Quebec’s laïcité should be ‘soft,’ socially inclusive

Let’s not stigmatize religion, which can be a force for much good, Chris Barrigar says.

Laïcité is a firmly established term in Quebec’s self-understanding, but there is a spectrum of ideas about what it means.

Lise Ravary argues for what we could call “hard” laïcité: “religions should be kept out of all state institutions” (“Laïcité can help block advance of political Islam” Oct. 23). In explaining her position, she says many Quebecers are afraid of “more Islam” in public institutions (including schools), and of the violence in France coming here. She reminds her readers that “More than 500 French Muslims joined ISIS. Who can forget Charlie Hebdo, le Bataclan and the people killed in Nice on Bastille Day?” Consequently, her position is that all influence and signs of religion should be kept out of state institutions.

Many proponents of this type of laïcité seem to hold a negative view of religion. While it’s true that religion can be a source of harm, we could also point to the enormous good that comes from religion, beginning with examples here in Montreal. I think, for instance, of the Jewish community’s significant support for special needs people in this city, regardless of religion or creed (or no creed). Or the Sikh community’s support for local community services. Or the Protestant community’s work for immigrant integration and youth literacy. Or the Catholic community’s support for the homeless. Or the Ahmadiyya Muslim Youth Association’s support for the secular community organization where I volunteer. The list goes on.

Furthermore, over the past several decades, there have been hundreds of social science studies examining the effect of religion and religiosity on individual well-being; and the widespread conclusion is that, on balance, religious practices (individual and collective) correlate to improved measures of psychosocial well-being.

These range from reducing youth suicide attempts to increasing volunteerism, from reducing male sexual aggression to increasing lifespans, from decreasing illicit drug use to increasing happiness. Public discussion and policy need to recognize such benefits associated with religion and religiosity — but society loses access to these because stereotypes about religion mean that anything that seems even faintly “religious” gets automatically marginalized.

Hard laïcité, with its stereotyping and tendency to “us-versus-them” thinking, unavoidably produces isolation and alienation, and so will move us toward, not away from, conditions like those in France.

We need, then, a version of laïcité that gets us past stereotypes and opens up doors for majorities and minorities to work together for the benefit of all in Quebec.

For instance, Ravary mentions the Islamist violence in France but does not mention who committed the violence here in Quebec. Alexandre Bissonnette and Martin Couture-Rouleau were both secular-raised Québécois. Such selective memory perpetuates “us-versus-them” thinking. But as the killings at the Pittsburgh synagogue remind us, every sector of society, whether religious or secular, has its fringe elements from which violence can emerge.

Rather than stereotyping a minority community as potentially violent, secular and religious leaders should undertake a shared effort to understand, identify and resist the potential for violence from any direction.

Harm and benefit can be found in every area of humanity, secular and religious. So rather than making pronouncements or policy that cast religion solely in a negative light, our collective task should be to discuss and identify the qualities we as a society want to strengthen or diminish, whether such qualities are found in religious or secular locations, then base policy decisions on these desired qualities.

A softer laïcité guards the state against preferential treatment of, or influence from, any particular religious tradition, yet views religions inclusively, as voices worth listening to, as with other voices in society.

This softer laïcité also means that religious symbols worn by government agents will reflect social inclusivity, equality of opportunity, and governmental protection of our freedoms — unlike in countless other parts of the world. Chris Barrigar is pastor of St. Peter’s Anglican Church in Town of Mount Royal.