The recent incident involving a male at Toronto’s York University who objected, on religious grounds, to taking part in a seminar with female students suggests that the issue of reasonable religious accommodation is not confined to la Belle Provence. It is one that engages us all. The Western world is committed to the ideal of a secular state, that is one which is neutral in its legislative and judicial functions with respect to matters of religious faith. No one church or religious faith is to be privileged over any other; all are to be treated equally.
So how does this work out in practice? What the Quebec government proposes in Bill 60 is the path of a militant secularism, which pushes beyond mere neutrality to a wholesale banning of religious symbols in the public sphere. The message is that religious faith is not to intrude into our common public space; it is to be confined to the realm of private preference.
The response from across the religious spectrum in Quebec has been a loud “no” to this understanding of a secular state. The preferred option was spelled out by the Bouchard – Taylor Commission in 2008. It argued for a version of secularism that is authentically pluralistic. One in which there is room for different religious, philosophical and political voices. Neutrality ought not mean silence and exclusion, but equal opportunity to shape the political discussion and moral consensus on which any society rests. This sort of secularism—one grounded in respectful dialogue—promises an enrichment and rejuvenation of a democratic culture that has been rendered sterile by its studied ignorance of the deep religious convictions of its citizens.
Correction: The original letter published in the magazine mistakenly identified the male student as Jewish. At the time of publication the religious identity of the student was unknown. It is still unknown. We apologize for the error.
