An aspect of the protection of religious belief and expression is the protection of those who are nonreligious. Though this may seem counter-intuitive, the rising number of ‘nones’ in many countries reveals the extent to which religious establishments shape day-to-day life in a manner that is experienced as coercive by the nonreligious. Examples include: the recitation of prayers in state spaces (municipal councils, legislatures); the display of religious symbols in schools or legislative bodies; the performance of religious rituals such as baptism to ensure one’s children have access to schools and so on. This article examines the growing area of tension between ‘the religious’ and ‘the nonreligious’ using the examples of the display of majoritarian religious symbols in public spaces and religion in education to explore: (1) the contours of religious establishment; (2) the narratives of exclusion that are woven through contests between the religious and nonreligious; and (3) the coercive impact of majoritarian religion.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the ways in which the Supreme Court of Canada has shifted away from transcendent/religious to nonreligious conceptualizations of assisted dying. Design/methodology/approach A discourse analysis of a Supreme Court of Canada case on assisted dying and the facta of the 26 associated interveners. Findings The research points to a shift away from religious to nonreligious understandings in the way the Court conceptualizes suffering, pain, illness and assisted dying. Originality/value This paper contributes to the understanding of nonreligion as a social phenomenon.

Since the 1960s there has been a considerable increase in the number of Canadians who identify as having “no religion”. The increase in the nonreligious notwithstanding, little is known about the beliefs, values, and practices of the nonreligious and what might generally entail a “worldview” commonly understood as nonreligion. Nonreligion therefore remains somewhat of a quagmire to sociologists of religion. This lack of understanding is particularly prevalent in the realm of law, particularly Canadian law as the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to define nonreligion as it has done religion. Drawing on the results of the discourse analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2013 Bedford decision this article seeks to explore the category of nonreligion as it is conceptualized in legal discourse about sex work. This article takes into consideration the changing religious and nonreligious diversity of Canadian society and argues that nonreligion is, like religion, framed as having its own positive content.

This paper considers the study of nonreligion as a vital component of the discussion about “how to live well together” in the “new diversity.” Our specific interest concerning the notion of the “new diversity” is that of nonreligion. This paper therefore focuses on the intersection of law and nonreligion, in the areas of health, education, migration, and the environment. We argue that a continued shift away from a majoritarian Christian society in Canada and toward the “new diversity” has rather significant implications for law and society. The law has been increasingly required to balance the beliefs, values, and practices of both nonreligious and religious people to ensure Canadians can “live well together” in an ever changing (non)religious landscape.

No abstract