Angry in the Great White North

Canadian society has been subjected to a great deal of stress over the issue of same-sex marriage. As the issue recedes, however, I wonder if we are allowing an even more serious issue to also fade away. But in this case, the issue is nowhere near resolved, and its importance seems to be lost on both the media and on the public at large.

That issues is "regalism", an obscure concept that holds that the sovereign, or State, is superior to the Church, and that the Church must defer to, and even support, the State in all matters.

Consider these events. Back in January, Pierre Pettigrew, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the issue of statements issued by the Roman Catholic Church about same-sex marriage, said, "I find that the separation of the Church and the state is one of the most beautiful inventions of modern times." His message was clear: since the State had determined that same-sex marriage was now a political issue, the Church had an obligation to vacate itself from this debate.

In May, the Globe and Mail writes at length about the phenomenon of Christian "activists" winning Conservative Party nominations in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and British Columbia. The tone of the article and preponderance of the interviews, and the fact that this article was even written and published, leave the impression that having Members of Parliament who vote on the basis of Christian values is a concern for the integrity of Canada's democracy.

Also in May, a main stream left-wing website, rabble.ca, home to columns from many of the leading left-wing thinkers in Canada, publishes a cartoon mocking Pope Benedict XVI by depicting him as a Nazi. None of the media personalities or columnists associated with the website voice any concern or attempt to distance themselves from the cartoon, nor is there any mention of it in the media. Many wonder if a corresponding slur against Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. published at a main stream conservative website would have been considered just as much a non-event.

Now move forward to early July. Charles Angus, a Roman Catholic and an NDP Member of Parliament, is refused communion because of his outspoken support for same-sex marriage and his vote in favour of bill C-38. He said, "Then your involvement in the sacraments becomes a political pressure point. It was unacceptable." In the view of Charles Angus, the Roman Catholic Church has no right to enforce its criteria for membership, and must accept all comers regardless of their behaviour.

A week later, another NDP MP, Joe Comartin, also Roman Catholic, is removed from his position on several parish committees, also for supporting C-38, criticizing the Church for its stand in a speech in the House of Commons, and voting for the bill. He also calls on the Church to back down without making any concessions. A former councilor for Tilbury North weighs in, "I absolutely disagree with the bishop interfering with a government issue."

Finally, the CBC, our government-funded national broadcaster, runs an op-ed from a former engineering professor named Bob Ferguson. In this long piece, Mr. Ferguson suggests making religion a function of government, with rules limiting and constraining religious teachings: "[Different religions] will never achieve unity so why not try for compatibility? Can't religious leaders agree to adjust doctrine so all religions can operate within the code? It should be unethical for any [religious figure] to claim that theirs was the one true religion and believers in anything else or nothing were doomed to fire and brimstone."

He also suggests that religious faiths be subject to employment equity laws: "Couldn't we insist that human rights, employment and consumer legislation apply to them as it does other organizations? Then it would be illegal to require a particular marital status as a condition of employment or to exclude women from the priesthood."

No one seriously believes Mr. Ferguson's extreme measures would ever be taken, but as a whole, these events suggest that regalism is slowly gaining a foothold in the minds and hearts of Canadians, including those in government and in the media. There is not enough space here to deconstruct the arguments presented and explain how these people have completely mistaken how Church and State are supposed to co-exist. But there are very good reasons to be worried without going into that.

When I use the phrase "Church and State", the word "Church" really refers to right of all citizens to organize their thinking on the metaphysical nature of the universe in whatever way they see fit. Of course, the role of "Church" is often played out by organized religious groups, such as the Roman Catholic Church, but when the government issues a warning to the "Church", it really applies to everyone.

It applies to atheists too. The fundamental freedom listed in 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the freedom of conscience and religion, includes the freedom not to hold religious beliefs.

The call to implement some form of regalism in this country, that is, to give to the State the power to silence the Church, or even to manage the affairs of the Church, applies as much to individuals as to organized religions. To put it another way, the State sees the role of the Church to support its decisions, or at the very least, quietly acquiesce. Dissent on the basis of a moral argument will not be tolerated, as the State will be final arbiter of the moral order.

That members of parliament are calling for exactly that is especially troubling. That the national broadcaster is carrying that message suggests an indifference in the media to what is at stake here.

People have to realize that if the Church becomes subservient to the State, it does not mean merely that the Roman Catholic Church is going to be forced to be quiet about same-sex marriage and abortion. It means that the most basic questions that define us as humans, that ability to rise above issues of day-to-day survival and ask "Why am I here? Is this all there is?" will become subject to government control and regulation.

"I think therefore I am" becomes "I am taxed therefore I am".

Some people might not be concerned, thinking this all just so much esoteric fear-mongering. They should consider this. You might be in full agreement with the Liberal government's social agenda. You might be happy to see the government empowered to implement that agenda over all objections, and indeed watch with glee as regalism allows the government to de-legitimize those objections.

Remember, governments change. The next one might have issues with your beliefs.

Still not convinced? Then ponder this last point. If the State takes on the power to regulate what is acceptable in metaphysical thinking, they are taking over one of the last natural rights was have as humans, and that is to manage the upbringing of our children. We have already given up the right to directly defend ourselves (gun control laws), much of right of free association (anti-discrimination laws), and much of our right to free speech (hate speech laws). There is no charter right recognizing the right to property.

But if we give up the right to freedom of conscience and religion, what we teach our children about right and wrong will require approval by the government. Indeed, it might be simpler for the government to hand that job over to someone else, perhaps to government employees or contractors who have been paid to teach the officially sanctioned version of morality.

Nationalized Daycare seems a bit less appealing to me today.