By DONALD DeMARCO
Three Rabbis convened to determine which of the trio was the most liberal. “We are very liberal at our synagogue,” said the first. “We have installed ashtrays at the end of the pews so that people can smoke during the service if they so desire.” “That’s nothing,” piped the second. “We have ham sandwiches in the vending machines in the foyer.” “Ha-ha,” laughed the third Rabbi triumphantly. “We close the synagogue on Jewish holidays.”
As one continues to erase the boundaries, the point is reached in which one’s identity is obliterated. Heedless libertarianism effaces what it is supposed to fulfill. The Rabbis who are trying to outdo each other, however, are no longer a joke. They are Canadian politicians who, by being ultra-liberal, find themselves trampling on the authentic liberty of Christians. One cannot be ultra-liberal to some without being oppressive to others. Giving too much to one group means taking away from another.
Traditionally a society protects itself against reckless liberalism by establishing a Constitution or, in the case of Canada, a Charter of Rights. The British North America (Quebec) Act of 1774 guaranteed the free practice of the Catholic faith, stating that “the religion of the Church of Rome, of and in the said Province of Quebec, may have, hold, and enjoy, the free exercise of the Religion of the Church of Rome…and that the clergy of the said Church may hold, receive, and enjoy, their accustomed Dues and Rights, with respect to such Persons only as shall profess the said Religion.”
From a historical perspective, the Act of 1774 also provided a basis for a pluralism which allowed people of different convictions to live side by side in peace and harmony. The Canadian Supreme Court, in its recent June 15, 2019 decision, has overturned this tradition.
Trinity Western University (TWU) is a Christian community in British Columbia. It proposed to establish a law school and require its students and staff to agree not to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage while associated with the school. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that this requirement discriminates against LGBTQ students in that it “forces” them “to deny a crucial component of their identity in the most private and personal [way] for three years in order to receive a legal education.”
In dissent, two judges argued that the ruling quashed the school’s community covenant and violated Canada’s charter-protected religious freedoms.
It should be mentioned that TWU’s rule of conduct would apply equally to all, whether heterosexual or not. Therefore, it was not discriminatory in this sense. Furthermore, no LGBTQ member would be forced to come to TWU and would remain free to enroll at any number of other Canadian law schools.
In addition, it would be unlikely that a member of the LGBTQ set would want to attend the proposed law school at Trinity Western University, given its moral restrictions.
But it would be impossible for such a person to attend the law school if it did not exist. Ironically, the court, by refusing to allow the legitimacy of TWU’s moral policy, closed the door not only to LGBTQ students but to everyone. Because of the court’s decision, plans for erecting the law school have been scrapped.
The court, in trying to avoid discrimination, was actually guilty of the very vice it sought to prevent. It interpreted the “identity” of the prospective LGBTQ students as including sexual activity outside of marriage. This is a most unusual interpretation of a person’s “identity.” It did not regard the identity of heterosexual students in the same way.
On what basis could the court assume that heterosexual students can refrain from sex outside of marriage whereas LGBTQ students, because of their “identity,” either cannot or should not?
Canada’s Supreme Court has come up with a legal decision that is so “liberal” that excludes everyone. There will be no school and no students.
The implications of the court’s decision are far reaching. Ray Pennings, writing for the National Post, states that “the impact of the court’s decision against TWU will seriously afflict the engagement of religious communities with public life across the country, regardless of whether it’s the Catholic Church, the Salvation Army or Muslim and Jewish charitable organizations.”
The court envisions religion as something that must be kept private. At the same time, it awards a significant place, both legally and sociologically, to the LGBTQ tandem, commonly described as a “community.” It cannot be repeated enough that the word “community” is sorely misplaced.
Moreover, this motley group is not composed of homogenous or like-minded people. There is no reason to believe that lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered people and those for whom the letter “Q” is an emblem have much in common. They are often antagonistic toward each other. As a group, they represent a fictitious construct.
John McKellar identifies himself as “an openly gay male.” He is the founder of HOPE, an acronym that stands for Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism. His status does not, in the least, prevent him from recognizing the critical need in society for the stabilizing factors that heterosexual marriages provide. “Humankind yearns for these stabilizing factors in this kaleidoscopic world,” he writes, “and if we abandon these standards, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral.”
He understands that by taking liberties with liberty, liberty itself is lost in the process, to the detriment of society and all of its citizens.
A good marriage is to society what a good Constitution is to a commonwealth. They both provide a context within which life can grow and prosper. The enthusiasm for liberalizing everything is ruinous to both. They serve as the framework of life. They are healthiest when they are limited.
As G.K. Chesterton has noted, “Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If in your bold creative way you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress