When Inclusion Becomes Erasure: The Canadian Military’s Secularization Of Prayer
Religion Unplugged believes in a diversity of well-reasoned and well-researched opinions. This piece reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent those of Religion Unplugged, its staff and contributors.
(OPINION) The Canadian Armed Forces recently issued CAFMPI 03/26 (Spiritual Reflections in Military Settings), requiring military chaplains to replace faith-specific prayers with non-religious spiritual reflections during mandatory official public ceremonies.
Defense officials defend the mandate as a necessary step toward state neutrality and inclusivity under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, viewed through the lenses of common sense, human dignity, pluralism and biblical faith, this decision achieves the opposite.
By demanding that public discourse be scrubbed of distinct theological substance, the state is fundamentally rewriting the rules of the Canadian public square. What is promoted as a welcoming gesture functions in reality as an institutional restriction on authentic faith, replacing shared cultural roots with administrative conformity.
READ: India’s Student Protests Show Interfaith Solidarity
At its core, this directive confuses fairness with erasure. An inclusive society is not one where citizens leave their identities at the door, but one where people are free to bring their deepest convictions into public life. True diversity means welcoming people in their full authenticity, not forcing them into a standardized secular template.
If a military employs chaplains from Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Indigenous and other traditions, a genuinely pluralistic approach allows them to speak authentically from those traditions across different occasions.
Under CAFMPI 03/26, public “spiritual reflections” are explicitly mandated to “not use religious specific language, including references to God, etc.” Blanking out religious language in this way does not create an inviting room; it creates an empty one. Mandating that religious language cannot be used in official ceremonies does not achieve equality; it merely achieves equal exclusion. Authentic multiculturalism cannot survive if every community is required to adopt a uniform, state-sanctioned dialect whenever they enter the public square.
Pluralism is not the absence of religion from public life. It is the freedom of people with different convictions to participate authentically without being forced into the language of the state's preferred worldview.
No Canadian should be compelled to profess a faith they do not hold. Freedom of conscience includes the essential freedom not to believe. But there is a profound difference between protecting citizens from forced prayer and prohibiting chaplains from praying. A person who does not wish to participate can respectfully refrain. A person who does wish to pray should not be told that prayer itself is inappropriate for public life.
The deeper problem is an embedded fear of religion’s exclusive truth claims. Because religions make substantive claims about God, truth, morality and purpose, they can be regarded as inherently divisive. The temptation is therefore to replace them with an apparently open-ended language of neutrality.
In rejecting the exclusive claims of religion, however, the state risks embracing an arbitrary secularism in the guise of neutrality, creating a public square where religious meaning is simply ruled out. In pursuing procedural neutrality, the state strips the public square of the historical, cultural and moral frameworks that form Canada's shared identity, eroding the very moral grammar that enables civic trust.
Furthermore, secularism is not an empty, baseline canvas. It is a distinct philosophical framework with its own dogma, assumptions and implicit claims about human existence, morality and ultimate meaning. By requiring chaplains to offer non-religious spiritual reflections, the military does not eliminate worldview; it privileges secularism as an official state religion that dictates the precise terms on which all other convictions may enter the public square.
Conscience under conscription
Beyond these structural flaws, the policy places chaplains in an impossible dilemma, forcing them to choose between an administrative mandate and their conscience and ordination commitments. A state that demands its spiritual leaders betray their sacred vows under the guise of inclusion undermines the very moral integrity it relies upon.
The military hires chaplains precisely because they are recognized experts in faith and spirituality, not generic moral counselors or human resources officers. Telling chaplains they cannot mention God at a public ceremony strips away the exact spiritual capability they were appointed to provide. An ordination commitment is sacred and cannot simply be set aside for a bureaucratic directive.
The policy also sends a troubling message to religious service members and their families. For a soldier facing combat, or a family mourning a fallen loved one, faith is not an optional hobby: It is the bedrock of their resilience.
By declaring faith-specific language too divisive for public ceremonies, the state implies that these deepest convictions must be hidden in private. Mature pluralism respects differences without demanding that they remain invisible.
Divine mandate vs. civil decree
For a Christian believer, this issue extends beyond civic policy to our ultimate accountability to God.
Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God’s.” Scripture recognizes legitimate civil authority, but Caesar is not God.
In the Book of Acts, the apostles established a foundational boundary: “We must obey God rather than men.” Civil authority has limits; the state is not the final authority over conscience or a believer's allegiance to God.
This is especially significant for chaplains, whom the Bible calls “ambassadors for Christ.” An ambassador is entrusted to represent faithfully the one who sent him, lacking any authority to alter the message, water down the truth or conceal the King's name to avoid administrative friction.
For a chaplain, speaking about God is inseparable from their calling. Standing before a gathering during national grief and acting as though the Creator is irrelevant creates a profound conflict of conscience.
Scripture treats prayer not as a decorative ritual, but as communion with God and a source of strength. A secular reflection may offer genuine comfort to some, but protecting those who do not pray should never require silencing those who do.
Reclamation: Rebuilding a true public square
Forcing state-enforced secularism onto spiritual leaders replaces a multi-faith mosaic with forced conformity. Canada does not have to choose between religious establishment and religious erasure. We can protect non-believers without silencing believers, allowing chaplains to speak authentically while ensuring no one is compelled to participate.
That is what genuine pluralism looks like.
We must decide what kind of nation we want to build: a Canada where citizens bring their authentic convictions into the public sphere to contribute to the common good, or one where conformity is enforced at the expense of conscience and common sense. A confident, mature democracy does not fear religious conviction, nor does it require citizens to sanitize their faith to belong.
When we permit real diversity to flourish, we build a far more resilient national fabric. True pluralism does not demand state-mandated silence. Rather, it demands the democratic courage to let everyone speak.
Girma Bekele is a consultant in Christian mission studies and a visiting professor of missional leadership in the postmodern world at Tyndale University College & Seminary, Toronto, as well as Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis.