Religious people often claim that they are being persecuted when they are denied the right to interfere in other people’s rights. This inverted sense of persecution appears any time legislation is formulated to level the playing field for others. The two classic examples in Canada are same-sex marriages and abortion laws. Both of these are legal in Canada, the former because of Bill C38 that legalizes same-sex civil marriages and the latter because there is no law against abortion before the foetus has reached a certain age. Neither of these pieces of legislation bear any penalty if someone chooses, for whatever reason, not to participate. However, some religious leaders insist on repeating the mantra that this is a form of persecution.
Bill C38, a law that simply makes the civil union (marriage) of two consenting adults of the same gender legal, does not contain any clauses or even implications that religions are compelled to perform same-sex marriages. The Liberal government that passed the legislation had the Supreme Court of Canada review the law and verify this before it ever got to the House of Commons let alone became law.
What C38 does is allow same-sex partners to attain legal status as a married couple, a status that carries with it several spousal rights under the law – survivor pension benefits, income splitting for tax purposes, assumed power of attorney for medical treatment, property rights – that are really important in life’s rocky moments. It does not confer the right to any kind of moral blessing from anyone. Churches are free to bless such marriages or not just as they have been free to bless or refuse to bless marriages for other reasons (mixed-faith marriages, for example).
Abortions are certainly more fraught with emotion and ethical dilemma than allowing people whose genetic makeup makes them homosexual to marry. However, the person intimately involved with the decision definitely needs moral and emotional support that matches individual needs, not judgement based on some dogmatic religious rule. If that person does not accept abortion as an option no-one is going to charge her with not having an abortion. Anyone who withholds emotional or medical support for that person is definitely wrong, but that has to do with basic human ethics, not any law. In short, if someone chooses to follow the doctrine of a given church and refuse an abortion, that is a legitimate choice. However, for religions to claim that they should be able to impose their dogma on society is to claim that they have a monopoly on everyone else’s morals.
In short, giving some people legal permission to make their own ethical decisions does not prevent religious people from making their own decisions. At worst, it prevents them from trying to impose their ethics on others.
Of course the religious attitude that laws and people outside their religion should be forced to follow their dogma is a clear indication of the arrogance that religions have. For thousands of years various religions in various parts of the world have meddled in the affairs of mankind with decidedly mixed results. Under their hegemony, mankind has lurched from crusades to violent jihads, and from pogroms to inquisitions all in the name of preserving the right of a few bigoted men to force others to accept their dogmas.
In an open society like Canada’s, the right to make one’s own decisions must be protected and the laws of the land must provide the means to make those decisions. Those who choose to follow religious dogmas are free to do so. Indeed, their right to do so is protected under the law. No right to impose religious dogmas on others is protected by any law, nor should it be.
