A Tangled Web We Weave

White sage smudge sticks.

Here’s a bit of a mess: a school in BC held a smudging ceremony, as a “reconciliation” measure to acquaint students with indigenous culture. Students were obliged to attend.

A local Christian parent objected, on the grounds that this was promoting indigenous religion, and forcing it on their child.

A court ruled it was permissible, because the ceremony was a part of indigenous culture, not a religious practice.

Now Convivium magazine is upset, on the grounds that this demeans indigenous spirituality by claiming it is not religious.

You can’t win.

For the record: we agree that smudging is not a religious practice. It is cultural. Christian Indians smudge. Just as an evangelical Christian might burn patcholi incense in their home, without intending thereby to venerate some Hindu goddess. If, during the ritual, the performers/participants called on some spiritual entity, then that is the problem. The school claims there were no prayers.

The confusion comes from a popular movement to elevate all manner of indigenous practices to the level of religion. Like the imaginary religious office of “elder.” Or claiming this or that natural landmark is “sacred.”

Convivium worries that the same logic might permit, say, the banning of the hijab, on the grounds that it is not really religious.

But that would be correct: the hijab is not a part of Islam. It is banned in many Muslim countries.

Convivium’s argument could as easily be used to force the authorities to allow female genital mutilation, on the premise that it is “required by Islam.” It is not; it is a cultural practice in some majority-Muslim countries.

The essential point of freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. To be protected, a cultural practice must be demonstrated as clearly required by some established faith on moral grounds.