A secularist gag order
A new policy forbids military chaplains from not only praying, but from referring to God or the divine in spiritual reflections. They are being required to be publicly secular.
The eminent Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor calls our time the Secular Age, a time when life can be lived without reference to God or the transcendent. Belief in God is only one option. For military chaplains, conforming to the secular age in their public pronouncements is now compelled.
The policy applies to chaplains when speaking at government-sponsored events or where members of the Canadian Armed Forces are expected or required to attend. It also applies when they are speaking publicly in their capacity as CAF members. It even applies to Remembrance Day ceremonies even though they are hosted by the Legion, a non-governmental organization.
In public venues, chaplains are often the ones asked to provide a reflection or meditation, historically a prayer of solace, as Canadians gather to remember those who served and continue to serve, and acknowledge the pain and suffering that accompanies this sacrifice. Belief in something beyond humanity must now be privatized and the historic public ritual muted in its fulness.
What has long been a practice to comfort military personnel and their families in times of remembrance for sacrifices made is now stripped of transcendent allusion. We can now only gather publicly to remember sacrifice as if honour, gratitude, hope, duty, compassion are but human manufacture.
Under the previous policy, before chaplains gave a spiritual reflection or prayed a nondenominational prayer, they would offer a preamble that recognized that members of the audience would adhere to a variety of beliefs, including those who believe and those who do not believe in the transcendent or the divine. In 2023 the policy changed to prohibit any prayer. Now even a mention of God or the divine is proscribed.
Christian chaplains are being required to be mute about their faith and how it informs their understanding of life – in effect hiding it under a bushel (Matthew 5:15).
I am a member of the Interfaith Committee for Canadian Military Chaplaincy, representing many of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s affiliate denominations with serving chaplains. This years-long debate over prohibiting prayer and now the mention of God or the divine has raised substantive issues about the role of chaplains serving in a religiously diverse context: how they can serve those of their own faith traditon while caring for all, the meaning of state neutrality and the nature of pluralism, and what fairness entails. Is there an approach that does not succumb to privileging one view above others?
Read more.
___________________________________________
A recent Quebec court decision found that the cancellation of Harvest Ministries International’s rental agreement violated their freedom of expression. The EFC welcomed this decision.
Going back through our archives, we found a couple more court decisions about religious freedom in cases in which the EFC intervened.
-
Aga v. Ethiopian Orthodox [2020-2021]
The EFC was an intervener in a Supreme Court of Canada case about whether ecclesiastical decisions about membership and discipline are outside of the scope of judicial review.
The Court ruled that courts have jurisdiction in the affairs of voluntary associations only if there is a legal right involved, such as a property right or a matter of employment. The EFC welcomed the decision in a statement.
-
Aga v. Ethiopian Orthodox [2020-2021]
The Ktunaxa Nation opposed the development of a ski resort on their traditional territories – in particular in an area of land that is sacred to them – on the basis it would desecrate the sacred site and interfere with their spiritual practices.
The EFC and Christian Legal Fellowship intervened in this case because it raised important questions about religious freedom.
The majority of the Supreme Court confirmed that the provincial minister making the decision about the land development should have considered the freedom of individuals and communities to hold religious beliefs and to manifest or express them in worship and practice. However, the majority also concluded that the minister’s failure to consider it was “immaterial” in this case, because the freedom to worship does not protect the object of religious belief or the spiritual focal point of worship – in this case, the Spirit of the Great Bear.