Deborah Gyapong: Why God in the Charter matters a great deal

Good editorial in today's National Post on "God and the Charter:" My bolds, because this editorial makes a crucial point:

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins by affirming that "Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." This week's minor controversy about God's presence in the preamble--set off, indirectly, by a Quebec ruling upholding a Catholic high school's right to set its own curriculum -- is no threat to our Constitution, but it is instructive. To a certain secularist mindset, any mention of God is a danger to public life, and any legal recognition of religion is but a short step away from theocracy. That's not the case in Canada, and the "supremacy of God" preamble is something worth understanding-- and defending.
The words were written in 1982 -- less than 30 years ago. Constitutions, especially in their fundamental aspects, are supposed to endure more than a few decades without revision. By 1982, Canada already enjoyed a long tradition of religious liberty and democratic freedom, so the idea that putting God in the Constitution is a threat to anything, or a limitation on liberty, or an occasion of division among Canadians, is simply false. Indeed, given that several highly contentious decisions by our courts have expanded the language in the Charter beyond its original text, it is odd to argue that language actually in the Charter should be disregarded.
What does the "supremacy of God" mean? At a minimum, it reflects a historical fact.
From the early French explorers and Jesuit missionaries to the British institutions of Crown-in-Parliament, the architecture of Canada is incomprehensible without the institutions of religion. It is impossible to tell the story of Canadian finance without the Catholicdriven caisse populaire movement in rural Quebec. Medicare is the product of the Protestant prairie pastors who led the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation. Today, our newest Canadians often turn to services offered by religious congregations of all kinds -- indeed, our refugee programs more or less assume that this will be the case. Religion is not an alien force, but, to use an apt word, constitutive of who we are.
The Constitution describes not only who we are--matters of history -- but also who we ought to be--matters of aspiration. This is likely what those who object to the "supremacy of God" find difficult. They think that such language excludes from the Canadian project those who do not believe in God. Yet even those Canadians should welcome God in the preamble. Something, after all, has to be supreme. And if it is not God, even understood in the broadest possible sense, then what is it? Fearsome it would be to live in the land where the works of man alone are supreme. The "supremacy of God" is shorthand reminding us that our laws, even if duly passed, must conform to principles of justice, the service of the common good and the truth about the human person. That is an essential principle, otherwise the rule of law can be put in the service of tyranny.

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Charter/3259348/story.html#ixzz0tHxza8JG

Here's a link to a good Charles Lewis piece on this on the National Post's excellent Holy Post blog.

In 1999, the British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the phrasing as a “dead letter” which the justices had “no authority to breathe life” into for the purpose of interpreting the Charter. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada raised objections to the interpretation in a document to the court.

By calling it a “dead letter,” Ms. Buckingham explained, the judge was essentially saying: “Nobody uses it, so don’t even bother with it. It’s basically meaningless.”

However, Ms. Buckingham, now the director of the Ottawa-based Laurentian Leadership Centre, a school where top evangelical students are trained to work in government and in other spheres of public life, said the phrase is essential to ensure that freedom of religion is not defined too narrowly and interpreted in a “secular fashion.”

“[To be interpreted in a secular fashion] means religion becomes privatized and people should not have to be exposed to it — whereas the preamble shows that religion is part of Canadian life and should have as broad and expansive definition as possible. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.”

Much of Western law is based on such religious precepts as the Ten Commandments. In that way, Mr. Sossin said, the phrase can be seen as a “metaphor” that highlights the Charter’s moral foundations. The phrase should not, he added, be taken as a literal acknowledgement of the divine.