PoliticsCanada: Church Leader: Canada has distinctive mode of relating faith and politics, says EFC's Clemenger

Faith Today (July/August, 2k11)
Faith Today is the official monthly publication of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada; the author is a doctoral graduate of the Institute for Christian Studies.  Dr Clemenger wrote his doctoral dissertation for ICS on the philosophy of Friedrich von Hayek, a political thinker regarded as a founder or precursor of contemporary libertarianism.  —  Politicarp

The Canadian Way

---

by Bruce J. Clemenger, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada


Canada handles the intersection of faith and politics differently than Britain, France or the United States.

The issue of religion rarely surfaced in the recent federal election [in Canada], a change from previous elections. When it did make news, it was usually prompted by media commentators raising the issue.

There were bright spots in the coverage. The National, the CBC TV evening news program, profiled the Elections Kit released by The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC). In this segment explaining how religious groups engage during elections, viewers learned that the EFC is not a single-issue organization, that we cover a breadth of issues and work across party lines.

Perhaps this is an indication of the media's willingness to explore what it means to be Canadian, to be religious and to be a voter or a citizen running for political office.

Party leaders and many other politicians regularly attend religious services and festivals of a variety of religions, but very few say much about their own religious beliefs.

Contrast this with American candidates for public office: for them not to speak about their own faith or not to have photo ops attending their preferred place of worship raises suspicion.

It is characteristically Canadian for our politicians not to wear their religion on their sleeves and instead to publicly reach out to a variety of religious expressions. It's a manifestation of a long-standing non-sectarian approach to religion that distinguishes Canada from Britain, France and the United States, the three countries with the greatest historical influence on our country.

Our Canadian ancestors did not presume faith should be privatized and kept out of the public square (France), nor did we have a state church (Britain), nor do we have a constitutional separation of church and state (United States).

A non-sectarian approach accepts that religions influence all aspects of life including the political - that religion does have political implications - and hence non-sectarianism seeks fairness in accommodating these expressions.

A secularist approach, by contrast, seeks to limit religious expression to the private sphere and asks people to check their specific religious beliefs at the door when entering the House of Commons or engaging in public dialogue about law or public policy. 

Canada's federation was forged in the political dynamics of the French Catholic and English Protestant reality that required anyone who would be prime minister, whatever their first language or denominational allegiance, to be seen as someone who could mediate between these “two solitudes” and be able to accommodate the aspirations of both.

Not only did Canada develop without a constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state as in the United States, the Canadian constitution provided for the funding of minority religious schools: Catholic schools in predominately Protestant Ontario and Protestant schools in Catholic Quebec. Further, consider our social services sector, where Canada's largest provider besides our governments is The Salvation Army.

Canada's approach has been a robust non-sectarianism, where no single set of doctrines, religious or secularist, would be imposed.

At the same time, a non-sectarian approach does not presume religious neutrality or that the public square can be neutral. Rather, it recognizes that a plurality of worldviews shapes and guides the actions of citizens.

The political world and the broader public realm are shaped by this doctrinal diversity. The goal is not to sanitize statecraft from this plurality, but to accommodate diversity and its expression in the fairest ways possible. In such a context political leaders are expected to be even-handed, fair and just in their dealings with everyone.

What we need is more constructive exploration of the intersection of faith and politics in Canada, and more reflection on how Canada is distinctive from other countries in how this has been expressed.

When political leaders are reluctant to talk about their faith, it doesn't necessarily indicate a hidden agenda or prove they consider their faith to be a private matter with no public consequence.

It might simply mean they understand what previous Canadian leaders learned about giving leadership in a plural and non-sectarian Canada.

---

Bruce J. Clemenger is president of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Read more of his columns at theEFC.ca/clemenger.

PoliticsCanada: Social conservatives: In the upcoming elections, what is the overlap between political Conservs, social conservatives, and evangelicals?

First the article "Don't dismiss the so-cons" was published in National Post,
and republished  in Activate CLPL email newsletter (Apr8,2k11)

refWrite editorial comment:  There is no such thing as a Christian vote adhering to a single party represented in the Parliament of Canada, not even an Evangelical vote, nor a Catholic vote.  Liberal Protestant voters will split their votes among the Greens, the New Democrats, and the federal Liberals; in Quebec some will vote for the separatist Bloc Québecois which trends deeply secularistic -- more than any other mainline party perhaps.

There are at least two marginal parties where religion and politics have hi correlation, parties however which have never yet elected even a single member to Parliament in any of Canada's parliamentary ridings (electoral districts).  One of these marginals will reach its 25th anniversary in Spring 2012: the Christian Heritage Party -- which acknowledges among its members both Catholics and Protestants (including Saturday-observing sabbatarians like Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists).  Of course, aside from official members, CHP, for all we know, may receive votes from adherents of non-
Christian religions, perhaps even some atheists.

The second of the non-parliamentary entities are based upon a Family-emphasis.  On the federal level, the Family-emphatic entity however is not a political party at all, rather it is a lobby aimed at federal Parliamentary members of the mainstream parties by grass-roots activists, in order to fend off forces in the society they consider to be inimical to healthy family life; they want to encourage and strengthen pro-Family politicians in all the federal parties; and consider themselves as non-partisan.  This political grouping is Canada Family Action.  On the provincial level, there is an independent party in Ontario, the provincial Family Coalition Party -- which may not strictly qualify as "social conservative" as do the grassroots lobbyists at the federal level, CFA,  becawz FPC advocates for a party platform of planks requiring a wide-range of governmental support, including funding arrangements, for families based on the 1woman-1man principle, but failing that, for all families.  It is both anti-polygamous (a dramatic case now before the Canada Supreme Court), and anti-2women or 2men parented-families, the latter stand not being at the top of its list of priorities.  Where it can't succeed in discrimination, the party ends up advocating for govt largesse to all families, even those not the centre of its focus of concern.

Similar to CFA as an independent lobby based on a grassroots membership, the Association for Reformed Political Action uses the organizational technique of periodically launching special campaigns of a programmatic kind, not least of all ARPA's campaign against human-r+ts commission of the various provinces and also of the federal government.  In its online materials, it makes no effort to give a fair and balanced account of Canada's Human R+ts Commissions, demonizing them as nothing but negative forces in the country, thus ARPA effectively erases all the good the commissions.  At the same time, it shoud be noted, the Stand Up for Freedom Canada campaign has made some valuable criticisms of these commissions, their present practices that go beyond what woud be a simply positive influence, demonizing them and stirring up its activists to spread one-sided information in order to bring them thoroly into disrepute.  Christian political action shoud not conduct itself in this way, I believe.  Further, these firebrand methods bring the Reformed Faith into disrepute among fair-minded Canadians.

Still, the preceding list of special foundational concerns typifying variously the non-mainstream parties that are favoured by some Christian voters, generating their diverse slants within the general paradigm for understanding Christian politics in Canada today, that list does not exhaust the defintion of social conservatism in all particulars.  For instance, there are some Canadian Jews who are pro-abortion and conversely those who are anti-abortion, some who are pro-family and conversely some anti-family, some who are vegetarians and some who are very much carnivores, both of these latter concerns being potentially politically-consequential for some on each side of the distinction.  And consider in the foregoing example, that the distinction between vegans and meat-eaters can be cross-referenced with the dietary distinction, so relevant to a sociology of Jews, between between kosher and non-kosher practices.

For further instance, the pro-life/anti-abortion constituency extends across all the mainline and marginal political groupings cited, whether they include not only Atheists and Christians at the same time, along with all other coordinately parallel groupings outside our focal demographic categories at the moment (Christians and Atheists in Canada), some as well who are devoted to Anti-Atheism / anti-atheism.  Likewise some devoted to Anti-Christians // anti-christianity.  [Amidst all these particulates disclosed by a fine-grained analysis of religious demographics in Canada, and political concerns that are particularly favoured and flavoured across the country, we can gather a harvest especially helpful to the sociology of religions thru-out the land.]

On the other hand, some Christians feel strongly that every woman shoud be able, ultimately, to make her own decision to abort or not (to murder-- in the context of the mother and the unborn child relationship, given the uniqueness to her  and her important r+t and responsibility to -- without coercion by family, neighors, courts, churches, media of communications --  choose to abort the human life within her, so help her God. But the same ethos can be intertwined with a moral-political choice to deny government support to agencies like Planned Parenthood; perhaps to deny tax-money to support free standing abortion clinics historically spearheaded by Dr, Henry Morgantaler (Order of Canada),  perhaps to deny funding for in-hospital abortion clinics.  While at the same time perhaps allowing rental of hospital space to freestanding abortion clinics supported by private funding for their staff and functions.   PoliticaL tendencies with such complex solutions woud seek to win a debate to distinguish the abortion industry as industry, from the women who want and sometimes receive abortions.  Supporting the women's sphere-sovereignty over their own wombs, their own reproductive organs and outcomes.

Now, social conservatism also includes the parameter (not affirmed by all its varieties, but very configurative within the overall paradigm) of fiscal conservatism -- in regard to taxation levels, spending cuts, and national-debt levels.  Fiscal conservatism is less likely to be articulated among Christians in Canada in Libertarian terms than it is in the United States.  As we pointed out above regarding Ontario, the as-yet non-parliamentary Family Coalition Party excels the Conservative Party on both provincial and federal levels, in providing rationale and advocacy for govt generosity in financial support for families, while perhaps being more stingy in regard to other soceital spheres.    

-- materials below and editorial comment above by Politicarp

Here's the analysis of some of these matters, by leaders of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada:

Don’t dismiss the so-cons

Posted: 08 Apr 2011 08:12 AM PDT

As published in the National Post, April 8, 2011


Social conservatives “have become a spent political force in [Canadian] national politics,” according to Queen’s University political-science scholar James Farney. “We’re now just seen as eccentric,” suggested Link Byfield, a prominent Canadian “so-con” himself. On the front page of the April 5National Post, a story by reporter Charles Lewis was headlined “Social conservatives watch campaign from sidelines.”

Wikipedia tells us that social conservatives “believe that government has a role in encouraging or enforcing what they consider traditional values or behaviours.” But Wikipedia also offers this important caveat: “the accepted meaning of traditional morality often differs from group to group.” Not all social conservatives are the same. It’s worth emphasizing that the term “social conservative” is spelled with a lower case “c,” not the upper case “C” of the Conservative party. Social conservatism is much broader than any one political party.

If social conservatives were interested only in an active debate about abortion or gay marriage, then it is true, as noted by Lewis, that we would be disappointed by the current campaign: No major party has distinguished itself on these issues. But that doesn’t mean these issues are not in play.

In the last Parliament, there were more MPs in the non-partisan Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus than in either the Bloc Québécois or the NDP. Yet, neither the death of the Bloc nor the NDP has been proclaimed [due to presumed irrelevance].  Moreover, social conservatives are interested in a wider variety of public-policy issues than abortion and gay marriage.

Take a good look at the activists and politicians who are involved in policy concerning the protection of children. Read over the list of witnesses before Commons and Senate committees in regard to raising the age of consent to sexual activity with an adult from age 14 to 16 in 2008 and you’ll see so-cons. Consider those advocating for the law that now requires internet service providers to report child porn being transmitted or hosted on their platforms and you’ll see so-cons.

While these initiatives took place under the Conservative government of the last five years, so-con influence extends back further. The 1993 introduction of child-pornography crimes into the Criminal Code and the 2004 introduction of laws against human trafficking crimes both were sparked by so-cons.

Cut across party lines and examine the faces standing with Senators and MPs in support of all-party reports about poverty in Canada, issued in 2009 and 2010 respectively, and you’ll see the presence of so-cons again. Poverty and homelessness aren’t typically identified as socially conservative issues in the media. But we don’t let the media define us.

For some commentators, the term so-cons isn’t adequately marginalizing. So instead, they call us “theo-cons” — theological conservatives — who are guided in our policy and political efforts by our religious beliefs. Theo-cons have been presented by some as strange and scary. Yet Statistics Canada informs that in 2001 (the last long-form census) 84% of Canadians self-identified as having a personal religious affiliation, with 77% self-identifying as Christian and [within that total percentage] 12% [further identify] as Evangelical. And it would be foolish to think that the views of these people aren’t, in some way, guided by their religious convictions. Check your neighbour to your left and your right, because we “theo-cons” walk among you.

Along with Rick Hiemstra, director of research and media relations at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, I recently wrote a report on evangelical voting trends in Canada between 1996 and 2008. The paper drew a lot of attention on Parliament Hill because it revealed the fluidity of the evangelical vote as it shifted from predominately Liberal support in 1996 to the Conservative Party in 2008. What many found particularly surprising was the increase in the vote that went to the NDP during that 12-year period [which is consonant with the relative de-Labourization of the NDP and the rise of the Yuppie Middleclass as powerbrokers within it, as well as the loss of some Jews in the NDP and Liberal parties becaws of their increase in support of the Palestinians against the State of Israel in the same period]. The supposedly theo-coniest of the theo-cons appear to exhibit voting patterns not too different from the rest of Canadians.

As the evangelist John Wesley lay on his deathbed in 1791, he sent a note to British MP William Wilberforce, who was then leading the political battle to end the slave trade. Wesley, with an Evangelical eye to the long game (the Slave Trade Act didn’t pass until 1807 and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act passed in 1833 as Wilberforce lay in his own deathbed) wrote simply, and inspirationally, about the significance of standing contra mundum, “against the world.” Sometimes it is necessary for the benefit of those around you to stand seemingly against everyone else, for the world’s sake. What is good is not always immediately obvious or popular.

By the way, William Wilberforce, the abolitionist, was a theo-con. And, like Wilberforce, contemporary theo-cons are committed, not eccentric. And we’re not a spent force yet.

National Post article by
Don Hutchinson, Vice-President of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
and director of the Centre for Faith and Public Life located in Ottawa.

PoliticsCanada: Evangelical Fellowship: Statement against the attack on Evangelicals by French Radio

Activate CFPL (Feb14,2k11)

Reason and Religion: Anti-religionists display lack of reason … or a not so hidden agenda?

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011 AT 11:28AM

In Ottawa, last week was not a banner week for reason in regard to religion.

The CBC Radio-Canada television plumbed new depths in their program Enquête, with journaliste Brigitte Bureau creating “news” rather than reporting the news with a half hour documentary attack on select Christians engaging in the public square, particularly with Parliament.

Bloc Quebecois Member of Parliament Pierre Paquette (Joliette) must have mistakenly assumed the Radio-Canada creation was a reporting of the news. Mr. Paquette questioned the government in the House of Commons:

We learned that a number of evangelical leaders have privileged access to Conservative members and senators, and use that access to influence federal politics. Is it not worrisome to see all these fundamentalist groups circling around the Conservative government, trying to change legislation to impose their religious values?

Hmm, “fundamentalist” is a term not commonly associated with evangelicals for decades – and when used is usually described as because of a focus on the “fundamentals” or core beliefs of the evangelical Christian faith. In short, the term is not generally used in regard to Christians and is currently applied primarily to radical extremists who engage in criminal behaviour to pursue control through fear. Trying “to impose their religious values” or simply participating in the democratic process? The Supreme Court of Canada was exceptionally clear on this point just a few years ago:

… nothing in the Charter, political or democratic theory, or a proper understanding of pluralism demands that atheistically based moral positions trump religiously based moral positions on matters of public policy. I note that the preamble to the Charter itself establishes that ‘… Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.’ According to Saunders J. [of the British Columbia Supreme Court where the case was heard at trial], if one’s moral view manifests from a religiously grounded faith, it is not to be heard in the public square, but if it does not, then it is publicly acceptable. The problem with this approach is thateveryone has ‘belief’ or ‘faith’ in something, be it atheistic, agnostic or religious. To construe ‘secular’ as the realm of the ‘unbelief’ is therefore erroneous. Given this, why, then, should the religiously informed conscience be placed at public disadvantage or disqualification? To do so would be to distort liberal principles in an illiberal fashion and would provide only a feeble notion of pluralism. The key is that people will disagree about important issues, and such disagreement, where it does not imperil community living, must be capable of being accommodated at the core of modern pluralism.

That was Justice Gonthier writing on a point of unanimous agreement for all nine judges in the 2002 case Chamberlain v. Surrey School District.

In response, Government House Leader John Baird observed the same constitutional position that “every Canadian is entitled to be heard by our government.” Mr. Baird went on to note the variety of Canadians and faith communities he had personally met with in recent months before closing with these words:

We think it is tremendously important in a pluralistic society like Canada to always reach out to people of different backgrounds, and we make no apologies for it.

Thank you, Mr. Baird. Well said.

In the same wacky week, Liberal Member of Parliament Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul’s) decided it was time to lead some of her colleagues in the singing of her own version of O Canada that excises the words “True patriot love in all Thy sons command” and “God keep our land” from our national anthem.

It seems a minority of zealous (overzealous?) activists at times impact societies by taking actions or shouting (singing?) words that go unnoticed by a seemingly silent majority.  We sometimes take for granted that our lives will proceed as usual and we need pay little or no attention to skewed perspectives on “news,” bigoted comments by politicians, or anti-religious twists of words that betray a hidden agenda that does not belong in a modern pluralist democracy. Clearly, maintaining our rights and freedoms cannot be trusted simply to the constitution or legislators. As citizens, we are called upon to remain vigilant. It’s our Canada. It’s our land. Let’s not be passive about keeping it “strong and free” or in no time, it won’t be.

Update:

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada's complaint as filed with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council.

Juridics: Ontario: Canadian court makes important "religious hiring" decision

Stanley Carlson-Thies of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance has emailed IRFA's May 27,2k10 newsletter. One of the items in this issue of the newsletter features an important juridical note about a recent development in Ontario regarding indiscriminate hiring by non-church faith-based organizations (many of them are social-service agencies who recruit staff on the basis of commitment to Christian morals and faith).

The court deciding the case, and the rhetoric of discussing the case bandies about the term "discrimination" -- but the Christian defence shoud emphasize the hazards of indiscriminate hiring of people who don't evidence having their heart in the secular realization of the Christian all-of-life concern and mission. Christian organizations have every r+t to discriminate against indiscriminate hiring, and the freedom of association that established the org and operates its financial base, shoud trump individuals who don't have their heart in the Christian basis of the organization's work which may be one of faith and morals.

Of course, most Christian social-service orgs need workers heartfully committed to serving all who come to them for service. In this key sense, being Christian in social service may mean anti-discrimination in regard to those cared for by the org. However, a social-service agency, whether Christian or not, needs to discriminate according to its focal task: for instance, caring for the disabled. Such agencies are not ghettos, and it's precisely the discriminating hiring policy that selects for those who can serve in the task at hand indiscriminately. Clear? Stanley states the case, but I have further questions because of the particulars.  All is not what it seems.

Click the time tag below to read more >