Canada's secularism not neutral.

A number of people think that a democratic state which is secular has an advantage over one which is based on one or other religious philosophy. Secular democracy, so it is thought, stands above the fray of clashing theological opinions and therefore is neutral and objective and much more palatable to people than any other.

Now the secular state as we know it in Canada is not even 50 years old. Before that time the spirit which inspired personal behaviour in society and which also, for example, provided the necessary philosophy for the Criminal Code, was still Christian, even though Christianity had suffered from, and had been sorely weakened by, internal division for a long time.

As for international relations, Christianity may never have had much influence at all, and certainly not since the rise of the nation states in the sixteenth century.

At any rate, Canada and Britain and the United States were not "secular." The earliest truly secular state phenomenon in the world occurred with the violent outburst of the French revolution, 1789 and years following, and immediately led to a people's totalitarianism ending in dictatorship and one-man rule. It overthrew Christianity and trampled upon the Church--according to the cry of Voltaire: "Ecrasez l' infame!"--much to the delight of the large class of scoffers and unbelievers.

A second secular and, this time, a pre-determined godless society was instituted by the Bolshevists in 1917, with all the subsequent horrors thereof. As we know, it lasted seventy years in Eastern Europe and still continues in China.

Today, a third secular world is evolving, this time in the West, including Canada. It is marked by consumerism, hedonism and individualism and, at first sight, seems to have none of the violence of the other two. "Seems to have", that is, for those who have no eyes to see. But recall the violent assault on the preborn of the last thirty years.

Everywhere the new secular society is in process of undermining democracy. See Professor Hunter's article, "Supreme Court usurps Parliament," in this issue. It reflects on the systematic replacement of Christian virtues by secular values, and shows how these inferior values are aggressively being imposed by the judiciary in the name of Mr. Trudeau's unholy Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The starting point of Canadian secularism, in my mind, may be found in Pierre Trudeau's December 1967 declaration in the House of Commons--he was then a newly appointed Minister of Justice--that theological principles should, or would, have no bearing on Canadian affairs.

Trudeau was essentially an eighteenth century Deist, about to embark on a hedonistic lifestyle, as recently confirmed by more details of his relationship with guitarist Liona Boyd. "Deists" are people who believe in the existence of God but don't think He has any further connection to this world. This explains Trudeau's obstinate opposition to placing God in the preamble of the Charter, done despite his obstructionism.

One of Trudeau's creations was the Law Reform Commission with the guiding norm that morality "evolves." Among its members was Antonio Lamer, today's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, whose guiding principle, for example, in the 1994 assisted suicide case of Sue Rodriguez was--see Hunter--that "the Court should answer this question without reference to the philosophical and theological considerations fuelling the debate on the morality of suicide or euthanasia...." The same Chief Justice has also admitted that his legal contribution to the 1988 Morgentaler abortion ruling was determined not by moral conviction but by opinion polls (see "Chief Justice shocks Canada", C.I., September 1998).

Trudeau's most disastrous contribution to Canadian politics--next to the 1969 Omnibus Bill--is the 1982 Charter, now used to justify the most outrageous decisions as well as the direct subversion of Parliament. Needless to say, it has a long train of consequences, including ridiculous rulings by Human Rights Commissions, such as equal pay for unequal work, and subversive ones in favour of sodomy, including the bullying and penalizing of the mayors of Hamilton, London, Fredericton, Kelowna, and Regina for not bestowing their blessing on Gay Pride Days.

Add a series of obnoxious decisions by judges--the January 1999 child- pornography ruling of Mr Justice Duncan Shaw of Vancouver being only the latest--and it becomes clear that the judiciary and the legal profession are now as partisan and as hostile to Christianity and sanity as the media.

Let me conclude with one final example from our current News in Brief section (p. 31). In the fall of 1998 Madam Justice Mary Saunders of the B.C. Supreme Court, quoting the B.C. School Act, ordered the Surrey School Board to reconsider its ban of three kindergarten and Grade One books promoting the "gay" lifestyle. Her grounds? Opposition to these books, she declared, was based on religious convictions which parents want to pass on to their children. But religious convictions "violate" the character of state schools, which must be secular!

Secularism is not neutral and not beneficial. It is aggressive and it is destroying Canada.