The CAF’s new public ‘prayer ban’ is not an attack on religious freedom

Open this photo in gallery:

There’s an air of Justin-Trudeau-circa-2018 to the new Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) directive that now prohibits mention of God and other specific religious language during public events. It seems like a solution in search of a problem: not unlike the Trudeau government’s move to replace “in all thy sons command” in our national anthem to “in all of us command” in order to make it more “inclusive.” That revamped, improved national anthem nevertheless still makes reference to God (and so too does the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), which would technically prohibit its recitation under these new rules at events such as military parades, ribbon-cuttings and graduation ceremonies. Never mind that, I guess.

The new directive notes that because “the CAF has a duty of religious neutrality,” members providing remarks at public events must refrain from “using words, actions or symbols that are specific to a particular SFT [spiritual or faith tradition]” (with the exception of personal items of religious dress). That means that at official government events where prayer has been requested, chaplains are instead expected to offer “spiritual guidance” that does not mention God.

There is an exception for “Indigenous practices,” however, because their “inclusion supports reconciliation objectives,” according to the document. These Indigenous practices “must be relevant to the occasion and framed explicitly within an educational and cultural context,” but they can nevertheless be included. The directive does not elaborate on how an event can at once be religiously and spiritually neutral while incorporating the religious and spiritual practices of just one group (even in an educational capacity), but perhaps that contradiction can be sorted after we determine whether the words of O Canada violate the CAF’s commitment to religious neutrality.

Judgment on Quebec secularism law may land by end of November, Supreme Court chief justice says

So yes, this new measure seems a bit superfluous, and more than a little incoherent. But that does not render it inherently misguided. Conservatives, however, have taken a much stronger view; Ontario MP Andrew Lawton called the directive “absolutely egregious.” Manitoba MP James Bezan said it constitutes “attack on freedom of religion” and lamented that the CAF is being “used as a testing ground for woke Liberal social experiments.”

To be clear: This directive does not affect how members of the CAF can pray and worship on their own time. The policy also explicitly carves out exceptions for funerals, recognizing that a funeral is considered to be “family-led event that honours the family’s wishes.” It also notes that chaplains are not restricted “during private conversations (counselling), within faith-specific gatherings, or in their spiritual roles.” The new restriction is only when chaplains are speaking at public military ceremonies, where they are acting as representatives of the CAF (and thus the government), and not simply as faith leaders.

The change is thus less an “attack on freedom of religion” of the individual than it is a move to further secularize the government. That is a good thing; religious freedom in a democracy should mean the ability to practice one’s spiritual beliefs as desired, as well as freedom from religion imposed by the government and by others. In other words, people should be able to pray and observe however they want, as long as it does not meaningfully affect others.

Open this photo in gallery:

Obviously no one is being profoundly harmed by a quick prayer during a Remembrance Day ceremony, and one could make the argument that the restriction imposes more duress on those affected – or those who would perhaps find meaning from a public prayer – than just leaving things how they were. There’s also a nostalgic argument to be made about maintaining traditions and customs in the CAF, and in other institutions that have long incorporated some elements of faith, spirituality and devotion to God. But as a general rule, when it comes to religion in government, and religion as expressed by those representing the government, we should opt for less, not more.

Another way the CAF could have attempted to achieve religious neutrality (or greater religious neutrality) would have been to mimic what political organizations do in the U.S. Democratic and Republican conventions, for example, are opened or closed with prayers from a variety of faith leaders, including priests, imams, rabbis and so on. But this method would have inevitably left out one or more faith groups, and would also have turned public CAF ceremonies into extended prayer sessions that force members to entertain religious practice that has nothing to do with their service. Removing public religious expression is the better alternative, especially since it imposes no restriction on members’ private prayers. It is hardly the egregious affront to religious freedom that Conservatives are making it out to be, but rather, a sensible (if still a bit incoherent) step for a secular government.