Plus, in notable instances, organizations like the ACLU haven’t shared Rawls’ view. Take the case of the Mojave Cross, where the ACLU tried to argue that the presence of a cross (erected in tribute to veterans’ service) on government land constituted a violation of the First Amendment. That’s not thinking like you or Rawls suggest.

“too often, when people assert that the state should be ‘neutral’ what they really mean is ‘anti-religious, pro-secularism.’ This ignores the fact that secularism is just as much a worldview as any religious faith.”

But the best modern liberal thinkers, who have given the most thought to this very issue, seem to be aware of the concern you have in mind. Consider Rawls:

“We must distinguish public reason from what is sometimes referred to as secular reason and secular values. These are not the same as public reason. For I define secular reason as reasoning in terms of comprehensive nonrelgious doctrines. Such doctrines are too broad to serve the purposes of public reason.”

“A view often expressed is that while religious reasons and sectarian doctrines should not be invoked to justify legislation in a democratic society, sound secular arguments may be. But what is a secular argument? Some think of any argument that is reflective and critical, publicly intelligible and rational, as a secular argument; and they discuss various such arguments for considering, say, homosexual relations unworthy or degrading. Of course, some of these arguments may be reflective and rational secular ones (as so defined). Nevertheless, a central feature of political liberalism is that it views all such arguments the same way it views religious ones, and therefore these secular philosophical doctrines do not provide public reasons. Secular concepts and reasoning of this kind belong to first philosophy and moral doctrines, and fall outside of the domain of the political.”

From “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”

First, there is the overlapping consensus approach, whereby a value is recognized when nearly everyone, regardless of their own particular ideologies/traditions, can recognize the value in question. Possible examples: how the Christian faith led early practitioners to oppose the Roman entertainment of gladiator combat; how the faith inspired the scientific achievements of Bacon, Newton and Kepler; how Islamic scholars kept alive and advanced the learning of the ancients through the middle ages.

Second, there is the approach whereby outsiders try to understand the value as it is perceived by the practitioners of the faith themselves. When we put ourselves in another person’s shoes we can gain an appreciation for why they hold dear the things they do–even if, from our own perspective, such things aren’t so dear. Such an approach requires and motivates deeper understandings of other people’s points of view, especially points of views we may continue to disagree with. Part of this might be accomplished by sympathetically listening to the actual practitioners of the faith (I recall the parents of a Jewish kid in my elementary school helping us to understand the significance of Hanukkah and how it is celebrated). Possible examples: learning to appreciate the far greater value that Muslims tend to place on the physical text of the Koran, by understanding the Islamic doctrines and the cultural practices surrounding the text; learning why some Christians place great importance in affirming, as literal, the accounts in Genesis.

I’m with you on that desire, but the problem is too many governments swing the pendulum from “cultural appreciation” to “cultural relativism,” the latter informed by Jeffersonian “strict separation” dogma. I think David is correct in raising these questions:

What sorts of criteria should be brought to bear for making such judgements? Are such criteria religiously neutral? or are they inevitably coloured by the worldviews of those making them?

Too often, when people assert that the state should be “neutral” what they really mean is “anti-religious, pro-secularism.” This ignores the fact that secularism is just as much a worldview as any religious faith. I would love a curriculum like the one you cite, Ancius, but I do recognize the difficulty of such a curriculum being implemented in the current political environment. Plus, I’m not sure that would blow over so well with some of the pro-secular groups like the ACLU, who seem to have an aneurysm any time religion is mentioned to great extent at all in a government-supported sphere.

That is, students might be required to explore the many undeniably positive aspects of Buddhism, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc. without having to assess the more controversial truth claims that particular religions make–and without having to make the claim that their differences don’t matter.

The phrase “religious differences don’t matter” could mean a lot of things, does it mean that they’re saying that a person’s religion doesn’t change how they should be treated? Or are they saying that all religions are basically the same? If it’s the latter I would find that rather ironic for it is more or less intolerant and ignorant to throw all religions under a single banner and claim them all to be the same.

So, I would find it counter productive for the Canadian government to actually promote religious tolerance by overlooking the uniqueness and intricacies of every religion and say that they are all the same.

Which leads me to believe that either A: The author is giving in to anti-pluralism paranoia, or B: The Canadian government seeks to eliminate religious identity.

What’s most likely? Canadians are attempting to educate it’s citizens about the fact that there are several other religions and that folk who belong to a different religion aren’t irrational or deserve to be stereotyped. It’s likely that Canadian citizens saw the post 9/11 paranoia of members of Islam and wanted to educate the public to avoid religious hate crimes.

It is, after all, the belief that “those who belong to a different religion are inferior” which leads to such terrorist acts.

My apologies… the sentence:

“However, that statement need not bad.”

Refers to the sentence “religious differences don’t matter.” I meant that to say that religious differences don’t matter in, say, giving love and respect to all people. We are called by Christ to love everybody, regardless of faith.

I do think that Universalists, while well-intentioned, actually undermine the free will God has given to humankind. So maybe the statement that God will save all isn’t necessarily bad, but I do think when applied it is bad.

But how to make this clear to those who do not see it?

No, if you are a Universalist, for that is what Universalists believe.

But if you are not a Universalist, then you are losing the right to practice your own religion, because a rival religion – Universalism – is now the state-enforced required belief system.

There’s a paradox there, for those clever enough to find it.

I’d like to know to what extent the curriculum takes the phrase “religious differences don’t matter.” My initial reaction was to see it as a sort of universalism/hyper-pluralism: “All roads lead to heaven.” However, that statement need not bad. It is true, for instance, that one’s religion shouldn’t effect how she is treated. In that case, religious differences don’t matter in terms of showing love to others. I imagine that given the context this is a pluralistic view, but I’d like to see the text of the curriculum before making a judgment. If it is what de Souza says is true, however, this is indeed problematic.

Ancius,

“I suppose it’s generally healthy for people with marginal views and values to be exposed to the rest of the modern world’s reasons for judging otherwise. I expect that most religious people would even agree.”

I agree that it’s good to expose people to all views. Moreover, I think we should expose people to all views at their best, not with a biased, straw man view. (Meaning not “All Muslims are terrorists” or any nonsense like that.) However, assuming that de Souza’s analysis is an accurate view of the new Canadian curriculum, that’s not what’s being taught. Instead of cultural immersion, it’s a forced pluralism. This approach ignores the fact that pluralism is just as much a worldview as any religion is.