The Supreme Court of Canada ruled recently (Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)) in the importance of the neutrality of the state regarding religion. Put another way, the separation of Church and State, as it is commonly referred to. The state has a duty to neither favour nor discriminate against any religion or demonination. The state must at all times be neutral.
The state’s duty of religious neutrality results from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion. The evolution of Canadian society has given rise to a concept of this neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral in this regard, which means that it must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non‑belief. The pursuit of the ideal of a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate freely in public life regardless of their beliefs. A neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity....
Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)
Some disagree. On TheRebel.media, Brian Lilley appears to have taken up this issue, and seems to imagine it to be an attack on Christianity. No, it is not. There is no attack on christianity, nor is this is about atheists vs christians, as TheRebel.media and Lilley have tried to make it out to be.
Barring the municipal council from reciting the prayer would not amount to giving atheism and agnosticism prevalence over religious beliefs. There is a distinction between unbelief and true neutrality. True neutrality presupposes abstention, but it does not amount to a stand favouring one view over another.
Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)
Lilly also introduces specious arguments to the Supreme Court ruling. (See video links below).
The first line of the Constitution Act, 1982, is referred to by Lilley; however, Lilley only quotes the first part of the sentence, and not the entire sentence leaving out "...the rule of law":
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
In my opinion, this sentence shows the duty of state neutrality by stating the supremacy of both God, (sacred) and the rule of law (secular).
The words "D. G. Regina" on the back of a Canadian coin is given by Lilley as evidence for his argument of a sacred Canada. "Dei Gratia Regina" means "By the Grace of God, Queen" in Latin, and all Canadian coins have the abbreviation "D. G. Regina" on the back. What Lilley seems not to take account of is "D. G. Regina" is only a remnant of Canada's British history.
The report by Lilley that the Richmond City Hall Council is considering ending the use of the Canadian National Anthem because of the Supreme Court ruling is used by Lilley in his argument of an attack on Christianity. In my opinion, Richmond City Hall should obtain a new lawyer. The National Anthem of Canada is not a prayer.
The duty of neutrality appeared at the end of a long evolutionary process that is part of the history of many countries that now share Western democratic traditions. Canada’s history provides one example of this experience, which made it possible for the ties between church and state to be loosened, if not dissolved. There were, of course, periods when there was a close union of ecclesiastical and secular authorities in Canada. European settlers introduced to Canada a political theory according to which the social order was based on an intimate alliance of the state and a single church, which the state was expected to promote within its borders. Throughout the history of New France, the Catholic church enjoyed the status of sole state religion. After the Conquest and the Treaty of Paris, the Anglican church became the official state religion, although social realities prompted governments to give official recognition to the status and role of the Catholic church and various Protestant denominations. This sometimes official, sometimes tacit recognition, which reflected the make-up of and trends in the society of the period, often inspired legislative solutions and certain policy choices. Thus, at the time of Confederation in 1867, the concept of religious neutrality implied primarily respect for Christian denominations. One illustration of this can be seen in the constitutional rules relating to educational rights originally found, inter alia, in s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)
As regards religion, the state must remain neutral, and must not favour, nor discriminate against, a religion or a denomination. It is as simple as that.
To put it briefly, what the Supreme Court is ruling in this case, in my view, is that a Saguenay City Council meeting is not a church meeting. Saguenay City Hall is not a church.
On the evidence in the record, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to conclude that the City’s prayer is in fact a practice of a religious nature.
Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)
© Trevor Dailey
The Canadian Constitution
A Consolidation of THE CONSTITUTION ACTS 1867 to 1982
AUDIO: (FM 94.9 CHRW Radio/Podcast Opinion) Amen to secularism
VIDEO: (TheRebel.media Opinion) Supreme Court's prayer ban part of elite's war on tradition
VIDEO: (TheRebel.media Opinion) MPs want to abolish House of Commons prayer
VIDEO: (TheRebel.media Opinion) Richmond Hill city council: 'O Canada' unconstitutional!