Trilliums in Northern Ontario
Northern Ontario
 


 


 


Major Acid's E-RagMajor Acid's E-Rag

It Strikes Me...

That a Clich� Can Be a Dangerous Thing

Cliches are boring, but sometimes they are appropriate. For example, groups like the Interfaith Coalition on Marriage and Family (ICMF) that seem intent on bullying - sorry, lobbying - federal politicians into voting against same-sex marriage legislation should beware a particular clich�.

Be careful what you wish for.

The ICMF (which includes the Islamic Society of North America, the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Civil Rights League, and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada) and others, such as Sanctity of Marriage and Marriage Canada, say the government should not be in the marriage business. That, they say, is a religious prerogative, and government should butt out. This is not a surprising position looked at as coming from a single issue, but nothing is disconnected. Nothing sits in a vacuum, including the same-sex marriage issue.

Consider the fundamental contradiction: religious groups likes those in the ICMF generally argue in favour of human rights, and one would expect no less from groups with names that include "Civil Rights League"; yet, on this one issue, those same groups now actively promote discrimination.1

This is close to a hate crime, far worse than David Ahenekew's alleged hate crime. There have yet to be (as far as I am aware) any claims made that Ahenekew actively discriminated against any individual Canadian of Jewish heritage. Nor has he, apparently, worked to deny individuals or groups their rights under Canadian law. He has been charged for expressing a personal opinion, albeit a repugnant one. But a personal opinion can't and shouldn't be legislated. To do so is to create not a hate crime but a thought crime.

ICMF et al, however, are actively pursuing the denial to individual Canadians - gays - the same liberties that non-gay Canadians legally take for granted. Canadian courts have ruled on this, with close reference to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and to actively work to circumvent that ruling is not the same as expressing an opinion. Still, this must be balanced against an individual's or group's right to argue for a particular opinion, and it would be fascinating to see the arguments played out in court, say if someone were to charge the ICMF with disseminating hate.

The ICMF would then be in the peculiar (and uncomfortable) position of depending on the courts - the same courts that have ruled on gay rights - to defend the ICMF's own rights to hold their own opinions. Likely the ICMF would win even though their actions take them closer to hate crimes than anything incautiously said by Ahenekew.

As fascinating as that line of thought is, there is another point to consider. What the ICMF and friends are also doing - and far more critically - is arguing in favour of the separation of church and state. This is welcome news.

The separation of church and state is one of the foundations on which Canadian (and generally Western) democracy rests. As a Canadian, your religion (or lack of it) is your business. The state has other, better things to worry about. In reality, of course, this separation is anything but clear. Churches, for example, get tax breaks, and those who donate to the churches of their choice are subsidized by tax deductions. This is not separation.

Even more glaring is the public/state support for an explicitly religious education system - the Catholic school boards. There are probably excellent Catholic schools, and equally probably pathetically bad Catholic schools, the same range as exists in the public school system. However, general education goals notwithstanding, the Catholic system is also in the business of promoting one particular religion, and this is done in large part with tax dollars. This is not separation,2although there is a little irony in the fact the Catholic boards call themselves "Separate".

The point is - to trot out another clich� - you can't have it both ways. The ICMF and friends want the government to stay out of what the ICMF says is the ICMF's business. That's fine. In fact, it's an excellent idea.

For the ICMF, however, success in this particular battle could set a precedent its members would be horrified to contemplate - IF they bothered to think beyond their knee-jerk, navel gazing, single issue level.

If the ICMF and friends succeed here, at demanding and receiving a clearer separation of church and state, then there's no reason that precedent can't and shouldn't be extended to other areas. There's no good reason a private club - a church - should get special tax treatment; no good reason that religious based education should be publicly funded; no good reason any religiously dictated custom up to and including tax deductions for each child in a household, especially in a household whose numbers are driven by religious dictates against, for example, birth control, should be supported by the public at large.3

There's no good reason to concede to ICMF and friends the concept of separation of church and state on this on issue without rigourously applying that concept. If the ICMF and friends looked past their single issue focus, they would be - and should be - terrified at what awaits them.

And that's fine, too, because it recalls the clich� - be careful what you wish for. That, by the way, is the short version. The full version says this: be careful what you wish for; it might come true.  

1 In contrast, the Quakers apparently support the right to same-sex marriage. Quakers have been, for a long time and consistently, active workers in international human rights and the promotion of non-violent means of achieving such rights. Perhaps this comes from being a true minority religion, and an awareness of how that minority status has played out historically. Or perhaps they just don't like to indulge in hypocrisy.

2 The Catholic school system is an historical/constitutional artifact. Other religious groups have tried to gain similar standing in education but so far have failed. Arguments that others, such as the Jewish religion, should be similarly favoured have not (happily) impressed the courts, and this, I think falls under yet another clich� - two wrongs don't make a right. Good on the courts

3 I can hear the howling. There may, indeed, be a perfectly good non-religious based line of reasoning to support families through the tax system. And there are also reverse arguments - there are always reverse arguments. A complete separation of church and state, including religious rules for how members of any particular faith hook up, may mean allowing multiple spouses - the four wives Islam allows, for example, even though no woman may have four husbands. But then, I would ask, should a husband be able to claim deductions for each of his four wives thereby forcing all Canadians to support his religious lifestyle? Considering the dictates stating that each wife should be treated equally, which might be interpreted as providing each wife with her own house, he could use the help.


 

| Join No.org | About No.org | Using No.org & Privacy Policy | Homepage |
 

 

Thanks to the team at  Simaltech.com for the building and hosting of this website.