Some Interesting Comments and Updates on Marci McDonald's Armageddon Factor

I haven't blogged on the Armageddon Factor for a while but there was an interesting review of her book, as seen through the media's reaction and the Conservative party's attempt to discredit the book.

It was written by Dr. Kenneth Paradis, an assistant professor of contemporary studies at Wilfred Laurier University's Brantford campus. Dr. Paradis noted that in reading columns and comments sections, he noticed similar phrasing.

The odd thing about these responses is that a very quick media search will show that the letters share an almost identical pattern, right down to the adjectives and “arguments” chosen to denigrate the book: the phrase “anti-Christian bigotry,” for example, the label chosen by political operative / media mover and shaker Kory Teneycke, for example (formerly Steven Harper’s spokesperson, now the prime mover behind the Sun TV / Fox News North initiative), comes up fairly regularly, probably because it has the twin virtues of being inflammatorily and derogatory, without actually requiring the denouncer to demonstrate actually having read the book.

This is not unusual, and in fact on many issues there are common "adjectives and arguments", often easily found on the Conservative website. In fact they even tell you what to write or say on radio call in shows.

Dr. Paradis also picked up the connection with the Globe and Mail piece written by Ray Pennings of Cardus. I had posted a lengthy article, linking all of the players, and the large multi-million dollar grant given to a private religious school with connections to Harper MP David Sweet and Mr. Pennings.

Paradis did find the book lacking in places, and don't disagree. I think there may have been a bit too much on dispensationalism and not enough on some of the key cabinet ministers and their involvement with the Religious Right, especially American groups. Jason Kenney is in much deeper than the book suggests, as is Jim Flaherty.

But it was the second best seller in June and Amazon, while listing it as #89 overall, places it in the first spot for non-fiction and religion.

I think it was a very good first effort, on a subject that was difficult, especially given this government's reputation for combative behaviour.

There is a recent event though, that validates the need for this and further research.

Vic Toews has announced a $90,000 fund to protect some religious groups from hate crimes.

A group of religious centres in Toronto will receive government funding to help protect their communities against hate crimes. Public Safety Minister Vic Toews announced almost $90,000 in government funding today for security infrastructure for six religious organizations in the Toronto area. Mr. Toews says he wants to ensure that vulnerable communities are able to protect themselves against hate-crime incidents.

There is nothing wrong with this, but as Montreal Simon points out, hate crimes against homosexuals are on the rise, so why is there no funding to help them?

Police services are reporting a big jump in hate crimes, and they say gay men are being targeted more often and in the most violent incidents. But Statistics Canada says the numbers could be more a result of better reporting than of increased violence.

The agency says all three major categories of hate crime increased in 2008, but the largest increase was among crimes motivated by sexual orientation, which more than doubled from 2007 to 2008. Hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation were also the most violent: 75 per cent were violent compared with 38 per cent of racially-motivated incidents and 25 per cent of religiously motivated incidents. Among violent incidents motivated by sexual orientation, 85 per cent of the victims were male.

This is where religious fundamentalism becomes ugly. They validate hate crimes against homosexuals because of their own language in referring to gays.

Things like this:


All vulnerable Canadians need protection.

To the Wonderful Murray Corren: You are Esteemed in My Canada

"The Rights Revolution is about enhancing our right to be equal, while protecting our right to be different." - Michael Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution, CBC Massey Lectures, 2000

The Tyee is running a series of excerpts from Marci McDonalds' book: The Armageddon Factor. In the first they tell the story of Murray Corren - "... one half of the gay couple behind the most provocative revamping of the provincial curriculum since the government first dared to inform students about the verboten subject of sex."

Murray and his spouse Peter, filed a suit against the B.C. government for what they called "systemic gender discrimination" and won the right to run an "elective course to combat not only homophobia but bigotry of every kind, including biases against the disabled, the homeless and the poor."

Members of the Religious Right were outraged and spoke of an illusive "homosexual agenda", while they mobilized and fought to have Corren's course kept out of the schools.

Standing before the Social Justice 12 class, Corren looks incapable of provoking such inflammatory prose, but as a veteran of nearly every gay-rights fight in the province, he is clearly the incarnation of James Dobson's worst nightmare -- a symbol of everything the religious right deems wrong with public education. Murray Corren might have rhymed off statistics to the class: 82 per cent of gay students report being bullied and 48 per cent confess to contemplating suicide. He could have recounted the tragedies of two American adolescents who'd actually been driven to kill themselves, one found hanged by an electrical cord in his closet after being taunted as a "fag" by classmates.

Instead, Corren relates a condensed version of his own biography, growing up as Murray Warren in a bleak Newfoundland mining town where he was mocked at school as a "sissy" and occasionally limped home with a bloody nose. It is a calculated strategy, he admits, to stress the personal, not the political. "All the research shows that if you actually know somebody who is gay," he says, "it's much harder to discriminate."

I found that last statement very compelling and can relate through my own experiences. No I'm not gay, but understand that once you know someone who could be the subject of discrimination, it removes your fears.

We adopted our daughter 30 years ago, knowing that she was having some developmental issues. Since both of her birth parents were alcoholics, she had been diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. At school, she was put in a special class and as a result was often the subject of ridicule.

Eight years ago, our daughter gave birth to a son, who would not have been able to inherit FAS, but was born with many characteristics similar to those shared by his mom. Tests revealed that both had a rare genetic disorder called Coffin-Lowry Syndrome. The females carry the gene but the males get the worst of the symptoms.

This beautiful little boy, who we have been raising since birth, is deaf and has a great deal of difficulty forming words. His gait is awkward because of low muscle tone and his glasses too large for his face. His growth is stunted and his cognitive skills far below those of his age group.

But that is not the story.

When we first took him to orientation for kindergarten, I was apprehensive about how he would be received, not only by the other children, but by the parents who might wonder if a child who needs so much extra attention, would affect their own children's education.

But as we walked around the classroom and I signed to my grandson, trying to make him aware of what the teacher was saying, one parent raised her hand and asked if their children would have an opportunity to learn sign language. I could have kissed her.

My fears immediately subsided.

He is now in grade three and I can't tell you how many times children have come up to us when we're out, and state that they go to his school. They often tell me some of the things that he is unable to, but there is something else that I have noticed. They will always go to the front of Nicholas and speak directly into his face. Many know at least a bit of sign and the communication is effortless.

They now know someone who is not quite the same as them, making it far more difficult for them to discriminate.

So I applaud the Correns for their courage. They don't have to do this. I'm sure they could live without the verbal abuse. But they are doing it so that children can grow up knowing all kinds of wonderful people. A lesson many of their parents could learn.

So I'm going to dedicate one of my favourite videos to them. Not because they are the "crazy ones" or "misfits", but because they have the courage to help change the world.

Will the Religious Young Save us From the Religious Right?

I was reading a critique of Marci McDonald's book, The Armageddon Factor, in which she reveals the enormous political clout of the Religious Right, that has entrenched itself in the Harper government, and was surprised by one of the comments at the end.

Someone was actually suggesting that they charge her with hate crimes, as religious persecution. This was rather hypocritical given that the Religious Right want to overturn Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and disband the Human Rights Commissions, on the grounds that they inhibit "free speech".

Since the Religious Right made a conscious decision to become involved in the "public square" they have to understand that they leave themselves open to criticism as part of our political discourse. They can't have it both ways. Any group with sway on any government, needs to be discussed and analyzed. McDonald simply opened the door and made it OK to do this from a purely political perspective.

They have affected grants to scientific research, based on the fact that only 'creationism' should be promoted. They were behind the scrapping of a national child care plan, based on the fact that they believe mothers should stay in the home. Cuts to women's groups, social programs and even the religious organization KAIROS, were all implemented because of their influence.

After reading several articles about the horrendous actions of Young Republicans and Young Conservatives at university and college campuses, I began to wonder if it was too late to stop this destructive force.

Then I came across an article in Time magazine, that gave me hope. It was about young evangelicals, who clearly have the right message when it comes to being politically engaged.

For many people, the word Evangelical evokes an image of fire-and-brimstone conservatism. Pat Robertson's suggestion this past winter that Haiti had brought its earthquake on itself through a Satanic pact may have been an extreme example, but it's the kind of pronouncement we've come to expect from a certain generation of Evangelical leaders. Today's young Evangelicals cut an altogether different figure. They are socially conscious, cause-focused and controversy-averse. (1)

It follows the story of a young Christian, Josh Dickson:

As an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, Dickson became involved with Campus Crusade for Christ, an international Christian evangelism organization. Before long, Dickson was leading Bible studies in his dorm and recruiting the captain of the football team to talk about his faith at a Campus Crusade event the week of the end-of-season game against rival Ohio State.

By day, however, Dickson was a political science major. In his theory and policy courses, he was learning for the first time about social inequities that he thought had been erased decades earlier. He remembers being shocked to learn that the quality of something as universal as education depended largely on one's zip code. Once blind, he now saw systemic contributors to poverty wherever he looked. (1)

This was his real "spiritual awakening", not a silly notion that if you're poor it's because God wants you to be poor. The Religious Right message, that has now become morphed into a "free market" philosophy, is contradictory when it comes to Christian values. I'm an agnostic but have read the story of Jesus of Nazareth, and he would never buy into this nonsense. And yet they're still flogging it.

Martin E. Marty, wrote a piece on the declining fortunes of mega churches, citing in particular the misfortune of Crystal Cathedral, a mega-church founded in the mid-1950s in California. He notes the unkind responses to the church's plight, but explains why he believes this is:

One has to see a turnabout-is-fair-play attitude in some of the uncharitable responses. The mega-church networks build constituencies in part by attacking denominations, even as these networks then become more-than-virtual, indeed, parallel and competitive “denominations” themselves. (2)

There is a real competition not for souls, but for money. Many mega churches are blaming the economic downturn for their demise but I think it's just that they're burning themselves out. Another problem is when the church itself is built around a charismatic leader who like Ted Haggard, disgraces themselves or passes away, and there is no one with his mass appeal to take over.

But will we see young people steer religion back to it's intended place in society?

Over the past decade, a remarkable cultural shift has taken place among young Evangelicals that has surprised even longtime observers. There is a long history in the Evangelical community of caring for "the least of these," whether as full-time missionaries or through religious entities like World Vision, one of the biggest international relief and development organizations on the planet. Churches often collect special offerings to support aid groups or to focus on local needs through soup kitchens and clothing drives. Evangelical involvement in the pro-life movement is well-known, of course, but at least a century earlier, Evangelicals held leading roles in the effort to abolish slavery. (1)

And despite the fact that Christian Zionists attack us for criticizing Israel, young Jewish people are becoming highly critical of the country's actions, and don't have the same attachment to their perceived "homeland"

... recent research shows that young Jews believe a connection to the State of Israel is not among the primary factors in determining the collective Jewish identity. (3)

American Jews’ connection to Israel drops off with each subsequent generation, a new study suggests. The authors of the study, sociologists Steven M. Cohen and Ari Kelman, found a consistent increase in alienation in each younger generation, with middle-aged Jews less attached to Israel than older Jews, and younger Jews less attached than middle-aged Jews. “Every measure indicates a decline of attachment to Israel” from one generation to the next, Kelman, a sociologist at the University of California, Davis, told the Forward. (4)

The following is a video of Father Carapi, an Orthodox Catholic leader, lambasting Notre Dame for giving President Obama an honorary degree. He calls Obama anti-Christian. It's people like him who would drive people away from church more than the lure of sin.

While their grandparents might have considered political and social engagement inappropriate and their parents may have spent their energies on culture-war issues such as abortion and school prayer, the members of the newest generation of Evangelicals are less interested in choosing sides. They focus on nonideological causes like fighting for clean water and poverty relief and fighting against sex trafficking. The issues lend themselves to what the late Evangelical theologian Francis Schaeffer called "co-belligerents," the idea that people who disagree on other issues can work together for a common cause. No one is pro-malaria, so everyone is a potential ally to fight malaria. (1)

The Religious Right movement is exclusionary. Only they hold the "truth" so the rest of us are arrogantly dismissed as "sinners" These young Evangelicals are "pro-life" in the true sense of the word, so despite the fact that I'm pro-choice, I would respect their beliefs because they also oppose war.

Many younger Evangelicals have also dispensed with the idea — once considered gospel truth by older generations — that only private institutions like churches and charities should care for the needy. "Young Evangelicals are not constrained by the sacred-secular dichotomy their parents had," says Cromartie. "They see the whole world as their neighborhood."

Like many of their secular peers, young Evangelicals have also been influenced by globalization. Their parents would have heard about third-world poverty once a year via slide shows from visiting missionaries at a Sunday-night church service. Younger Evangelicals' exposure, on the other hand, is more direct and sustained. They download videos about child soldiers in Uganda and hear their favorite Christian musicians talk about building orphanages in Haiti.

Perhaps the most significant change shaping the Evangelical community today is the growing generation gap in political attitudes and positions. On a wide array of issues, you can get completely different responses from Evangelicals over 35 and those under 35. An October 2008 poll by Public Religion Research showed that by a margin of 21 points, young Evangelicals were more likely than older ones to favor expanding government to provide more social services. While they remain staunchly antiabortion, young Evangelicals are twice as likely as their parents to support same-sex civil unions. And 56% (vs. 44% of older Evangelicals) believe that diplomacy is a better road to peace than military strength. (1)

And young Muslims are also looking for new direction:

As a consequence of these and other factors, many young people are becoming disenchanted with the Brotherhood, and the movement as a whole appears to be losing its ability to inspire its youth and to claim their loyalties. This has generated a crisis within the Brotherhood, with a growing number of reform-minded young people seeking a new pathway forward.

... young people have a well developed political consciousness as well: no longer focusing simply on jobs or adequate education, they increasingly make more expressly political demands, calling for increased political participation, respect for human rights, and greater personal liberties. At the same time, the information revolution has given youth the opportunity to participate in politics directly and cheaply, and to join in the global discussion on freedom, human rights, and democratization. (5)

If this momentum continues, future generations will be compassionate and progressive, understanding what it really means to live in a global community, that can only be secular if there is any chance for survival.

Sources:

1. Young Evangelicals: Expanding Their Mission, Time Magazine, By Amy Sullivan, June 01, 2010

2. Decline in the US mega-churches, By Martin E. Marty, June 7, 2010

3. 'Criticism of Israel by young American Jews is a good sign', Jewish World, April 14, 2010

4. Attachment to Israel Declining Among Young American Jews, By Anthony Weiss, Jewish Daily, September 05, 2007

5. The Young Brotherhood in Search of a New Path, by Khalil Al-AnaniPublished on Monday, October 05, 2009

The Jesus Camp and Why Fundamentalism Can be Dangerous

I had bookmarked a series of videos on Youtube from the documentary Jesus Camp, but could never get past the trailer. Finally, the other night I watched them all. Jesus Camp is a child's Bible Camp where children are indoctrinated in the most horrific fashion. My reaction went from shock to sadness to anger. What I was witnessing was systematic child abuse, but because this was "religion", the authorities would not have been able to do much about it.

In her book The Armageddon Factor, Marci McDonald mentions the group 'Watchmen for the Nation', and how the American founder of Watchmen was on this video putting red tape across the mouths of the children with the word 'Life'. (2)

She also mentions that Stockwell Day is a member and that they are grooming him to become prime minister, feeling that his "best days" are before him. His bio mentions that he was a youth minister and had worked at children's bible camps, and after watching the videos, the words of the minister who took over for Day when he was running the Bentley Bible schools, described a scene not unlike what is happening at that Jesus Camp.

Throughout this period, Stockwell Day was assistant pastor and school administrator. "They changed their by-laws so that the people would have no say - leaders to be appointed by other leader, as determined by scripture," explains Rathjen. "It was a haughty, arrogant, pride-filled success story that led to disaster." Fuelled by American-style revivalism, the church emphasized radical gospel practices - such as speaking-in-tongues - that whipped worshippers into a frenzy. "They have emotional experiences and then try to build a doctrine around it," explains Rathjen. The intensity of the church and constant stream of visiting American pastors gave Bentley an international profile within fundamentalist circles. But the church eventually succumbed to its own extremes.

"I would say that it was as close to a cult as you can get," says pastor Rathjen. "They were still holding on to the Christian teaching - but with manipulation and
control. (1)

"As close to a cult as you're going to get." That's not the only time I'd heard that. When Day was running against Preston Manning for the leadership of the Alliance Party in 2000, he brought in the religious fundamentalists of the worst kind. Some in the party accused him of polarizing, and one member of Preston Manning's team, Rick Anderson, suggested that there was a "Jim Jones Kool-Aid quality to what was going on." Former Conservative insider (when Canada actually had a Conservative party) Dalton Camp, once suggested that Stockwell Day was from the "lunatic fringe."

Surviving the Jesus Camp

Josh Timonen from the Richard Dawkins Research Centre watched the documentary when it was first released in theatres, and describes his reaction. Like me he went from shock to sadness to anger, and I think we have to get angry here. These people are not only depriving these children of vital knowledge, but they are taking away their childhood.

We meet a young boy in an oversized t-shirt who is lounging in front of the television at home. He's watching a "Creation Adventures" video for children, and with a commanding baritone voice it falsely instructs that the earth was formed 6,000 years ago by you-guessed-who. Thankfully, in my theatre this received a roaring round of laughter. The narrator makes a joke about how 'some people say' we came from 'slime,' and he puts on a ridiculous face as he holds up his two hands covered in a silly green goop. We later see this boy's mother looking through a 3-ring study binder at the dinner table, quizzing her son on what to say if someone tries to tell him that global warming is real(?!?). He knows the answer to this one, and with a smile tells his mother how he would reply: the temperature has only risen half a degree over some recent time period, and that this isn't a big deal. It was as if he was doing his nightly homework, with his mother at his side. I sort of missed what the boy specifically said. I had already blown a gasket and was yelling at the screen after the ridiculous global warming question the mother had asked - And from some 3-ring study binder no less!

The camp begins and it is pure madness. One of the first points of business is to condemn every child's favorite "warlock". Pastor Becky explains that "had he been in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death!" (Thank goodness we've got that straightened out).The children are all so eager to please, and this element of the film is the most difficult for me. If the adults decided to hand out the special Kool-Aid at this camp, the children would all unquestionably partake. With arms in the air, they are 'instructed' on how to let the spirit take over their bodies and speak in tongues. The children imitate. Many of them cry. Some fall to the ground and shake on the floor in what looks like an epileptic seizure. More cry. I wanted to cry with them, or more accurately for them. This all looked very unhealthy, I could only imagine what it was doing to them psychologically. I had the striking thought that this was all completely unforgivable. These adults, no matter their intentions, were performing horrific acts of mental child abuse. (3)

They are getting away with far too much in the name of religion. What they do is their own business, and they have freedom to believe what they believe. But when children are being exploited in this way, something needs to be done. And if you think that this is not happening here, I came across another video from an American atheist YouTube channel. (not promoting that channel. It looks a little silly)

The caller is a young man from Canada who claimed that he attended a similar camp in Alberta. We need to get mad about this. Gary Goodyear, our science minister, is gutting scientific research, simply because he's a creationist. This is not acceptable.

You can watch the videos here. I'll warn you that they are disturbing. Below is the interview with the Canadian teenager.

Sources:

1. Bentley, Alberta: Hellfire, Neo-Nazis and Stockwell Day: A two-part look inside the little town that nurtured a would-be prime minister - and so"me of the most notorious hate-mongers in Canada, By Gordon Laird, NOW Magazine, 2000

2. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8 3.

3. Surviving Jesus Camp, By Josh Timonen, Richard Dawkins Foundation, October 2, 2006

Marci McDonald's Book and Why Our Media Still Doesn't get it!

I watched Steve Paikin's 'The Agenda', on TV Ontario, where he interviewed Marci McDonald, the author of the explosive new book, The Armageddon Factor. You can watch the tape here.

He had a panel discuss the rise of the Religious Right in Canada after the interview, and it occurred to me that there is something that the media is not getting here. While they appear to still be squeamish about discussing religion, they have missed an extremely important element to this story.

This is not just about the rise of what they call Christian Conservatism in Canada, but the rise of 'American Christian Conservatism' in Canada. Most of these groups that now hold a place of prominence in our government, originated with the U.S. Republican Party, and in fact, many were given seed money from south of the border.

This speaks to our Canadian sovereignty. Why are so many American based groups camped out in the Parliament buildings, trying to legislate our morality, based on their 'Republican' view of morality? Shouldn't this be our business?

One point that Paikin made was that it took three decades for the movement to be successful in the USA, implying that we had little to worry about, since it was still a few years off. However, that is not the case, because the infrastructure has already been created and simply replicated here. Therefore, we didn't need thirty years. Only four.

The Paul Weyrich Factor

On page 79 of the book, McDonald details how just before the 2006 election, a member of Harper's team contacted Paul Weyrich, one of the most influential men in the U.S. Conservative/Moral Majority movement, asking him to advise his people not to speak to the Canadian media. Fearing they would uncover just how connected Harper was to the upper echelons of the Republican Party, it could very well have cost him the election.

But when the results were in, Weyrich was elated. However, while some Republicans were concerned that with a minority Harper's hands were tied, Weyrich reassured them that this was not the case, and posted this on his website:

“Harper is pleased that the media and many in his own party are nay-saying ... such pessimism would lower expectations and give him additional latitude to accomplish his agenda. Harper’s game plan apparently is to pit the federalist Liberals against the Bloc Quebecois and the decentralizing Bloc against big-government Liberals.

“It is not widely known in this country that a Canadian prime minister has more power than a United States president. Harper could appoint 5,000 new officials. (No confirmation is required by the Canadian Parliament.) The prime minister also could appoint every judge from the trial courts, to the courts of appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

“Harper’s partisans believe he could maintain power for four years, during which time Conservatives hopefully would witness many vacancies created by Liberals leaving the courts. The Supreme Court of Canada currently is dominated by Liberals. As has been the case in the United States, cultural Marxism largely has been foisted upon Canada by the courts. If judges who respect the Constitution were to be appointed they would confirm that such rights are not to be found in that document. Sound familiar?” Paul Weyrich (1)

And has Stephen Harper not lived up to the dreams of Mr. Weyrich? Has he not used and abused his power to create a system that is pleasing to the American Conservative movement?

This is not simply a matter of religion, or an attempt to create a theocracy. This is an attempt to create an American style theocracy, with American money. And since these religious groups played such an important role in Harper's victory, it means that foreign contributions impacted OUR election?

And where do the Canadian people fit into all this? These are the questions our media has largely ignored and are still ignoring.

Evangelicals to the North

In November of 2006, less than a year after Stephen Harper gained power, an American journalist was visiting Toronto, and wrote a piece for CBS, discussing the 'new Canada'.

When things get bad in the United States, it is reassuring to turn to Canada, a country with a high standard of living, a small military and a national health care plan. Canada always seemed to be, if a bit duller than America, also a bit saner. But this is changing. The new Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, inspired by the neocons to the south, appears determined to visit the worst excesses of George Bush's presidency on his own country.

... Harper is rapidly building an alliance with the worst elements of the U.S. Christian right. [He] has spent the past three years methodically knitting a coalition of social conservatives and evangelicals that looks ominously similar to the American model. While the Ottawa press corps has been preoccupied with Harper's ability to keep the most blooper-prone Christians in his caucus buttoned up, he has quietly but determinedly nurtured a coalition of evangelicals, Catholics, and conservative Jews that brought him to power and that will put every effort into ensuring that he stays there ... Unfortunately for Canada, Harper has a lot of American help. James Dobson has set up a Canadian branch of his Focus on the Family three blocks from the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. The organization, called the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, provides political expertise to and otherwise supports Harper's allies in the bid to turn Canada into an Americanized Christian state. (2)

'An Americanized Christian state'? That is the story that the media has missed.

The author Arnie Seipel closes with this question to himself:

"As I walk the windy streets of Toronto I wonder if those who push past me will wake up and see in Harper's government our own malaise or watch passively as Canada becomes a demented reflection of George Bush's America." (2)

Unfortunately, we now have the answer, three years too late.

Sources:

1. Christian right eyes Canada, By Bill Berkowitz, Briarpatch, February 21, 2006

2. Evangelicals, To The North: With Bush Ally As Prime Minister, Canada's New Christian Right Rises Up, By Arnie G. Seipel, November 9, 2006

David Sweet, Spiritual Capital and Reconstructionism

When Darrel Reid was defeated as a Conservative candidate in 2006, he became "Vice President of Project Development for the Work Research Foundation, an organization with the stated mission to “influence people to a Christian view of work and public life.”"(1)

I must admit that I'd never heard of the 'Work Research Foundation' and wasn't quite sure what was meant by a "Christian view of work and public life". So I perused their site, and though they are now calling themselves Cardus, what I found was a bit alarming, beginning with this:

"Our mission is to rethink, research and rebuild North America's social architecture."

If you link to their audio section and scroll down to a 2005 recording, you can listen to a lecture series on something they call "spiritual capital." And just so there's no mistake, the re-introduction by Michael Van Pelt, clearly states that Cardus is the new name for Work Research Foundation. And Darrel Reid, Stephen Harper's deputy chief of staff, went right from there to Harper's office. From their site:

The third installment of our thINK audio series is here, and our latest WRF product is just in time: spiritual capital is a concept which provides the tread for walking faithfully in a society that gets more secular every day. First, David Sweet introduces, in layman's terms, the idea of "spiritual capital." (2)

For those who don't know, David Sweet is the MP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, a backbencher in the Harper government. He introduces himself as the Vice-President of Business Development for the group.

I listened to all of the speakers and if there was ever a scripted mandate for a theocracy this is it. On his website, Sweet refers to himself as a motivational speaker, and it's pretty clear after listening to 15 minutes (twice) of his speech, that he is motivating business leaders to create a Christian workplace.

He praises one such leader for printing that his "Purpose was to honour God" on his business cards. Sweet goes on to describe what spiritual capital is, by suggesting that it could be equated to social, physical and human capital, all requirements to maximize profit. "Faith" economics and devoting your business to the "Glory of God". (when I was roaming I was linked to The Christian Labour Association, that even encourages companies be unionized by Christians)

The next speakers continue along the same vein, and what they describe is a Utopia where a company's mission statement is reflective of "Christian values", with a healthy dose of redemption.

They suggest that if a company bases their business on these "Christian values", it will be a workplace with integrity and little conflict. And rather than discouraging employees from discussing their religious beliefs, they encourage open discussion, even for non-Christians.

It's not too difficult to see what would take place here. You have a business with a stated Christian hierarchy. You employ non-Christians and then encourage open discussion of religious beliefs. Sounds like proselytizing to me. And what happens if those non-Christians don't see the light? Will there be accusations of religious harassment, that would be similar to sexual harassment, where an employee is "saved" or risks losing their job?

Darrel Reid once suggested that gay rights are a form of Nazi tyranny. Is there a place for gays in this wonderful, non-conflict workplace?

Templeton Foundation

One of the groups that David Sweet promotes is the Templeton Foundation:

The mission of the Templeton Foundation is: to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality. We support research on subjects ranging from complexity, evolution, and infinity to creativity, forgiveness, love, and free will. We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians and between such experts and the public at large, for the purposes of definitional clarity and new insights.

One of those 'Big Questions' is answered through intelligent design, rather than evolution. The foundation has also been embroiled in controversy, because despite the fact that they claim to be non-partisan, they regularly provide funding to Conservative groups, including Ari Fleischer's Freedom's Watch.

They have also garnered "criticism from some members in the scientific community who are concerned with its linking of scientific and religious questions."

Another speaker mentions that they had just completed a project with the Max De Pree Center, in Pasadena California, where they promote a 'servant leadership' program, and recently hosted a seminar on the "Morality of the Market."

So what does this all mean?

David Sweet and Darrel Reid from the Harper government are both involved with the Work Research Foundation, now Cardus, who are working to 'Rebuild North America's social architecture' by promoting Christian businesses.

Michael Van Pelt, another speaker on the podcast, is a new appointee at Rights and Democracy, which has been embroiled in controversy after their hostile takeover by the Harper government.

Ray Pennings, another speaker, is the chair of Redeemer University College, where the 4th speaker, Gideon Strauss is one of the faculty.

David Sweet hosted a National House of Prayer 'dessert reception' there, where the faithful were invited to "Come and hear what God is doing in our Government." And Redeemer College recently received three million dollars of public money - our money; despite the fact that they are an elite private Bible school.

Welcome to Reconstructionism 101. Leave your souls at the door.

Sources:

1. Wikipedia: Darrel Reid

2. Spiritual Capital, By Ray Pennings and Michael Van Pelt, CARDUS, July 1, 2005