What bugs me most about this whole affair is how much damage it has done to the credibility of secularists and secularism in general. I’ve seen Ministers on TV criticizing the “Charter of Values” by repeating the slogan “it’s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion”, and while it’s obviously an abuse of the idea, it’s hard to correct them given the situation. Secularism itself might end up associated with intolerance, undermining years of work we’ve done explaining the opposite.

We – all atheists, secularists, and humanists – should have been full-throated in unanimous condemnation of the faux-“secular” pretensions of the PQ. (CFI did a good job there, actually.) Anytime someone used the word “secular” in association with the Charter of Values, we should have spoken out and made it clear that the word was being co-opted and abused – that real secularism does not mean selective suppression of minority religions, or taking away individual rights to harmless free expression (while leaving the majority religion which actually does have influence on government untouched, and all existing inappropriate religious symbolism in government institutions intact). Instead, we’ve got these bullshit AFT press releases deliberately conflating secularism with the Charter (while at the *same time*, each spends 2/3 of its time pointing out exactly how the Charter is *not* actually about secularism).

From now on any time we try to make a case for less religion in government, we’re probably going to have to deal with accusations of being like “that”, and waste our time and efforts trying to explain why we do not and never did support selective discrimination or suppression of personal expression, ultimately weakening our message and impact.

As you pointed toward, it seems unreasonable to believe that allowing the wearing of personal, symbolic religious symbols is advocacy on the part of the state. Conversely, restricting such symbols can hardly be a step toward secularization because everyone knows such articles of clothing are purely personal. As I said in my own blog, I had a prof at university who wore a Che Guevara t-shirt but I knew that didn’t mean the state was not advocating revolutionary communism.

Furthermore, as far as I can see, if ‘atheism’ does not contribute to our ability to embrace difference then it is no better than most organized religion.

Thanks for the interesting post.