we would do well to listen to the voices of indigenous peoples, of peasants and of artists, as well as those of scientists. The dualistic vision of science versus religion operates against such nuance.

On the topic of religion and the state, the following is adapted from a letter I sent to both The Montreal Gazette and, in French, to Le Devoir. Neither paper chose to publish it.

On October 17, Pope Benedict XVI canonized, among others, Brother André Bessette of Montreal. In attendance, at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, were delegations from both Québec and Ottawa, including Premier Charest and Prime Minister Harper. This is offensive in so many ways, it’s hard to know where to start. As a Montrealer, I’d like to consider Québec particularly. What happened to the Quiet Revolution? Have we all forgotten that one of the basic thrusts and effects of that historic period was the overthrow of the yoke of oppression that was the Church and the disempowering of the clergy who, until then, had dominated every area of Québec life? Charest’s presence in Rome was, at the very least, a slap in the face of Lesage era Liberals who worked so hard to enfranchise the people of Québec.

And that insult is the sharper insofar as Brother André was the very personification of the type of servile lamb the Church has always favoured in its flock. An uneducated and humble doorman, he had no ambition beyond serving the dogma and the clergy of the Church. Ignorant servility, there’s something for Québec’s youth to aspire to!

The spending of tax-payers’ dollars to send Charest to Rome is an insult to the majority of the taxpayers of Québec who, as I do, probably consider the belief in saints and the ritual of canonization foolish and trivial, to the extent that they give it any thought at all. I would suspect and hope that this includes large numbers of contemporary Catholics. When will we finally embrace the fundamentally democratic principle that in a modern, pluralistic democracy, not a penny of public moneys should be spent on religious ritual (or religious education, for that matter)?

The letter ended about here but I’ve had further thoughts on the topic.

At the conference in LA I referred to earlier, the perennial question of the separation of the secular and the religious in America was never far below the surface. This is understandable in America, but what about Canada? The spectacle of Charest and Harper in Rome invites the question. If, for example, Stockwell Day really is, as he has been reported to be, a fundamentalist Christian, then, on the basis of his demonstrated obstinate stupidity, he should not have been elected to do a job that requires judgement. Or, having been elected, at the very least, he should have been kept very far away from the most responsible positions in the cabinet. A person who takes literally the primordial myths of the ancient Hebrews should not be a Minister in the government of Canada. I would contend that anyone who so mistakes one thing for another, myth for historical record, should not be entrusted with any responsible job. Should it turn out that Day is not an isolated case, that we have several fundamentalist Christians in government, we may have a problem. I am about to read The Armageddon Factor, one of the books on offer for review, in which Marci McDonald explores this very subject.

With regard to the separation between the religious and the secular in Canada, the possible religious fundamentalism of certain Tories is only part of our problem. The fact is that the preamble to our Constitution and our National anthem both contain references to god and, while the right to believe in and practice a religion is protected under our Charter, secular values are not. This is an aberration and a contradictory position. Consider the following two examples. One day a teacher in a publicly funded educational institution decides to go to work wearing a hat tastefully emblazoned with the words “God does not exist”. I don’t think it would be long before that teacher received a message from the office of the principal or Academic Dean directing him or her to remove forthwith the offending hat. Yet colleagues who wear the hijab, the cross, the Star of David etc., symbols that proclaim “God does exist”, are permitted to do so with impunity. In our second example, consider a young woman who works for a government agency and who, in the course of her duties, provides counselling and referral to women who have suffered abuse at the hands of men. Now this young woman, in her private life, believes that the way to security, happiness and fulfillment is to find a compatible life partner. Weekend nights, in the hope of attracting such a partner, she frequents trendy night-clubs dressed in a way she hopes will be attractive, short skirt, stockings, a provocative décolletage, beautiful shoes, expensive and seductive makeup and hair and she performs rituals, dancing and flirting, she hopes will bring to her the bearer of felicity. If, on Monday, she shows up at work done up the way she was on Saturday night, no one, not even her union rep, would find fault with her supervisor for demanding that she go home and change into something more appropriate. Meanwhile her colleague wearing the hijab is allowed to stay. Do you see where I’m going with this?

In the “Western World” the struggle to extricate secular government from the control of religious power has been going on for centuries. It’s a fascinating history and the struggle is far from over. In this country, it has been barely perceptible outside Québec. Most recently, it has been subsumed and bogged down in the post-modern, politically correct accommodationism that has become the dominant reading of multiculturalism. The problem with this muddle-headed reading of multiculturalism is that it runs the risk of doing the opposite of what it sets out to do. It may lead to a situation in which more citizens than not feel their religious beliefs, or lack of religious belief, receive less than complete respect in the public place. Certainly our charter guarantees every citizen the right to believe and practice the religion of his or her choice, in private and in public. (sec. 2) But, as the brilliant Belgian philosopher and Human Rights activist, Nadia Geerts, argues in Fichu voile!, this leaves out of the equation the essential consideration of civic space. Civic space designates all the places and services paid for by all tax payers for the benefit of all citizens. I would argue that if all citizens are to enjoy complete freedom of religion in public and in private spaces, then we must also enjoy complete freedom from religion in civic space. The only way I can think of to achieve that is to pass at the national level, what Mouvement laïque québécois has been promoting at the provincial level for some time, a Charter of Secularism. In addition to a clear definition of Civic Space, such a Charter would have to include the following elements:

1. A preamble recognizing that the philosophy, practices and institutions of liberal democracy, the shared heritage of all Canadians, are the fruit of the evolution of rational humanist thought over many centuries
2. The recognition that, in order to demonstrate equal respect for all systems of belief, nowhere in civic space should any symbol of religious belief be present.
3. That, in the interest of social justice, no moneys from the public purse, contributed by a pluralist community of tax-payers, be spent on any manifestation of religious faith.
4. That tax privileges for religious institutions come to an end.
5. That wherever and whenever religious belief or custom comes into conflict with an ordinance, bylaw or law, the ordinance, bylaw or law democratically voted by the elected representatives of the people always takes precedence.

This editorial is running a little long. I’ll have to come back to this issue. In the meantime, let me know what you think. Maybe we should start a national campaign.