Why the Office of Religious Freedom needs to specifically, clearly state it also recognizes and defends to right of freedom from religion.

Father Raymond J. De Souza’s mockery of that idea is a perfect example of why this is so.

(photo)
By the way, de Souza was one of the six panelists who advised the harper government on this new office. (that post by Alison is very good, showing what thinking harbours in the mind of the new “ambassador” and how this can affect all Canadians)
As the childless father de Souza sings praises to Harper crediting him for an “old Canada passing away, and a new Canada emerging,” “A religious Canada, strong and free, “ as he puts it, he berates the media for wondering how this office will affect atheists.

“A particularly bizarre media preoccupation was what the ORF would do for atheists. It is an interesting intellectual exercise - like how the minister of sport might serve the aggressively sedentary - but rather beside the point when actual mosques are bombed, or when Christians have to hold midnight Mass in the daytime where it is too dangerous to go to Mass after dark. People are being killed for their faith, Canada's government is sounding the alarm, and the national media is preoccupied with questions only relevant in the highly secular circles that consider religious liberty akin to the freedom to choose one hobby over another. “

It is not beside the point. Freedom of religion is not possible unless you are also free not to have other religions forced on you. It isn’t enough to grant Christians the right to practice Christianity if you also force them to pray to another god and in ways that violate their own beliefs.

Atheists want that same freedom, the freedom not to have to practice any religion or pretend to follow any god without facing discrimination, punishment, or even death.

It seems that many religious people fail to understand that not only do atheists cherish the freedom not to have someone else’s religious beliefs forced upon them as adamantly as religious people do, they fail to recognize that atheists are persecuted world-wide for not pretending to believe according to what some religious groups demand.

Atheists and other religious skeptics suffer persecution or discrimination in many parts of the world and in at least seven nations can be executed if their beliefs become known… "unbelievers" in Islamic countries face the most severe - sometimes brutal - treatment at the hands of the state and adherents of the official religion.

But it also points to policies in some European countries and the United States which favor the religious and their organizations and treat atheists and humanists as outsiders… "there are laws that deny atheists' right to exist, curtail their freedom of belief and expression, revoke their right to citizenship, restrict their right to marry."

Other laws "obstruct their access to public education, prohibit them from holding public office, prevent them from working for the state, criminalize their criticism of religion, and execute them for leaving the religion of their parents."

…In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.

By the stupid analogy comparing atheist to “the aggressively sedentary” and their relationship with a sports Minister, de Souza is being very dishonest and deliberately spreads contempt for the atheist’s right not to be forced to pretend to believe in a god. If we must use his rude analogy, let’s correct it:

“ It is an interesting intellectual exercise - like how the minister of sport might serve the aggressively sedentary” if the aggressively sedentary is being forced to pretend to love sports, must engage in sports, must pay taxes for sports they are opposed to, and must never, ever express any concerns they have about sports.

I, like many Canadians, see no reason for an Office of Religious Freedom in Canada, but if there is one, it must also include strong statements on freedom from religion or it will be used to set religion as the norm, the greater right, the Canadian way, a necessary part in shaping our laws.

Religion affects non-believers, especially when someone like de Souza comes along and declares our country is now a religious Canada. This strongly implies that religion is the basis for our laws. It also implies that religion is the normalcy, by decree.

Stating that a country is better if it is religious falsely claims that being non-religious is undesirable and harmful to the country. What impact will such a belief, if widely held, have on non-believers and how they are treated? We know that answer: persecution, exclusion, even the threat of execution.

Had de Souza said that Canada is a Canada that respects freedom of religion, I would not object. I would have been happier if he would have said it is a country that respects freedom of, and freedom from religion, but men like him are blind to any beliefs but their own and so cannot fathom the harm others can suffer by having those beliefs forced upon them, or how this violates the rights of non-believers.