Column: Can we talk about religion? Do we have to?

Polite company thus saves its participants from a variety of unpleasant emotions and experiences like doubt and discord, but thankfully it is not the only kind of conversation available to us.

Eventually everyone has to leave the pleasantly bleached world of polite company and rejoin the real world. There, all of us have to encounter, evaluate and react to views on important matters with which we disagree.

My guess is that religion is often judged an impolite topic because it involves more far-reaching value or truth judgments than most political or financial questions (in passing, if I am right, philosophy should go on the list alongside religion). In any case, religion has a way of staying in the headlines, even in Western societies that recently thought they might become post-religious.

This being the case, it can’t hurt to think through what talking about religion involves, and how it can be done in a civil, productive way.

The Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) ensures freedom of religion and freedom of speech alongside each other (section 1(c,d)), much like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) protects “freedom of conscience and religion” alongside that of “thought, belief, opinion and expression” (section 2(a,b)). Clearly these statutes do not give one the right to say anything one wishes, and some freedoms outrank others.

As an example, public speech that is intended to “incite hatred ... likely to lead to a breach of the peace” is punishable under Section 319(1) of the Criminal Code. On the other hand, speech that is truthful or intended to “establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject” is not punishable (section 319.3(b)).

These laws suggest we should ask at least two questions of religious (and other) discourse in the public sphere: What is the speaker trying to do by speaking; and, does this goal cross ethical or legal lines?

In the anticipated scenarios just mentioned, it seems that the intention of inciting hatred is punishable, while the intention of proving one’s point in an argument is not (motive). It also seems to be assumed that any true statement can be made in a civil way, while one can speak in unacceptable ways even if what one says is not true.

Each democratic society makes rules for acceptable public discourse, including how important yet potentially divisive topics can be handled in civil and helpful ways. The 2013 repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (1977 and as amended) is a case in point, with a majority of lawmakers convinced that exposing someone “to hatred or contempt” by telephonic means was too blunt an instrument for protecting individual citizens from those ills (neither truth nor intent played a role in evaluating the communication).

Our laws allow public discourse to touch on topics that might be judged too delicate in some quarters (for more arbitrary reasons), and that is a good thing. Truth and understanding are not easy to attain in any area of life that is important, and their pursuit depends on our collective willingness to speak and listen in ways that promote that effort and, through it, the good of our society.

Daniel Timmer is an assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Sudbury.