Doug Saunders: ‘Religious freedom’ sends the wrong message to the wrong people

Its time to speak out against religious freedom.

Or, to be precise, against its promotion and the way its used. To those of us who believe freedoms should be absolute and robust, and are ardently opposed to the persecution of people for their beliefs, this might sound like an odd proposition. What could be more benign than another freedom?

2012: Tainted

But Canada is within days of opening a federal Office of Religious Freedom (within the Department of Foreign Affairs), and its becoming apparent that this isnt a good idea for our country or the world. In fact, its very likely to contribute to the very problems we hope it might help solve.

We might as well face it: When groups of people exercise their self-proclaimed religious freedoms, terrible things tend to happen. The phrase religious freedom is evoked by Hindu nationalist parties in India to justify killing rampages in Muslim neighbourhoods, by the Buddhist-majority government of Sri Lanka to imprison members of the countrys Hindu minority, by Jewish religious parties in Israel to call for the denial of Israeli Muslims full citizenship rights, and by crowds of Salafists and Islamists in Egypt bent on ruining the lives of Coptic Christians.

For the ardent religious believer and the organized, hierarchical religious organization, religious freedom often refers to the right to restrict the freedoms of others, or to impose ones religion on the larger world.

Thats why the most important religious freedom is freedom from religion. This applies not just to those without religion. Its even more important for believers, who are most often persecuted by other faiths. In those examples of persecution listed above, its protection from a religion not more freedom for believers thats needed.

The problem is that religious freedom is deliberately vague. Does it refer to the freedom of individuals to hold religious beliefs of their choice, to speak and write openly of those beliefs without penalty, and to partake in religious rituals on private property and at places of worship?

Those are fundamental rights. Theyre already protected in constitutional freedoms of speech, thought, conscience, assembly and basic equality. That our Constitution specifies a separate freedom of religion is redundant. That we would use a government office to promote religion above other freedoms is dangerous: It implies that theyre less important.

While Canadas Office of Religious Freedom will certainly be capable of defending people against the forces of religion (and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird mentions this possibility in his speeches), it appears to be hard-wired to do something far less benign. Its advisers and board members appear to be mainly religious believers and leaders of religious congregations.

See more here:
Doug Saunders: ‘Religious freedom’ sends the wrong message to the wrong people