The false divide between Church and state

By Paul Schratz

Watch out, the separation of church and state is feeling threatened again.

The separation of church and state, secularism’s gift to mankind, is never as twitchy as when it feels it might not be the only belief system putting its imprimatur on society.
It began pounding its lay lectern two weeks ago when Archbishop Roussin released his statement on the rights of parents in the public school system.

That statement, which merely restated the Church’s age-old position that parents are the primary educators of their children, unleashed a chorus of boos and cries about the need to muzzle the Church before it succeeds in ramming its medieval ways down everyone’s throat.

Similar reaction followed remarks by Pope Benedict XVI, who was speaking to the Ontario bishops, reminding them that “Democracy succeeds only to the extent that it is based on truth and a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle.”

In short, politicians cannot simply turn off their consciences when they walk into the legislature, as many have done, resulting in disasters like abortion and same-sex unions.
Again, the usual suspects rose up in blog-rage, targetting the Pope with insults about being an aged celibate and demanding that he suppress any urge to lecture anyone.
That’s pretty much how it is these days for the Church. Any statement on behalf of anything resembling doctrine is a breach of the state religion of atheism, that creed that’s brought us such glories as communism, socialism, and Nazism.

Their argument is difficult to understand, much less accept, because of the incongruities that necessarily follow from it. If two politicians walk into a legislature, one, an atheist, is permitted to bring his personal views to the debate, while another, a Catholic, is not?

A couple of other scenarios further illustrate the ludicrousness of the position:

A humanist lawmaker is allowed to argue from personal beliefs that “mercy killing” is an expression of true compassion, while a Catholic who opposes euthanasia is forcing his views on others.

A homosexual activist who wants to influence the public school curriculum is simply arguing from a perspective of fairness, while a Catholic who opposes such efforts or tries to impart Catholic virtues in education is accused of indoctrinating children.

Of course, it’s not really about Church and state or religious viewpoints, but about not wanting to hear views that many people disagree with, which is why there was plenty of clamouring about the Pope, while no one raised a fuss about separation of church and state when the Dalai Lama met with Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan and preached his message of peace.

It’s been said countless times, but it bears repeating. The separation of church and state is a canard used solely to keep faith out of public life in the United States, and increasingly in Canada. In neither country has such separation ever been constitutionally mandated to prevent religious faith from contributing to and influencing discussions on public policy.

The assumption many people make is that Canada is a non-religious country, and only non-religious values can be represented in its structure and operation. In fact, however, courts have recognized it is a secular country, which includes non-religious as well as religious views.  

Canadian values include more than simply the popular opinion of the day. They include religious values, and wishing otherwise doesn’t make it so.