He writes about the Supreme Court Decision that I believe is the Morgentaler decision or the Roe vs. Wade of religious freedom in Canada. Please read it all and tweet it and share it whereever you can.
God isn’t ecumenical. He spells out exactly what he is, in Exodus 20: 4-5. “You shall not make yourself an idol,” he tells prospective worshippers, “for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.”
When a jealous God talks about religion, he doesn’t say: “Hey, six of one, half a dozen of the other.” On the contrary, he commands his followers to regard him and his cosmology as the truth, and view others as being in error. Those who worship idols are idolaters. This doesn’t mean bash their heads in, or give them false measure, but it may mean pray for them, and it definitely means don’t tell your children: “Oh, it’s all the same.”
Jealousy isn’t the only thing religion is about, but it’s certainly one thing. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” is the second commandment in the Hebrew bible. In the Christian bible, it’s the first.
God speaks plainly; Supreme Court justices speak legalese. They’re different languages. If one looks for an innocent explanation of why the Ottawa Nine ruled as they did last Friday in S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, this may be it — though the real reasons are probably a little more complex or sinister.
Like most courts and tribunals below, Canada’s top court sees its task as defending the state against the rights and freedoms it guarantees. Madam Justice Marie Deschamps, speaking for the nine justices, didn’t make too many bones about the court’s priority being policy over law. “The suggestion,” she wrote, “that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government’s obligations with regard to public education.”
Pardon? Is replacing religious classes with liberal pap an educational obligation? If so, Quebec failed in its obligation until 2008. Maybe, just maybe, we aren’t talking about education, but ideology. Two ideologies, in fact: (a) The religious citizen’s ideology that’s protected by the Charter; and (b) the statist government’s ideology that’s protected by the courts.
Bills of rights don’t warrant that governments can do everything they regard as beneficial; they warrant that governments can’t infringe the rights of individuals. It shouldn’t matter if a fundamental right did amount to the rejection of a government policy. I don’t think it does in this case, but even if it did, what’s our Charter supposed to guarantee, multiculturalism or religious freedom?