Chris Selley: Want to be atheist? Be coherent first

Chris Selley on Webber Academy losing its case against no prayer allowed on its premises:

But it’s not hard to see why they lost. Webber claims visible religious practice is a direct affront to its central ethos, but its ethos doesn’t seem to be very coherent: It allows students to wear turbans and hijabs, for example. The school tried to distinguish between garments as “a state of ‘being’” and prayer as “a visible activity,” which the tribunal kiboshed on principle; but in any event the activity wouldn’t have been “visible” had the school provided a private space. And Neil Webber, the school’s president, certainly did himself no favours by suggesting a student quickly crossing himself might not be a problem.

There was confusion as to what was allowed and what wasn’t: At the time they were enrolled, the students’ parents say they were assured prayer space could be made available; the school claims the exact opposite. In fact various teachers were happy to find them prayer space at first. And the confusion is understandable, considering it all rests on an interpretation of the term “non-denominational institution” that precludes prayer. That simply isn’t what “non-denominational” means. Per Oxford, it means “not restricted as regards religious denomination” (my italics).

A school that was more coherently dedicated to a religion-free environment might fare better

Webber is appealing. Sarah Burton, a lawyer at the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, told CBC she wouldn’t be surprised if it wound up at the Supreme Court. But Richard Moon, a University of Windsor law professor who has written extensively on religious freedom, thinks the tribunal got it right. “The school purports to be open to students from all backgrounds,” he notes — indeed its statement of “beliefs and values” promises “an atmosphere where young people of many faiths and cultures feel equally at home” — “and so [it] must accommodate the students’ religious practices … if [it] can do so without great hardship.”

A school that was more coherently dedicated to a religion-free environment might fare better, however. “There is no reason to think that a strong, sincere and sufficiently comprehensive secular belief would not merit protection,” says Victor Muñiz-Fraticelli, a law and political science professor at McGill University: “a strong and principled atheism,” for example; or the French laïcité model promoted by the Agence pour l’Enseignement Français à l’Étranger — a French government agency that accredits francophone schools abroad, including several in Canada. Moon agrees, suggesting a “Bertrand Russell School” or “Richard Dawkins Academy” would also have better luck in the courts.

That’s cold comfort for Webber Academy. But the good news is that any school clearly articulating a “no prayer” policy is very unlikely to attract students for whom prayer is a daily obligation. And if it did, I’d like to think most people would consider any complainers far more unreasonable than the policy.

Chris Selley: Want to be atheist? Be coherent first