Participants:
Series Code: IIWC
Program Code: IIWC201704A
|
01:20 ♪♪ ♪♪ >> It has stood the test of
01:33 time. God's book, the Bible. Still relevant in today's 01:40 complex world. "It Is Written," sharing messages of hope around the 01:48 world. ♪♪ ♪♪ 02:02 >> Dear friends, over the last few weeks, we've been having a 02:05 wonderful discussion on the issue of freedom of religion and 02:09 freedom of choice. Now, if you've happened to miss 02:12 any of the shows, you can go to our website ItIsWrittenCanada.ca 02:16 or to our YouTube channel, www.YouTube.com/IIWCanada. 02:23 There, you can find archives of these programs, where we've 02:28 discussed the very basis of any orderly society, and that is 02:33 freedom of religion or freedom of choice. But beyond that, it's actually 02:38 the very basis of the government of God -- the freedom to choose, God's love expressed through the 02:46 choice of saying "Yes" or saying "No" to him. God originally created that 02:53 choice right in the garden of Eden. Gentlemen, I'm so glad that 02:57 you're here to join me. We have Kevin Boonstra, lawyer from Vancouver, Mark Johnson, 03:02 President of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Canada, headquartered in 03:05 Oshawa, Ontario, and Gerry Chipeur, headquartered as a lawyer right there in Calgary. 03:12 You know, Gerry, I've had wonderful times in Calgary, spent about a month in Calgary 03:16 giving some Bible lectures. Really appreciate the city of Calgary. 03:19 >> Glad you enjoyed it. >> Glad all of you are here today. 03:23 By the way, Kevin, that's not to say that I don't enjoy Vancouver. 03:25 I've spent a fair amount of time in Vancouver, and my home is in Oshawa, so I'm thrilled to 03:31 actually be anywhere I can in Canada. Here's the question, gentlemen. 03:36 As we talk about this issue of freedom of choice, the freedom of religion, we've talked about 03:44 institutions, we've talked about individuals, but then there is a very core concept -- and I'm 03:50 going to ask you, Mark, to speak of it from the Bible -- of a unit that also should enjoy the 03:57 expression of freedom. And what is that unit? And it's actually one of the 04:01 very core pieces of how society's organized. 04:05 >> Well, the beginning of the history of the world from a 04:09 Christian worldview starts in the garden of Eden. And in that context, you have 04:16 the nuclear unit of society, which is the family. First Adam and Eve, then, of 04:22 course, children come along. Scripture all the way back deep into the Old Testament really 04:29 talks about the role of the family, the role of children, speaks about honoring parents 04:36 when it comes to children in the Ten Commandments. Also speaks to parents on the 04:41 other side and suggests that you don't try to provoke your children to wrath in the words 04:47 of the old King James version of the Bible. And so there is a mutual respect 04:53 and a sense that here is kind of a building block of society -- children in the context of older 05:01 generations working together toward a common good, having a common focus that goes beyond 05:09 the interest of a generation. And so God designs the family as a part of the working component 05:17 of society as we see it today. >> One of the things I enjoy most about reading the 05:21 scriptures in the context of the family is that the family is constructed as a unit in which 05:27 parents are educating the children to be orderly citizens not only of Heaven, but orderly 05:36 citizens of this very world that they live in, and it conveys these principles and values as 05:42 it's passed on from generation to generation, and I enjoy the one text that talks about the 05:48 binding of the Ten Commandments, so to speak, upon the forehead of the child, just implanting in 05:55 their mind. And when you read the Hebrew, it -- not to get too in-depth, 05:59 but talking about the very forebrain which where our decision and processing is 06:03 happening -- that the Ten Commandments as values and principles are implanted, that 06:08 an individual would be a faithful steward of this Earth and a good citizen both on this 06:13 Earth and in preparation for Heaven. Now, Kevin, let's talk a little 06:18 bit about -- we've talked about the biblical basis of family, the importance of that family 06:23 unit. What does the law say about family? 06:27 >> So, the law in our country recognizes the family as a fundamental building block of 06:31 our society. There's very little question 06:34 about that. And we've been talking about 06:36 freedom of religion, and one of the things I bring out is how 06:40 the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and specifically the 06:42 freedom of religion in our Charter has been interpreted by 06:46 the courts to recognize the right of parents to raise and 06:49 inculcate their children in accordance with their religious 06:51 beliefs. So, we've seen a number of cases, educational cases and 06:55 others, in which the courts have said, "No, that is an important principle that we need to 07:00 support and we need to continue, is the right of parents to raise their children as they see 07:06 best. That's not to say that there aren't some tough cases that 07:10 come before the courts from time to time, and I'm thinking about a case from the 1990s called the 07:15 Children's Aid Society, and just the initials of the child are given in the case, and it's a 07:20 tough case. It was a Jehovah's Witness family, and they didn't, for 07:23 religious reasons, didn't want to give their very young child a certain medical care, and the 07:29 life of the child was, for that reason, going to be in jeopardy. And the question was, well, if 07:35 we recognize the right of the parents to educate and raise their child in accordance with 07:38 their religious beliefs, where does the right of the child come in? 07:42 And there was a number of decisions. So, there's nine judges on the 07:45 Supreme Court of Canada, they don't always agree, and so sometimes you end up with split 07:48 decisions, and I think in that case, there was more than two. There were more than two 07:52 decisions of different judges breaking out on what is a really tough issue in a variety 07:57 of ways. And some of the judges said, "No, it's also the right of the 07:59 child to be raised by their parents in accordance with their religious beliefs." 08:03 And so they found that if the state would compel this medical treatment, it would, in fact, 08:09 breach the freedom of religion of that family. But the courts went on and they 08:14 said, "But in these circumstances, the child is not yet of an age where they can 08:18 choose that religion for themselves, and their life is in danger." 08:22 So for that reason, the court decided to override the freedom of religion and say, "No, we're 08:26 going to allow the mandating of this medical care in these specific circumstances." 08:31 >> Now, that's kind of interesting, and, Gerry, I want to turn to you here, and I'm 08:34 gonna place a very difficult question in your court. So, we're talking about the 08:40 breach of religious freedom, the breach of a freedom of choice here with a family -- with 08:46 regards to a family in choosing how they are raising their child. 08:51 Is that in accordance, from both a biblical perspective and a legal perspective? 08:59 Is there room in which we actually have to breach that freedom of choice in regards to 09:05 a family? >> Well, I think that the 09:08 Charter recognizes the idea that there will be limits in a free 09:11 and democratic society because it says so in Section 1 of the 09:14 Charter. The 1985 case that we talked about a few weeks ago, 09:21 Big M Drug Mart, was really the case that highlighted the principles that will apply here, 09:27 and Chief Justice Dickson in that case said that freedom of religion guarantees you the 09:33 right to do anything that you believe is important for religious reasons -- 09:39 anything that you choose to do for religious reasons -- unless it is harmful. 09:46 And, of course, that word "harm," that's the test. So once you get into the area 09:51 of harm, then you get into a balance, and the courts start to balance the restriction on your 09:57 religious freedom, which is harmful in and of itself, and the harm of whatever it is that 10:02 you're choosing to do. It's like my rights end at the beginning of your nose if I'm 10:09 wanting to take a swing. So that's the principle, and they did apply -- the courts 10:15 have applied that in the case of children in many cases. For example, we have the issue 10:21 of polygamy that happened in British Columbia, and one of the problems with polygamy was child 10:27 marriage. That was a practice that was part of the community in 10:32 Bountiful, and one of the unfortunate instances that came out in the case as it was 10:39 presented to the court was a child marriage and rape in Texas of a child from a family in 10:46 British Columbia. So these are horrific things that occur, and certainly the 10:50 state, on behalf of the children and on behalf of society, has the right to intervene where 10:56 there is harm to protect the vulnerable from those who would abuse freedom of religion for 11:03 their own gratification. >> And I think that's -- so, we come to a place, and I don't 11:08 want to get too heavy here, but I think it's very important. You've mentioned this word 11:12 "harmful," both you and Kevin have talked about this in places where they would be harm. 11:17 Kevin, I'm gonna put you on the spot just a little bit, but let's talk about that harmful 11:20 aspect and maybe let's define what that means. And I know the courts kind of 11:26 define that, but what does that mean to be harmful? And in circumstances, how can 11:32 we, as thinking people, be clear in our own minds that we might have some black and white and 11:39 not a lot of gray issue when it comes to these matters? Because it can be kind of 11:43 complicated when we start talking about different forms of schooling, whether it be private 11:49 schooling or homeschooling or public schooling. So, maybe talk a little bit 11:53 about this issue of being -- of harmful, how that's defined, and how we need to, as thinking 12:02 people, balance the freedom of choice in that context. >> Right. 12:07 So, I think you have to see harm on a spectrum, right? You got extreme harm on the one 12:12 side, so the case I talked about in the Children's Aid Society, is the life of the child is at 12:17 risk. I think most thinking people would say, "That's a case -- if 12:21 there's going to be a case to justify breaching freedom of religion to protect a child, 12:26 that's about as clear a case as you can get," because the life of the child is in jeopardy. 12:31 >> Sure. >> At the other end of the spectrum, you've got people that 12:34 would prefer to see other families raising children in accordance with whatever values 12:40 they hold. This moves from actual, real harm to somebody trying to 12:45 impose on a family their own conception of the good life or their own conception of 12:51 morality or their own conception of how children should be raised. 12:55 And they will view that to be harm. They will view the children 12:59 raised in an environment that they don't quite agree with to be harm. 13:04 And I've seen arguments like that from time to time, that it's -- you know, the extremists 13:09 will call raising a child in a certain way child abuse when it's clearly not. 13:14 So, you know, when the physical safety and health of the child is in jeopardy, that's one end 13:19 of the spectrum. It's at the other end where we start seeing arguments where 13:24 you're actually interfering with the ability of a family to inculcate its views and raise 13:28 children in accordance with the values that that family holds. And they need to -- those 13:34 families actually need to be protected from others who wish to impose on them their own set 13:38 of beliefs. >> Now, we were talking before the show started. 13:41 I don't want to get into the woods too quickly with a hypothetical, but I think it 13:45 will help maybe clarify. In the case that you spoke about where we have a Jehovah Witness 13:50 family that have certain beliefs on medical care and how that medical care is administered, 13:56 the court intervened and said, "Listen, the life, the health of the child is at stake, and so in 14:02 this case, we're going to breach that freedom of your choice." However, where the court should 14:08 not and society should not breach is that family should still be able to raise the child 14:14 in accordance with Jehovah Witness beliefs, that that administration of health is 14:20 still a belief that they hold dearly because, in their adult life, they can make that choice. 14:27 Would I be clear on saying, in that case, this -- and I know it's a hypothetical, but does 14:33 that kind of clarify the issue? They have the right to raise their child to believe that way, 14:37 but they don't have the right to necessarily enforce that -- and I'll use the word "harm" in 14:41 quotation marks -- to "harm" the child through not administering that healthcare? 14:45 >> Right, right, and that's the sort of balance that the court actually did strike. 14:49 There's nothing that says they can't raise their child to believe in that, to believe that 14:53 certain medical care is inconsistent with God's will. That's perfectly fine. 14:57 I talked about the spectrum. If you're gonna go to the middle of the spectrum, is the spanking 15:02 case. Some of the spanking cases that we've seen, where the Criminal 15:06 Code has historically allowed corporal punishment of children. People have very strong views on 15:11 corporal punishment when it comes to children, and some people view it as abuse, and 15:16 other people will view it as legitimate discipline, and the question there is, "Is it harm?" 15:21 And there, I think, there's some intelligent debate that can be had, but the harm question's, I 15:27 think, a lot more difficult there. I think it's easy at one end and 15:31 it's easy, from my perspective, at the other. But on the spanking case, that 15:35 sort of thing becomes a bit more difficult. >> Gerry, any thoughts? 15:38 >> Sure, and, you know, the one issue that we haven't talked about yet is the fact that many 15:44 provincial governments across this country have started to take the side of maybe being too 15:52 aggressive in intervening. For example, they've intervened where they think the child is 15:59 going to be taught something that may not be politically correct, and the provinces have 16:05 justified their interference on the basis that it's best for the child to be raised to believe 16:13 certain things, and I think that's where they cross the line. 16:16 I think that that is a line that the courts have clearly drawn, and the provinces, 16:22 unfortunately, are starting to cross that line across the country, and I see this issue 16:27 coming to court in the near future, where the courts are going to have to reset the 16:32 provincial governments and remind them that they must respect the rights of the 16:37 children to be raised by their parents. >> And, Mark, let's talk about, 16:42 from a biblical perspective, that freedom for a family to raise their child. 16:46 And you've touched on it briefly, but let's talk a little bit more from a biblical 16:50 perspective. What kind of allowances did the Bible -- does the Bible make for 16:54 that freedom? >> Well, scripture's very interesting because there are 16:58 different parts of the Bible that reflect different eras. They also reflect a different 17:05 type of message. When you read the history books of the Old Testament, there are 17:10 numerous statements which basically say that the business of making a child walk through 17:18 the fire, for instance, in observance of a religious rite is not appropriate because of 17:26 the implication of harm and things of that nature. It is interesting, in the time 17:34 of Christ and his ministry how many times he was directly involved in ministry that 17:40 related to children. They show up in all sorts of narratives, and the purpose of 17:49 the family is to create an environment where a child can begin to figure out how you live 17:57 in this world. How do you go about that? What is reasonable? 18:01 And that is, essentially, a faith-based sort of a situation, isn't it? 18:08 Because there is a context in which families talk about what is right and what isn't and all 18:13 of that kind of thing. So I think it becomes a very important thing in God's Word to 18:20 make the family the place where the conversation takes place. You can't abdicate the role of 18:26 the parent who brought the child into the world to have a considerable component in the 18:34 training of that child. That's part of what God designed. 18:37 >> And so, Kevin, let's follow that up a little bit, and we're going to return to something you 18:42 said in our very first show because -- and just a comment you made before. 18:45 So, what do we do about this reality where individuals or families are trying to enforce, 18:54 so to speak, their value because they don't value another parent's values? 19:00 How do we do wrestle around with that? What do we do with that in the 19:03 context of we're seeing this rise of moral relativism? >> Right. 19:09 I think you start with the idea that we do, in fact, recognize the family as a fundamental 19:15 social unit upon which our society is constructed. And we recognize that those 19:21 relationships are deserving of respect and deserving of protection. 19:26 And that the transmission of morals happens within that relationship for the reasons 19:31 that Mark was talking about. And if you start from that premise, that this is a 19:35 fundamental building block within our society and that it's deserving of respect and 19:41 it's deserving of protection, you start to build a wall around the family and say, "Only the 19:47 clearest incursions past that wall are gonna be permitted." Gerry talked about, you know, 19:53 the level of interference that we see from the state. Now, the state has a legitimate 19:58 role in protecting children when their parents are abusive and that sort of thing, and we can 20:02 all think of clear cases around that. But when the state starts to 20:07 impose a set of morals into the family that aren't necessary, strictly speaking, for the 20:13 physical health of the child, it's on dangerous grounds. So, there was a case in the 20:18 media, and because it was in the media, I can't -- I don't know that everything that's reported 20:23 is true, but it documented how one foster family, it had their foster children taken away 20:27 'cause they said, "We're not gonna teach these children about the Easter Bunny 'cause 20:32 we, as a fundamental in our family, we don't condone lying to the children, and we view 20:36 that to be lying." And so their foster children were taken out of the house, and 20:39 there was a dispute about that. That's -- to me, that's -- that level of intrusion by the 20:45 government is too much, right? If this is a foster family which was suitable in which to put 20:51 vulnerable children and they're transmitting a certain set of values within their own 20:57 religious beliefs, then they should be left to do that. >> And just to -- you know, I'm 21:01 finding this -- and it's a very interesting balance that takes some thinking, but it's an 21:07 important balance in that individuals must understand that while we may not agree 21:14 with one's given moral code, and let's just use Christianity as an example. 21:19 If I don't agree with a family raising their child up with Christian values, whether that 21:24 come through their education in the home, their education through schooling, and whatnot, 21:31 and I want to enforce on them my secular view or whatever view that happens to be, we must 21:37 understand that when we begin to raise that flag and we begin to enforce morality -- and I'll 21:42 return to something that I said before -- we begin to ask the question "Whose morality are we 21:46 going to enforce?" Because eventually, once we remove that right for a family 21:51 to raise their child up with Christian values or Jewish values or Buddhist values, 21:55 whatever they may be, we must understand that at some point -- and we've seen this before -- 21:59 we talked about the case in Quebec where, all of a sudden, now in schools, there may be 22:04 people who don't want their children educated in religion, but now it's going to be 22:08 enforced. And so we need to be very careful on this that, although 22:11 we may not agree, we must agree to... not to make it too simple, but 22:18 we must agree to disagree that we may each have different values and we need to respect 22:23 those values, even though we may not agree with them. >> And that's really the 22:27 fundamental point, and to those that would seek to impose a more secular perspective onto a 22:33 religious family, I would say, "What would you do if the majoritarian group was Christian 22:39 and they were to insist that your children be raised with a certain set of Christian 22:43 principles and Christian teachings, and would that be acceptable within the confines 22:47 of your family?" If the answer to that question is "No," as I expect it would 22:50 be, then the converse must be true, as well -- that the Christian family has to 22:54 be protected, to raise their children in accordance with their beliefs equally. 22:59 >> What are your thoughts on that, Gerry? >> Well, I think that if we go 23:03 back again to the decision of Chief Justice Dickson in Big M Drug Market, we find the 23:10 answer to the question that you posed, and he said that what we do is we ask whether or not the 23:16 thing that's being objected to, the thing that the government wants to regulate, is it in and 23:22 of itself harmful? Is it something that is otherwise neutral? 23:28 Is it otherwise something that would not be wrong? And if something is not 23:36 otherwise objectionable, then just because it has a particular moral or religious... 23:47 I guess you could say character does not make it wrong. In other words, if you have 23:55 someone, with respect to the Easter Bunny, whether one has an Easter Bunny or doesn't have an 24:02 Easter Bunny, those things, in and of themselves, are not harmful. 24:07 So, in that case, the government, looking at it, should simply say, "We're not 24:11 going to get involved." And I can tell you there's a recent decision from the 24:16 court of appeal of Alberta where that court of appeal was dealing with, again, one of these cases 24:23 involving child custody. And the social worker came to the court and said, "I have a 24:30 better plan. I have a better person to take care of this child than the 24:37 parents of the child." And it was just a question of who's better, one or the other, 24:43 and the court said, "That's not the test. That can never be the test 24:47 because we go down a road we can never come back from when the court starts to measure one 24:54 parent against another. That can never be the test." And the court said it will never 24:59 be the test in Alberta. The test is harm. If, in fact, a child is being 25:04 abused and is being subject to actual harm, then the state has a duty and a right to intervene 25:13 and take custody of that child. Absent harm, absent that level of intervention, there is no 25:21 role for the state in measuring one set of parents against another or one parent against 25:26 another or one social worker against one parent. There's no role for the state 25:32 until we get to that harm test and we pass it. >> Mark, in our final two 25:37 minutes here, maybe give us some final thoughts on this issue of the family and freedom of 25:42 choice. >> God has blessed us with a revelation of Himself. 25:50 We have the sense that while we do not understand God perfectly, He has a design for humanity. 26:00 And that leads us to embrace a faith and a trust in Him as the establisher of what is 26:10 appropriate, the convener of how to live in real time between the weekends, as we have said 26:18 before. And so the role of the family, the role of parents to children, 26:24 and the role of children to parents, by the way, on the other side, is a divine trust 26:30 from God to people who live in real flesh and blood in a real world. 26:36 >> Gentlemen, powerful study today, and we come away understanding that whether we 26:42 believe in God or whether we do not, it is of paramount importance to protect the 26:49 freedom of choice in the context of family that all of us may enjoy the freedom to live with 26:57 that choice. Mark, would you close in prayer for us? 27:02 >> God, we thank you for giving us the family and for giving us choice. 27:08 Thank you for the freedom which comes with living. We pray that you will guide each 27:14 one who may be listening to this program and thinking how they relate to this, that in real 27:20 time, in real life, they will be able to figure out how best to live as people in a real world 27:28 with a real God. In Christ's name, amen. >> Amen. 27:34 Dear friends, the family unit is one of the most important aspects of a society. 27:40 It is through the family that values are conveyed. Whether those values be 27:44 Christian values, other religious values, or secular values, values are conveyed, and 27:50 what is most important in that family unit is the freedom to choose, the right and the 27:55 freedom of religious choice. Today, friends, I want to offer you the DVD of this program. 28:02 I would encourage you to utilize this program not only in your own education, but share it with 28:08 friends that we would be a society that is orderly through our freedom to choose. 28:15 Here's the information you need to receive today's offer. 28:18 >> To request today's offer, just log on to 28:20 www.ItIsWrittenCanada.ca. That's www.ItIsWrittenCanada.ca. 28:28 And select the TV Program tab. For Canadian viewers, the offer 28:32 will be sent free and postage paid. 28:35 For viewers outside of Canada, shipping charges will apply. 28:39 If you prefer, you may call toll-free at 1-888-CALL-IIW. 28:44 That's 1-888-CALL-IIW. Call anytime. 28:49 Lines are open 24 hours daily. That's 1-888-CALL-IIW. 28:54 Or, if you wish, you may write to us at It Is Written, 28:58 Box 2010, Oshawa, Ontario, L1H 7V4. 29:03 And thank you for your prayer requests and your 29:05 generous financial support. >> Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining me today and 29:10 providing such content for all of us to think upon. And to you, my dear friend, I 29:17 would invite you to prayerfully consider this freedom to choose and religious freedom and may 29:23 all of us value that choice. I hope you enjoyed today's program. 29:28 I invite you to join us again next week. Until then, remember, it is 29:32 written -- "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the 29:39 mouth of God." ♪♪ ♪♪ 29:59 ♪♪ ♪♪ |
Revised 2018-03-20