Prejudices: Secular Movement in Quebec

Currently, there is a huge polemic in Quebec government about the secularization of public institutions. Debates on the separation of the religion and the state are open and the public reaction is divided. People speak about freedom of speech and human rights, or about freedom of conscience and separation of church and state. In the end, the government will make a decision and there will be disappointment, but for now debates are open. My friends and I can't escape these debates.

I was chatting with a friend this weekend and she brought up the subject, telling me how shocked she was about the debates. I thought at the beginning that she was for secularization, but then I realize she was shocked about the lack of the government's open-mindedness. So, I interrogated her and we debated.

As we are both non-practising catholic Christians, at first I was a bit surprise to hear her take a position against secularization. She explained to me that she didn't need to practice a religion to understand that people need it in their life, and that we should have the right to express our faith everywhere. She was using the freedom of speech argument and she was very adamant about it.

I agree with freedom of speech. Of course, who would be against it? Without it, I wouldn't be able to write this blog right now. Everybody has the right to express their ideas and I don't think the law on secularization will change that. In fact, I think this law will help freedom of speech and the following paragraph explains why.

When the government speaks about secularization, it is not to force people to abandon their practice or to shut them up. It is a concern of uniformity, so nobody is allowed to judge one another based on their belief or religion. Without the prejudices, it is easier to listen to someone's opinion and to consider it. I'm not saying it will erase all prejudices. There will still be the sex, the race, and the age prejudices, but if we can eliminate some of them, I think it is worth it to give it a chance.

Normally it's here that people against secularization start to say, "Ok! We agree, but it is not everybody that has prejudices. Plus, politicians and state workers should be able to get over those prejudices to do their work. It is unprofessional to let their prejudices blind their judgment." To that I answer that we are human.

What does it mean to be human? In the present context, it just means that as an individual, each person judges their environment in relation to their own experience. This is how society is constructed, and where all our social rituals stem from. It is normal to have prejudices and EVERYBODY has prejudices. Sometimes they are negatives-- we normally try to get rid of those-- but often they are positive and are translated by curiosity. Prejudices are often accompanied by discrimination that can also be negative or positive. For example, some company will employ handicapped people to help them to integrate into society, but other companies will avoid them for the collateral costs. In the both case, we can speak about discrimination, the first one positive, the second negative.

Let's come back to the secularization of the state. The government tries to avoid both kinds of discrimination when it is about state decisions and I don't think the public wants their delegate to be influenced by their prejudices. They want to eliminate those preconceived ideas and allow people to speak freely about state matter. I don't personally think that removing religion symbols from the state will affect freedom of speech.

The secularization of the state is not against religion. It is for the state, a place where everybody should focus on government matter, not on the culture-- unless you are the minister of culture, of course. It is also a place where everybody should be considered equal in front of each other and I think it should be the same in school.