Unreasonable non-accommodation

In the 18th and 19th centuries, governments faced questions about integrating Jews, members of a minority religion, into general society. Would they be loyal citizens? Could they wear traditional clothing in public? As Canadians debate Quebec’s proposed charter of values, we again ask similar questions about the limits of religious freedom and multiculturalism. Are religious distinctiveness and cultural differences good or problematic? If we draw lines, what and where should they be? As Yogi Berra once said, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.”

Western thought points to a progression from the particular to the universal in our quest for truth. The desire for oneness has led to equality of citizenship and universal rights. However, as Isaiah Berlin noted, the monist quest for the ideal also led to a totalism within medieval religion and modern politics that diminished diversity and brought great suffering to many. The latest manifestation of this pursuit of the universal is the proposed charter of values.

In contrast, the Bible begins with the universal Creation and then shifts to the specific saga of Abraham. Martin Buber contrasts the platonic desire for universal truth with the prophetic call for individual justice. The Torah often reminds us about the stranger, because to dignify the other is difficult. In the terminology of Emmanuel Levinas, we are called to see the visage of the other and to respond with moral responsibility.

If a contemporary challenge for religions is whether they can dignify difference, liberal democracies are similarly tested. Charles Taylor observes that the quest for human dignity is expressed in two ways: as the protection of basic, common human rights, the politics of equality, or the acknowledgement of the particularities of individuals and groups, the politics of difference. Nations committed to the politics of equality want procedures and laws to be the same for all, regardless of race or creed, while countries that emphasize the politics of difference have substantive views about what constitutes a good life.

In theological terms, the commonality of what Rabbi Jonathan Sacks calls a “covenant of fate” leads to the secular concept of equal citizenship, a commitment to act with fairness, while the distinctiveness of a covenant of faith generates a particular perspective about what constitutes the good life. Taylor thinks English Canada generally focuses on equality and individual rights, accepting cultural diversity as a private decision, but ignoring issues of group cultural survival. In contrast, French Canada affirms individual human rights and respects diversity, while allowing for collective national goals.

In Canada, we enshrine both expressions of human dignity. It is, therefore, quite contrary that Quebec, which demands distinctiveness for French culture, should legislate against minority expression of religious identity. The proposed charter of values would enshrine unreasonable non-accommodation.

In Canada, we should continue to seek both the protection of universal rights and the reasonable accommodation of individuals and groups. We must recognize and respect distinctiveness, so long as it does not harm or cause significant hardship to others. Quebec should seek to cultivate difference, even as it affirms the cultural values that enable it to remain a distinct society. The proposed charter of values is not the way to go.

Rabbi Baruch Frydman-Kohl