Post 42-- Parental rights and religious freedom upheld

                                                              

An important Supreme Court Decision

That which I wrote about in Post 41 happened!  ARPA and its fellow warriors had their way. There is excitement in the air among supporters of Christian and other religious schools today, an excitement that I share and want to pass on to you without waiting for my earlier intentions to be carried out.  The Court agreed with the arguments put forth by the lawyers of religious schools! Though they all struggled hard to achieve such a decision by the court, many of them hardly dared believe or expect it to happen. God still delivers miracles even in the minds of a secularized court and judges. Here is ARPA’s jubilant reaction:

After 12 months of deliberation, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision this morning in Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), upholding religious freedom first for the Loyola Jesuit school but also more broadly for all who seek to apply their faith to the education of their children. This is a case that every independent Christian school across the country has been watching closely. At stake in this case was the religious freedom of parents and institutions to educate children according to a worldview that might be different than that of the State education bureaucracy. Thankfully, the Court was unanimous in finding that religious communities can teach their own faith to their children from their own perspective. As you may remember, ARPA Canada led a coalition of 313 independent Christian schools and 11 post-secondary institutions to intervene in the case. The coalition was called the Association of Christian Educators and Schools (ACES) and we argued that confessional schools must be accommodated as an alternative to State-run schools. André Schutten, Legal Counsel for ARPA Canada, was in the counsel lock-down this morning and had opportunity to review the decision before it was made public. He noted the following in a press release to the media: “Our hope was that the Supreme Court would affirm hundreds of years of legal precedent that parents are the first decision-makers for their children, and that religious freedom includes the right to train children within a particular worldview. This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered.” He also said, “With this decision, the Court stood up for liberty and for parental rights. While the Court could have been stronger in some places, this is still a welcome decision.” In light of this case, ARPA Canada will be encouraging our elected leaders in Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta to rethink their one-size-fits-all approach to religion, ethics and secularism. Over the past two years, these provinces have imposed a particular religious – that is, secular – worldview on all schools through Bill 13 (Ontario, 2013), Bill 18 (Manitoba, 2014) and Bill 10 (Alberta, 2015), while ignoring or suppressing the freedom of religious institutions and families. Parents ought to have the first and final say on the religious and moral instruction of their children. While the State may assist parents in educating children, they may not override parental decisions relating to ethical and religious instruction. There has been a trend towards Statism in education in Canada. This decision gives hope to parents in stopping that slide. However, there are problems with the decision as well. For example, the majority found “no significant impairment of freedom of religion in requiring Loyola to offer a course that explains the beliefs, ethics and practices of other religions in as objective and neutral a way as possible, rather than from the Catholic perspective.” (para. 6). If this means that Christian schools should teach the factual elements of other religions (e.g. the 5 pillars of Islam, the 8-fold path of Buddhism, etc.), then those facts can be taught relatively objectively (and all the Christian schools I know do that anyway). However, it remains unclear whether and how much those ethics and beliefs of other religions can then be critically evaluated through a Christian worldview. Further, a deeper issue is the Court’s assumption that the State has the authority to tell schools and parents what must be taught. Despite the shortcomings of the judgement, we should still see this as a win. The court states, “A secular state does not – and cannot – interfere with the beliefs and practices of a religious group unless they conflict with or harm overriding public interests… A secular state respects religious differences, it does not seek to extinguish them.” (para. 43) For now, this is a fine statement. However, “respecting religious differences” is susceptible to changing “public interests”. The crux of the decision is found in paragraph 62, where the Court ruled, “To tell a Catholic school how to explain its faith undermines the liberty of the members of its community who have chosen to give effect to the collective dimension of their religious beliefs by participating in a denominational school.” This is a robust defence of independent Christian schools. The court goes further in paragraphs 63 to 67, outlining how the actions of the Quebec Minister of Education “interferes with the rights of parents to transmit the Catholic faith to their children… because it prevents a Catholic discussion of Catholicism. This ignores the fact that an essential ingredient of the vitality of a religious community is the ability of its members to pass on their beliefs to their children, whether through instruction in the home or participation in communal institutions.” (para. 64). Finally, when reading the decision, paragraph 70 seems to come across very strongly in our favour: “Catholic doctrine and Catholic ethics are simply too intertwined to make it possible to teach one from a religious perspective and the other neutrally.” It seemed the Court understood the nature of religious education: the worldview is holistic and informs all aspects of education. But, curiously, the Court steps way back from that in the very next paragraph by stating that “requiring Loyola to teach about the ethics of other religions in a neutral, historical and phenomenological way would not interfere disproportionately with the relevant Charter protections implicated by the decision.” The Court appears to believe that simply teaching the objective facts about various religions is required, which (as discussed above) most Christian schools do anyway. When it comes to ethics and religion and morality however, it seems open still to Christian schools to then evaluate those religious worldviews from our own perspective. Again, this ruling can be celebrated as a win. The court sets out a clear defense of communal religious rights, makes good references to parental rights and in the end ruled for religious liberty. While we would have loved a much stronger and broader decision, considering the legal context and cultural climate we find ourselves, this case is a step in the right direction. On behalf of the entire ARPA team, we give thanks first to our providential Father who has blessed the work we have all done together and surrounded us with such a supportive community. We are so thankful for the ongoing encouragement of the Christian community for the work we are privileged to do. And we say a special thank you to Ian Moes, lawyer in British Columbia, for his exceptional help on this particular case. To read the Loyola decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, click here. To read the ACES factum (written legal arguments), click here. For a background on the Loyola case, click here. André Schutten, Legal Counsel and the entire ARPA team

Post 41--ARPA defends parental rights at the Supreme Court of Canada

Important things are happening in the country these days and they're happening fast. So fast, that my intentions for this blog often have to get interrupted due to the speed of urgent events needing to be aired and explained. The following train of events about the development of legal aspects and freedom of education will have important repurcussions in the nation that you need to be aware of if you want to be an active and responsible citizen. I believe the material speaks for itself.    

Note (1): ARPA stands for “Association for Reformed Political Action.” “Reformed” in this context refers to the Calvinist Christian orientation of the group. For more information you can do an internet search and you’ll find plenty. It is a very active national organization with deep grass roots participation. Herewith I pass on to you their latest monthly bulletin.

Note (2):  Once again I deviate from a previously announced intention (Post 39) for this post. I judge this ARPA document to be time sensitive and thus have it jump the queue. I intend to continue that other plan in one or two posts from now. The advantage of borrowing like this is that you don’t have to wait so long in between posts. This one is an easy though important addition. 

On March 24, 2014, ARPA Canada appeared in the Supreme Court of Canada, leading a coalition of Christian schools from across the country, in order to defend Christian education from the continual encroachment of the State. The Loyola case will have a greater impact on a parent's authority in raising their child in the fear of the Lord than any other case in recent history. We are still waiting for a final decision from the Court in this matter. Stay tuned for an update once the decision is released.
In order to represent the interests of independent Christian education and to bring that perspective forcefully to the Court, ARPA Canada built a coalition of Christian schools from across the country called the Association of Christian Educators and Schools Canada (ACES Canada). The ACES coalition includes 313 confessional Christian schools, 11 post-secondary institutions, and ARPA Canada. By receiving intervenor status, we were able to provide written arguments to the Court, on behalf of Christian educators and schools.

What is this case all about? Here follows a basic summary. (To read more about the background of this case, click here.)


The province of Quebec has ordered all schools and home schools to teach a class about ethics and religions. But not only is it telling schools what to teach. It's also telling them how to teach it. All schools, including Christian private institutions, have to set aside their worldview (if that were possible) and teach the course from a secular perspective. They aren't allowed to raise our Lord Jesus Christ above other religions and must encourage students to "create their own religion," among other things.

One school in Montreal, Loyola Christian School, challenged this in court. They won at the first level but lost at the Quebec Court of Appeal. They finally appealed to the Supreme Court and thankfully the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

At stake in this case is parental authority itself. Provincial governments are increasingly taking over the role of parents, requiring all students to be taught what it believes is true, and even removing the freedom of parents to take their children out from objectionable classes.

Please continue to pray for the hearts of our Supreme Court justices, that they might render a good and just decision in this matter.

To view a 3-minute video update from ARPA’s legal counsel André Schutten, given immediately following the hearing, check out our YouTube video.

To read some reflections on the hearing from Cardus’ Ray Pennings, click here.

If you want to watch the hearing livestreamed, click here.

To read our written legal arguments (factum) see the PDF linked below.

To read Andre's op-ed published by the Ottawa Citizen on the morning of the hearing, click here.

ACES Factum final .pdf

Post 40—A Break: Humour and Other Ingredients, incl. some Truths (1)

  

The number 40 has strong symbolic meaning in the Book of books. So, this being Post 40 on this blog, I want to celebrate reaching this point by a change of pace, away from challenging, arguing and other fighting words. Note the (1) behind the title. I intend to do a similar post at number 80.  Of course, in the light of earlier promises about promises, this is not a promise, just a statement of intent. As long as it is an intention, I am not obligated to keep it and thus leaves me free. Welcome to a few moments of humour, some truths and other stuff. 

I am also considering ending at least occasional posts with a quotation, humorous or serious, probably mostly without any connection to the subject of the post it ends. If you have some worthwhile quotations you’d like to see on this blog-- humorous, true, just nicely put or whatever-- feel free to flash them to me. I may use them, giving you credit, name and all.

So, here’s the celebrative break:

Thomas Sowell, an American Black, economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author.

            The word “racism” is like ketchup. It can be put on practically anything—and demanding 
            evidence makes you a “racist.”

Elie Weisel, author, professor, Nobel Prize winner, political activist and witness to the Holocaust.

            No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgements are 
            wrong. Only racists make them.

George Bernard Shaw, Irish playright and ardent Socialist.

             A life spent making mistakes is not only more honourable, but more useful than a life    
             spent doing nothing.

            Clever and attractive women do not want to vote; they are willing to let men govern as long
            as they govern men.

Cicero, an ancient Roman philosopher, politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist, consul and constitutionalist.

           A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from 
           within. An enemy at the gate is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner 
           openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely.  A murderer is less to 
           fear.

George Sand, aka Amantine Lucile Dupin, French novelist.

           Charity degrades those who receive it and hardens those who dispense it.

Ralph Nader, American consumer advocate, lawyer and author.

           A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.

H. L. Mencken, an American journalist, satirist, cultural critic and scholar of American English.

         It is inaccurate to say I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common     
         honesty and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for any public office.

Rudyard Kipling, an English short-story writer, poet, and novelist.

            A woman’s guess is much more accurate than a man’s certainty.

Unknown

           You can think without speaking, but don't speak without thinking.

  

Nancy Gibbs in Time magazine of May 30, 2011.

            On cover:  “Sex. Lies. Arrogance. What makes powerful men act like pigs.”

            At bottom:  a pig with caption “No offence.”

Lisa McCullough Karstetter—unknown to me. 

(Hope I don't offend anyone!) Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel, "Pick up your shovels, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land." Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, "Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a Camel, this is the Promised Land." Today, Congress has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of Camels and mortgaged the Promised Land! I was so depressed last night thinking about health care, the economy, the wars, lost jobs, savings, Social Security, retirement funds, etc ...., I called a Suicide Hotline. I had to press 1 for English. I was connected to a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got excited and asked if I could drive a truck......Folks, we're screwed.

T. Alsbach, a Dutchman (You believe in tongues?) 

           Statistische verbanden zijn geen causale verbanden, dames en heren psychologen!! Volg   
           eens een cursus logica, argumentatieleer of wetenschapsfilosofie.

Post 39—Public Space for Prayer

            

I want to comment on an article in Mclean about dedicating space for religious practices at McGill University (Feb. 23, 2015, p. 42).  There are two issues in that article that I wish to address, one in this post and the other in post 41. (I interrupt the flow of these posts with a celebration in the 40^th.) 

First, then, there is the problem medical student Ahmer Wali has, namely the lack of suitable space for Muslim prayer on the campus. There is a small room dedicated to Muslim prayer sessions, but it is makeshift and too small, so that there is a long lineup of students waiting to get in. This would make him late for his next class.  So, he occasionally finds a quite spot in the library and politely asks the students to leave the area for him to pray. Most of them are accommodating. Some will pray “under staircases, in storage rooms and in empty classrooms.” In his capacity as President of the Muslim Student Association on the campus, Ahmer is fighting the administration for dedicated space. 

I quite understand the need for dedicated space for the long haul. It makes for more orderly prayer sessions and, hopefully, would accommodate all the religious groups on the campus, though the article is not clear whether Ahmer is struggling just on behalf of the Muslims or on behalf of all the religious groups. I also understand that the struggle for dedicated space is part of the ongoing struggle for religious freedom as Muslims perceive it. Even if Ahmer and his followers do not in principle need such a facility, they would probably fight for it in their attempt to expand their religious / human rights.

What is not clear to me is why these students endure these long lineups or the other cramped quarters like spaces under staircases or why they need to ask other students to interrupt their reading sessions in the library. While they continue to struggle for suitable arrangements, why not turn the entire campus into a mosque?  I have lived for 30 years in a country that currently has some 80 million plus Muslims and I have written eight volumes on Christian-Muslim relations. That’s another way of saying I know something about Islam, more so than most Westerners or Christians.

The relevant Muslim fact that I wish to single out here is that Islam does not require special dedicated spaces for prayer. The whole world can be turned into a mosque. At prayer time, a Muslim can simply stop whatever he is doing, spread out his prayer mat and go to it—anywhere, in any public or private space, in the market, along the road or street.  So, my advice to Ahmer is to simply spread out his mat wherever he finds himself at prayer time and pray. 

That advice may sound preposterous and even offensive to secular Westerners, while shy Christians would cringe with fear and embarrassment. Few Christians would have the courage for such public display of spirituality, but, generally, Muslims are not that shy. They are proud of their religion and tend to do all they can to display and demonstrate it. I have seen them pray under every imaginable circumstance on the edge of the most crowded conditions. So, Ahmer, why do you make it so difficult for yourself and your followers? While other students are strolling into the classroom, just kneel on your mat in the corner and pray. You’re waiting in a lineup for a bus? Just move aside and pray. Islam makes it so easy. 

Or could it be that the paralyzing influence of secularism is also taking its toll among Muslims as it has among Christians?  Is that why Muslim students seek to find private places where others don’t see them?  I wonder….

I am a Christian missionary and offer you a professional insight. Though many in this secular country would be offended by and scoff at such public displays of religion, there would be quite a number who will be impressed and who will start wondering and asking questions. That would provide an opening for you, an opening that will not develop if you hide yourself.

Why do I as a Christian missionary offer this advice? Because in a secular society like ours, if one religion is suppressed, others will suffer along with it. We do not need to trivialize our differences, but we do need to stand together in the face of our common opponent. A defeat for one religion along these lines is a defeat for all religions.

 
Ahmer, if you come across this article, feel free to contact me at www.SocialTheology.com. I will try my hardest to get it to you. 

Post 38--Secular Pseudo Tolerance

Hi, I’m back! Took a trip south of our border and was pressed for time in expanding my website,  < www.SocialTheology.com >, specifically the “Boeriana” page.  Check it out sometimes.

Continuing from the last post, many Muslims are surprised when their religion is considered intolerant of other religions and worldviews.  Look at history, they will argue, and you will see that when Westerners, usually equated with Christians, persecuted Jews in past centuries, Muslims gave them space to flourish, especially in Andalusia, the name for Muslim Spain of some centuries ago.

Christians react to this Muslim claim of toleration with equal surprise. Don’t they know their own history?  Where are the Christian communities that thrived in the past in countries now majority Muslim?  What happened to them and why?  Abraham Kuyper’s explanation in the previous post may not be the complete answer, but it certainly represents one of the major factors. 

So, now we have two surprised parties, Christians and Muslims.  But there is a third: the Secular community that currently is the reigning worldview in the West. While much of the Christian community accuses Secularism of intolerance, its adherents are dumbfounded about that charge. Why, Secularism represents the apex of freedom and human rights. It is the solution to every form of discrimination in this world, including that of Christianity and Islam.  Having observed and experienced this attitude for some decades now as a Christian, I am not surprised about this anymore, but certainly amazed, no matter how many years I have observed and experienced them.

Amazed about what? At the blindness of Secularists at their own intolerance, very much parallel to Muslim intolerance! I have friends among them whom I love very much, but my amazement remains in tact. Not only do they disagree with me, but they simply do not understand my arguments about their intolerance—as I have said above: just like Muslims. 

An example is Michael Den Tandt, a Vancouver Sun columnist for whom I have considerable respect and whom I generally enjoy reading (Jan 9/2015, B7). He described both “Orthodox Wahabism with its sharia law, stoning, female genital mutilation and chopping off of hands and heads” as “a barbaric facet of Islam.”  Christianity came under the same condemnation for its Spanish Inquisition. So far, so good. As a born-again Christian, I agree. He then asserted that “the two are alike, fundamentally the same, if freedom of thought and respect for the human spirit are the standards of comparison.” 

But I am amazed—not surprised—that he does not put secularism in this line up as equally barbaric and “fundamentally the same.”  Do I need to spell it out for you?  Why, abortion, of course. If that is not barbaric, I don’t know what it is.  The killing of the living unborn for the sake of female and  parental freedom and convenience. Millions and millions of them every year.  Earlier in the article he describes secularism, referred to as “the pluralistic way of life,” as “a good way of life.” Killing the absolutely vulnerable “a good way of life”?!  Millions?!

Den Tandt continues:

“…so too must civilized people today ‘insult’ the conventions of any belief system that tries to impose universal limits on free expression. Either we use the gifts of free thought and speech or we lose them.”  “It is not possible, in one web-linked world, for critical expression not to offend someone, somewhere. The choice is therefore to impose censorship, by self or others, or to accept that all human beings are free to think and speak independently, to criticize, to mock or needle, without fear of anything harsher than a rebuttal, and to gently but firmly insist that adherents of all belief systems get over it, and to never relent.

I’m almost done for the day. Den Tandt ends his article with this exhortation: “So, Islam, like Christianity, Judaism and the rest, just has to grow up. The more people speak, the easier that will get.”  I agree with that sentiment, provided “the rest” includes secularism, the reigning world view in the West. But you try to publicly critique homosexualism and you’ll have the entire secular community, the more educated section of it at least, on your neck not only, but you’ll find yourself in a human rights “court” in no time flat.

I adduce Den Tandt’s article only because it is the latest to come to my attention, but this issue deserves a ten-volume series afloat with the innumerable concrete examples that are out there waiting for exposure. I wonder why Den Tandt left out the secularists for their barbarism and intolerance? I think I know: His secular world view has blinded him to these perspectives and facts.  Michael, open your eyes and get over it!