A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
Several years ago my husband and I stayed in Peterborough, as part of a mini-vacation. When leaving our hotel we noticed a rather large rally where demonstrators, carrying signs "This Land is Our Land", had lined the drive.
We honked believing it to be a native protest, but soon realized that there were no native faces in the crowd.
When we returned later that day, the protesters were still in full force but had been moved across the road and several police cars now guarded the hotel entrance.
I asked the girl at the desk what was going on and she explained that there was a hockey tournament in town that weekend and there was an aboriginal hockey team staying at the hotel. These people were protesting native land claims.
Why was an out of town group of young men, who only wanted to engage in a sporting event, being targeted by a rather large and noisy group of angry white "landowners", I wondered. When I posed the question to the hotel clerk, she rolled her eyes and said that "they were nuts" and did stuff like that all the time.
This Peterborough group soon became part of a larger organization, when an umbrella group was created in 2005, called the Ontario Landowners Association. Theirfirst president was Randy Hillier, now Tim Hudak's MPP for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.
Hillier had originally headed up the Lanark Landowners Association, whose motto was “This Land is Our Land: Back off Government”. They had become notorious for stunts though Hillier would refer to it as civil disobedience.
This "civil disobedience", included blocking highways, barricading government offices, staging illegal deer hunts, and publicly breaking laws that the Landowners regarded as unjust. This was primarily done as a tactic to draw media attention to perceived injustices, and thereby to pressure the provincial government to amend the laws. Hillier has explained the illegal actions of the Landowners as follows: "I believe in non-violent civil disobedience. I believe when a law or rule is blatantly wrong it is a part of our democratic process to challenge that law. At times civil disobedience is used to illustrate and further bring attention to the absurdity." (Wikipedia)
"I sent [Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty an email containing] a picture of a dead deer saying the people of Lanark County were removing nuisance deer because the Liberal government had revoked those licences [for farmers to shoot deer that were eating their crops]. I did it four years ago... and I would do it again ... " (1)
His group scored a victory on the illegal out-of-season deer hunt, fuelling their cause and in April of 2004, launched a large protest on Parliament Hill. Stephen Harper attended the rally and addressed the crowd, promising to make property rights a priority if elected prime minister. It was pretty clear that he was not only trying to woo the theocon vote, but was also trying to draw in the right-wing fringe groups.
You would have thought that he would have learned his lesson after the problems this imposed for the Reform Party. They had passed a motion at their opening assembly to allow extremist groups to join the party. When the question was posed, even Doug Christie? someone in the crowd spoke up. "Ah, leave him in, we may need him later". (2) Christie was leader of the Western Canada Concept, a Party pushing for the Western provinces and territories to split with Canada and form their own nation. Stockwell Day's father was a member of this group.
Eventually the extremists all but took over the party, necessitating a reinvention, though many of them are still around. Stephen Harper handles them by silencing them, but in a democratic country, elected officials should never be "silenced". It flies in the face of democracy.
Randy Hillier and the Religious Right
Once the Ontario Landowners Association was established, Hillier decided that instead of simple acts of protest, to move the group into the mainstream, by attempting to infiltrate government and implement changes from within.
So with the endorsement and help of his group's members, he successfully won a seat in the Ontario Legislature in 2007. Hillier not only endorsed "land rights" but backed a social conservative agenda, bringing him to the attention of Tristan Emmanuel, a controversial leading member of Canada's Religious Right.
Emmanuel backed Randy Hillier's bid for leadership of the provincial party, and though a long shot he became a kingmaker for Tim Hudak, when he threw his support his way:
Landowner leader Randy Hillier brokered a deal with former PC leader John Tory to avert the possibility of Landowner candidates. It is widely believed this resulted in the inclusion of anti-environmental clauses in the PC Party’s platform in 2007 and Hillier’s own candidacy for the PCs in Lanark.
Hillier’s leadership run last year was fueled by the Landowners, and Tim Hudak’s anti-Human Rights Commission positioning was designed to broker a deal with the Landowners and other radicals. Hudak will need to come to terms with these Landowners if he doesn’t want a problem on his right ... (3)
However, when you sell your soul you have to expect that eventually those who hold the lien are going to expect payment, and I think that Randy Hillier is beginning to become a problem for the Mike Harris protege Hudak.
We first saw this with the sit-in at Queen's Park in December:
For novice PC Leader Tim Hudak, his party's protest over the Liberal government's proposed harmonized sales tax produced a couple of unforeseen outcomes. The first was his own loss of face when a caucus member apparently defied the boss's wishes in a stunt that spun out of control ... As it unfolded, eastern Ontario MPP Randy Hillier hopped aboard, apparently ignoring instructions from caucus elders that he leave the Legislature when ejected by Speaker Steve Peters. Hillier's defiance of not just the Speaker but his own leadership raised embarrassing questions as to who was running the PC show. (4)
Now Hillier is once again challenging the authority of his leader, by posting a column on the handling of the G-20 security.
Instead of a choosing a more controlled and less populated location that would not be such a powerful magnet for the few juvenile anarchists, Stephen Harper agreed to host the G20 in a location that he had to have known would draw the greatest opposition and most violent response, therefore justifying an outrageous expenditure of public dollars and creating an army of police equipped with a siege mentality.
Both the provincial and federal governments now attempt to shirk responsibility for their actions by shifting blame to one another and to the police, who were acting under political orders ... .They both use the common theme that upholding law and order required usurping our civil liberties. Any elementary school student knows these are not mutually exclusive — in fact, they are wholly interdependent. As numerous failed dictatorships have proven, you cannot have law and order without civil liberties. (5)
His column was a direct contradiction to one inked by Tim Hudak, where he placed all the blame on the protesters and backed the police action. How Hudak will handle this is any one's guess, but I think he is learning the hard way that once you court the Religious Right, they hold all the power. Stephen Harper is now learning this and while bringing in fringe groups for support, both leaders are facing the problem of knowing what to do with them.
I think this will end badly for citizens who only elect officials to govern, not appease right-wing factions.
Sources:
1. "Debate one last swipe before vote", Napanee Guide, October 5, 2007
2. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
Last month a Quebec judge made a ruling on the rights of a Jesuit school to have the ability to refuse to teach anything that goes against their own religious beliefs.
According to a decision handed down on June 18 by the Quebec Superior Court, Jesuit Loyola High School of Montreal will be dispensed from teaching “the Ethics and Religious Culture course” imposed by the Quebec Ministry of Education in the fall of 2008.
The Jesuit school administration asserts that the course’s contents conflict with the institution’s Catholic values. According to statements reported on the Radio Canada website (http://www.radio-canada.ca/), headmaster Paul Donovan stated that Catholic values must be present in every discipline, not only in religion classes, but in the other subjects such as English or Physical Education. (1)
Now this should have made a case for freedom of religion, except that the judge took it one step further, by invoking the preamble to the Canadian Constitution which states: “Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”
This is setting a very dangerous precedence. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has already stated that they see it as a good sign, and many Religious Right sites are singing Hallelujah.
Atheists are suggesting that since they don't believe in God they should not have to support this, while others like the National Post are seeing it as part of our country's history.
What does the “supremacy of God” mean? At a minimum, it reflects a historical fact. From the early French explorers and Jesuit missionaries to the British institutions of Crown-in-Parliament, the architecture of Canada is incomprehensible without the institutions of religion. It is impossible to tell the story of Canadian finance without the Catholic driven caisse populaire movement in rural Quebec. Medicare is the product of the Protestant prairie pastors who led the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation. Today, our newest Canadians often turn to services offered by religious congregations of all kinds — indeed, our refugee programs more or less assume that this will be the case. Religion is not an alien force, but, to use an apt word, constitutive of who we are.
The Constitution describes not only who we are–matters of history — but also who we ought to be–matters of aspiration. This is likely what those who object to the “supremacy of God” find difficult. They think that such language excludes from the Canadian project those who do not believe in God. Yet even those Canadians should welcome God in the preamble. Something, after all, has to be supreme. And if it is not God, even understood in the broadest possible sense, then what is it? Fearsome it would be to live in the land where the works of man alone are supreme.
Of course they are right. Symbolically Christianity is part of our culture. But so too is a divisiveness, based not on the supremacy of God, but perceived supremacies of various religious beliefs, even within the Christian faith.
If courts start tapping into the 'Supremacy of God' as a legal argument, we have to ask "Whose God?" Whose interpretation of the Bible? Old Testament or New Testament?
Will judges have to memorize the Bible before they can make a decision? Will we need a representative from the Mormons, the Jews, the Jehovah Wittiness, Evangelicals, Lutherans, etc. etc., who have all interpreted the ancient texts differently.
And what about Buddhists or Muslims?
Because you see Canada was not founded on one religious faith. The French explorers and Jesuit missionaries were Catholic, and even when protestants arrived it was not a shared Judeau-Christian dogma. That only came about when Cyrus Scofield was asked to create that heritage.
Even during the time of Samuel De Champlain, Jews were outcasts. At Port Royal the French adventurers created The Order of Good Cheer, believed to be the first Euro-Canadian social club in North America.
We could also probably take it one step further and say the first integrated social club of Europeans and Canadians, since Membertou [native host] was an official member and any other visiting sagamores [chiefs] always held a place of honor at the main table, while their people were seated with the men on the floor of the dining hall. But then we could also say that it was the first social club in North America that banned membership based on racial or religious grounds. [Marc] Lescarbot says that everyone joined, except "the artisans, who were from a different class", or more precisely from the Jewish Ghetto at Saintes.
So anti-semitism is also part of our early history.
The Post article also states:
The Charter does not say that, but we ought to be grateful that it intuitively points in that direction. The Judeo-Christian tradition is not the only foundation for tolerance between different peoples, or for harmony in a pluralistic society, but surveying the global scene today it is the most secure foundation currently on offer.
Again that is not true. An arrogance of faith has often turned the western world into bullies. We are always invading countries. It has also created two world wars which pit Christians against Christians. The Religious Right claim that they are being bred out because of abortion, but those wars destroyed generations. Admittedly they were not about religion but territory. However, a good religious faith would have preferred diplomacy to so much death.
Another editorial by John Moore in the National Post is right on the money.
Christians in the U.S. and in Canada have engaged in elaborate intellectual exercises and historical revisionism to shoe horn God into government. God appears nowhere in the U.S. constitution, so his fans have concocted a school of foundational thinking that requires the more mystical Declaration of Independence to be considered a pre-amble. The phrase “One nation under God” was only inserted into the pledge of allegiance in 1954.
Canada’s union in 1867 was a far less exuberant affair than the creation of the United States. Our founding document reads more like something written by notaries, though I would argue that “peace, order and good government” — while less inspirational than “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” — is a far more concrete and achievable goal. The British North America Act has nothing to say about religion save a formula for the funding of confessional schools. In spite of stubborn efforts in some quarters to float the fiction that the word “Dominion” was intended to reference God it merely establishes our status as hapless subjects of the British Crown.
Moore concludes that it was Trudeau's fault because of his devout Catholic faith. However, I think it may have been due to the influence of Catholic leader Cardinal Emmett Carter, who worked with Trudeau when he was drafting the constitution. Carter wanted abortion left out but Trudeau wanted it in (I have a lot of information on this that I will be sharing soon). This may have been an appeasement.
I do agree with John Moore on this, however:
Those who insist upon pushing God further and further into the public square become angry when secularists push back and then scurrilously accuse non-believers of having started the fight. Non-believers want one thing: to be left alone. What atheists and agnostics fight for is the preservation of the shared secular oxygen that permits the faithful and non believers to co-exist. But some religious people are like prohibition era teetotalers: it’s not good enough to be sober so long as someone else is enjoying a good drink.
If, as my colleagues insist something must be supreme in Canada, let it be the law and the ultimate sovereign: the citizen.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada It was always a strange alliance: The Religious Right, the Republican/Conservatives and the Libertarians. But the more ridiculous and narrow minded the fundamentalists became, the more the Libertarians tried to distance themselves.
Now we find in the U.S., a crack in the armour as several high profile Conservatives are breaking ranks and supporting GOProud, a group of Gay Republicans.
Yes, I said it. Gay Republicans.
We knew they had them, but their voices were being drowned out by the rants of the 'holier than thou'.
And with all of these non-profit groups that marginalize children not from their view of what families should be, what will they do now? If this is the start of an attempt at normalcy after years of insanity, where will they go?
Today, GOProud, the only national organization of gay conservatives and their allies, announced that conservative leader Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, and Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover are joining the GOProud Advisory Council. “Grover Norquist and Margaret Hoover are two of the most respected names in the conservative movement,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of GOProud’s Board. “We are honored to have them as part of the GOProud team.”
“GOProud is an important part of the conservative movement,” said Norquist. “I am proud to join GOProud’s Board of Advisors and to help in advancing their common-sense conservative agenda of limited government, lower taxes and individual liberty.”
Grover’s move to join the ranks of those who perpetuate the gay agenda, which has in its crosshairs the destruction of marriage, is as dishonoring to the movement he claims, as it is disheartening. Historically, conservatism has been built on a 3-legged stool of traditional social values, economic conservatism, and a strong national defense. So when Grover said that he “shares GOProud’s commitment to ‘core’ conservative values,” he’s obviously leaving out a key component that many in his cause hold dear.
Traditional moral values—such as marriage between a man and a woman—are as much a part of longstanding, conservative philosophy as Grover is vital to fiscal conservatives. It is worth noting that the importance of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman cannot be separated from the discussion of limited government and fiscal conservatism that Grover holds dear.
I was somewhat surprised to see that Americans for Tax Reform's president, Grover Norquist, has decided to join the Advisory Council of the homosexual group GOProud. Grover is usually a masterful Republican strategist and coalition builder -- but in this case, he seems prepared to compromise a unified conservative movement in order to appease a tiny minority of the overall population. GOProud is not a conservative organization that happens to be gay. It's a homosexual organization that's marginally conservative. GOProud's own website explains just how radical its priorities are. This is a group that opposes the death tax and ObamaCare -- not because they aren't sound economic policies -- but because they "discriminate" against "gay families."
And the platform doesn't end there. One of the group's top 10 "principles" is to create "enterprise zones" for homosexuals, despite the fact that the average income for gays and lesbians is higher than most everyone else. At least two other of its "principles" call for the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act. Among their other priorities: allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military and defeating any attempt to protect one-man, one-woman marriage. They even ran ads criticizing President Obama for not doing enough for the homosexual community!
I credit many of the diligent Americans who wrote constantly on the threat that the Religious Right imposed. We are seeing a similar movement in Canada, especially since Marci McDonald's book, the Armageddon Factor.
We still have a long way to go, but I think Norquist made an important first step.
I also just learned that Darrel Reid is moving on. Thank gawd.
Darrel Reid, an evangelical Christian who once led Focus on the Family, had been Harper’s deputy chief of staff and has played a key role in developing policy since joining the PMO in 2007. He’s moving to join the Manning Institute for Democracy.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come." John Hagee (1)
If anything defines the hypocrisy and viciousness of the Religious Right, it's their disdain for Jimmy Carter. Himself an evangelist, and one of the most caring people on the planet, he is treated by them as though he's the devil himself.
And why? Because he promotes peace in the Middle East.
At one of John Hagee's “Nights to Honor Israel”, the "evangelical" crowd get whipped into a frenzy:
They get even more stirred up when keynote speaker Michael Oren, an author and senior fellow at the Shalem center in Jerusalem, calls Jimmy Carter’s 2006 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a “reprehensible” work, and the mere mention of Carter’s name earns a chorus of boos so hostile they would probably frighten a Philadelphia hockey fan. (2)
Jimmy Carter, for heaven sake, the creator of Habitat for Humanity. Is Christianity ever taking a nose dive.
So how did this happen? Rabbi Caryn Broitman explains:
The beginning of this evangelical-Jewish alliance around Israel goes back to the aftermath of the Six Day War but intensified in the late 1970’s. At that time, two concurrent political developments were taking place in Israel and in the United States: the election of Menachem Begin and the rise of Likud party in Israel; and the rise of the Moral Majority and the religious right in the United States. The Likud party is a secular party, but it emphasizes Jewish rights over the whole of the Biblical land of Israel including the West Bank.
Begin made an alliance with the nationalist religious movements of Israel such as Gush Emunim to promote the religious settlement movement on the West Bank. President Jimmy Carter, however, was pressuring Begin to negotiate with Palestinians based on a principle of land for Peace. Begin needed American allies to counter this pressure and who better than Christians who believe, as Pastor Hagee says, that Israel is the only country established by God himself and that “any nation that forces Israel to divide up their land will experience the judgment of God.” It was a match made in heaven.
When Menachem Begin became Prime Minister, he made it a point to cultivate relationships with the American religious right. He became good friends with Jerry Falwell, inviting him and hundreds of other evangelical pastors for trips to Israel at the expense of the Israeli government. Falwell responded with endorsements of the Likud Party’s strategy of building Israeli Settlements throughout the West Bank. Begin’s government later gave Falwell his own jet to make his travels to Israel easier.
Falwell and other leaders of the religious right, including Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson, and Oral Roberts came through when they were needed by Likud politicians to lobby for their policies. In 1998 when Likud Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came on a state visit to the United States, his first stop was to see leaders of the religious right, such as Ralph Reed director of the Christian Coalition. “We have no greater friends and allies,” he said to them, than the people sitting in this room.”
Netanyahu’s statement may be startling to some, but it does make sense if one’s priority for Israel is to hold on to all the biblical land. They were Netanyahu’s best friends, better friends than President Clinton from that perspective, with whom he was meeting the next day and who was pressuring Netanyahu as well as the Palestinians to meaningfully negotiate. For the Likud party and their supporters, this was a smart political alliance.
Liberal objections about the real motives of these Evangelicals were not persuasive. True, these Christian right leaders believed the real significance of the State of Israel was its role in the apocalyptic end-times scenario, which they believed would culminate in the wiping out of most Jews and the conversion of the remaining few. This is deeply problematic and offensive for us as Jews. One could argue, however, that we don’t believe in these visions of the end time anyway, so what do they matter? If we agree on what should happen in this world, why not agree to disagree on what happens in the next. (3)
And one of the evangelical leaders to visit Israel in the 1970's was Pastor John Hagee, recently divorced and remarried to the woman with whom he'd had an affair.
With his reputation badly damaged by the divorce and apparent infidelity, he found solace — and a new career niche — in the Holy Land. In 1978, he and Diana (then pregnant with Matthew) made a trip to Israel, and came back committed Zionists. In 1981, when Israeli air strikes destroyed Iraq’s prized nuclear reactor, Hagee felt the need to defend Israel against the harsh criticisms of the international media.
Although he initially received little support from Jewish leaders (who looked at him “like he had a contagious rash,” according to Hagee) aside from Aryeh Scheinberg, a local Orthodox rabbi, Hagee inaugurated his “Night to Honor Israel,” meant to be a fundraiser for Jewish and pro-Israel causes, and a festive show of solidarity from Christians to the nation of Israel.
Hagee says his support for Israel stems from a heartfelt conviction that Jews have an unshakable biblical claim on Israel, but skeptics counter that his end-times theology, largely derived from the menacing imagery of the Book of Revelation, depends upon a prophesied invasion of Israel by Russia and Iran. If Israel brokered a two-state solution in the region and achieved a lasting peace with its neighbors, Hagee’s end-times checklist would be disrupted. Consider this passage from his best-known book, Jerusalem Countdown: “[God] has dragged these anti-Semitic nations to the nations of Israel to crush them so that the Jews of Israel will confess that He is the Lord. America and Europe will not save Israel — God will!” (2)
The Likud Party* has been returned to power with Benjamin Netanyahu once more at the helm. And he has also fostered a relationship with the Religious Right, though it is no longer just with the Americans. He also now has the support of Canada's Religious Right and it's extension: The Harper government. When Israeli seized a Turkish ship in international waters last month, killing nine peace activists, we were one of the few countries not to speak out against this criminal act:
While governments around the world denounced the Israeli attack and Turkey decried it as an act of "state terrorism," Prime Minister Stephen Harper cheerfully followed through with a planned meeting the next day with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Appearing with Netanyahu, Harper merely expressed regret about the loss of life and the fact that it interfered with Netanyahu's visit to Canada: "I'm sorry this has coloured this [visit]," said Harper, "but delighted you were able to join me at least last night and today, and we've had some important talks, so welcome to Canada." (4)
During the 2008 presidential race, Hagee threw his support behind John McCain, but the entire thing blew up in McCain's face, as the real John Hagee was exposed.
Hagee endorsed Republican Senator John McCain for president over a more obvious choice, Southern evangelical Mike Huckabee. McCain had courted Hagee for months, and stood by the San Antonio pastor’s side while saying that he was “very honored” by the endorsement.
Over the next three months, McCain found himself continually having to defend Hagee’s endless backlog of inflammatory pronouncements: that the Catholic Church is the “great whore” of scripture, that New Orleans brought the devastation of Katrina on itself by sinfully planning a gay-pride parade, that all Muslims want to destroy Christianity, that God will punish the United States if our political leaders urge Israel to give up some of its land (“This nation is going to go through a bloodbath because of what you’ve done.”), and that God sent Hitler to help drive the Jews to the promised land. Finally, after the slow drip of McCain repudiating Hagee statements one by one, on May 22, he rejected the pastor’s support, leading a bitter Hagee to announce that he would never again endorse a political candidate. (2)
I think that John McCain is a decent guy and may have been able to steer the Republicans back from the depths of hell, but between Sarah Palin and John Hagee, not to mention the legacy of George Bush, he didn't stand a chance.
So what does this have to with us, besides the fact that we're the only nation supporting piracy and murder? Hagee is losing credibility in the United States (though not with his flock), while his Canadian business partner, Charles McVety is gaining power in Canada.
Not only is McVety a long time friend of Jim Flaherty's, but he also has a close relationship with Stockwell Day and Jason Kenney, and according to McVety himself, can get Stephen Harper on the phone anytime he wishes. Hagee rents office space from McVety in Toronto, and his books and tapes are sold from McVety's Christian college. (5)
Even in the reliably conservative world of mega-church evangelism, the old order is changing. Hagee’s incendiary political attacks and Armageddon fear-mongering suited the post-9/11 anger and anxiety that gripped America, but the rising stars on the evangelical circuit are now touchy-feely compassionate conservatives such as Joel Hunter, an Orlando, Florida, evangelical who delivered the benediction at this year’s Democratic National Convention, and Rick Warren, who heads Saddleback Community Church in California and hosted a faith summit with Barack Obama and John McCain this summer. (2)
The Tea Parties have created a bit of a surge for Religious fanaticism, Fox News and Republican nonsense, but I think even that is starting to burn itself out, they've become so ridiculous. Ann Coulter is now boring and Glenn Beck parodied more than Sarah Palin.
So will people like Hagee find a more willing audience north of the border? After all we did have a visit from the Queen of spite recently and Stephen Harper has signed a deal for a Fox News North. Welcome to our future.
Footnotes:
*Interestingly, McLaughlin and Associates, an American Republican consulting firm, takes credit for the career of both Stephen Harper and the Likud Party, as well as many Religious Right endorsed Republican politicians.
Sources:
1. Columbia Journalism Review, March 7, 2008
2. The Zionist in winter, By Gilbert Garcia, The San Antonio Current, November 12, 2008
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
One of my favourite episodes of All in the Family was when Archie Bunker realized how narrow thinking could manifest itself. After going into one of his usual tirades, he was approached to attend a meeting of like-minded good old Americans, only to have them don white sheets and propose a cross burning at his son-in-law's home, because of a letter he had written to the editor of the New York Times. This was Archie's spiritual awakening and it was so well done.
Many people mistakenly believe that the Moral Majority/Religious Right came about after Roe vs Wade, when abortion became legal, but that is not true. It was formed to fight against the end of segregation. In a sermon by Rabbi Caryn Broitman:
Evangelicals withdrew from politics for most of the last century until the rise of the religious right in the late 70’s. This rise was not in response to Roe v Wade, as their organizers would have us believe but in response to a civil rights issue, namely the Supreme Court decision that ruled that institutions that practiced segregation would forfeit their tax exempt status. This decision led to the withdrawal of tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University, who among other things, did not admit Blacks, and when they did, had a policy against interracial dating.
It was race, as well as the desire to maintain control over evangelical institutions, and not abortion, that led to the establishment of the religious right, as historian Randall Balmer has documented. In fact, the first candidate the religious right supported was Ronald Reagan, who had signed into law an abortion rights bill as governor of California. When Reagan was elected, his administration argued, not surprisingly, on behalf of Bob Jones University to the Supreme Court in 1982 to keep their tax-exempt status despite their racially discriminatory policies. (1)
And Ronald Reagan ran on a platform opposing the Civil Rights movement.
"With Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the black vote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. Republican ... strategist Paul Weyrich stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (2)
And when George W. Bush was running against John McCain for the leadership of the Republican party, one of the first places he visited was Bob Jones University. When McCain's team got wind of it they went public, stating that in his attempt to woo the Religious Right, he had spoken at a school that forbid interracial dating and were strongly anti-Catholic.
Bush fired back and told CNN, "I denounced the policy at Bob Jones", but transcripts of his speech showed that he did no such thing. (3)
However, inadvertently, the backlash resulted in the university changing it's policy in 2000:
Jones acknowledged that recent scrutiny of the school's policies was behind the decision. "This thing has gotten so out of hand," he said. "All of a sudden the university is at the center of a Republican presidential debate."The southern school adopted its ban on interracial dating in the 1950s ... JU did not admit black students until the 1970s. The school lost its tax-exempt status in 1983 after a 13-year battle with the Internal Revenue Service, which said the school's policies violated federal law.The school had justified its ban on interracial dating by saying that God created people differently for a reason.George W. Bush spoke at the school prior to South Carolina's primary. Although other candidates have spoken at BJU over the years without incident, the appearance by Bush was portrayed by political foe John McCain as an endorsement of the school's extreme beliefs, including its prohibition on interracial dating and its anti-Catholic views. (4)
There are many reasons to be alarmed over the rise of the Religious Right in Canada. I had mentioned that since they have such strong backing from their American counterparts, they are a threat to our sovereignty. But there is another threat that is more profound. The legitimizing of bigotry.
The Religious Right/Moral Majority resulted with the founding of the Council for National Policy, where Stephen Harper delivered his now infamous speech.
The relationship between the Republican Party and the Religious Right started in earnest in 1981 with the creation of the powerful insider club known as the Council for National Policy (CNP). Excited by Reagan's election, Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind series, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, Richard Viguerie, a wealthy Republican fundraiser, and other far-right conservatives decided to bring together the religious right, the small government/anti-tax right, and several extremely wealthy, like-minded businessmen such as Joseph Coors (whose company recently bought Molson) and Herbert and Nelson Bunker Hunt, rabid anti-Communists affiliated with the John Birch Society. (5)
They apparently approved of Stephen Harper three years before "W". He was one of them: A good old boy. In fact Paul Weyrich, mentioned above as a Reagan strategist, went to extraordinary lengths to help Harper get elected in 2006.
A top U.S. conservative commentator now says he authorized an e-mail warning right-wing American groups not to talk to Canadian journalists before the election for fear of scaring voters and damaging Stephen Harper's chances. Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, told The Canadian Press last week that the widely distributed message was the product of an overzealous staff member of the research group. (6)
This group was founded on racism and only embraced issues like abortion after, when they realized that hatred was not palatable. But after visiting many (many, many, many) sites associated with this movement, their visceral attacks on the gay community and women are alarming. But what is also alarming is their veiled attacks on Muslims and their 'white supremacist' activities on campuses. Morton Blackwell, one of the founders of the Council for National Policy is behind a new group Youth for Western Civilization, and the renewal of an older group Young Americans for Freedom.
They launch campaigns like “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” and run “Straight Power” demonstrations with signs that read “End Faggotry” and “Go Back in the Closet.” Similar campaigns are beginning to take place on Canadian campuses, where the subtext is often Muslims.
Sadly, many of the foot soldiers of the Religious Right would not condone this behaviour, and believe that they are only protesting abortion or same-sex marriage. Yet they may now be aligned with a movement that is so much more.
The Moral Majority was never a majority. A majority of Americans are unwilling to have Paul Weyrich or anybody else dictate to them what is moral and righteous in personal life. In 1992, when the morals police and gay bashers seemed in ascendancy at the Republican National Convention, the public response was so negative that George Bush had to spend the first couple of weeks of the campaign backpedaling. (7)
And as Rabbi Broitman points out:
The religious right has never represented all evangelicals, however, and in the last few years there has emerged an alternative voices in the evangelical community that have been suspect of the close alliance between evangelicals and one political party. As Evangelical leader David Gushee argues, “it is impossible both to represent the ‘Church’ and to function as a bloc within a national political party.” Religion is most faithful to its truth when it speaks from the margins of power, not the seat of power. (1)
It might be time for some members to start reassessing this political movement fueled by religious fervour, or they could find themselves, like Archie, in a room full of people wearing white sheets.
Sources:
1. Yom Kippur Sermon 5769: A critical analysis of the Jewish alliance with the Christian Right regarding Israel, By Rabbi Caryn Broitman, Yom Kippur 2008
2. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22)
3. The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception, By David Corn, Crown Publishers, 2003, ISBN: 1-4000-5066-9, Pg. 36-37
4. Bob Jones University Drops Interracial Dating Ban: Fundamentalist school finds itself thrust into Republican presidential debate. From Evangelical Press, Christianity Today, March 1, 2000
5. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 48
A very interesting statistic has just been released, indicating that the rate of abortion and teen pregnancies is on the decline in Canada, but not since Stephen Harper planted the Religious Right on Parliament Hill.
The 36.9% decline was for the period between 1996 to 2006, and is being attributed to: "Better access to contraception, higher quality sex education and shifting social norms ... "
And yet those are all of the things that Harper's ungodly, not of this world, "God Squad" want to put an end to. They only see things in black and white (for some literally).
“It’s important to look at teen pregnancy rates because they’re a basic fundamental indicator of young women’s sexual and reproductive health. While not all teen pregnancies are a bad thing, when we see [rates] dropping, it’s a fairly clear indicator that young women are doing increasingly well in terms of controlling and protecting their reproductive health.”
“In comparison to the United States, we tend to have a more balanced, sensible approach to adolescent sexual health. Generally speaking what you find is that the more a society has an accepting attitude toward the reality of adolescent sexuality, the lower the teen pregnancy rate is. Canadians tend to have a more relaxed attitude towards adolescent sexuality than people in the United States.”
Mr. McKay said America’s emphasis on abstinence-only sex ed “tends to result in a higher percentage of teens becoming pregnant,” as does the country’s lack of universal health care. Poverty is another factor.
Hmmmm ... "emphasis on abstinence-only sex ed “tends to result in a higher percentage of teens becoming pregnant ..." And also no doubt a higher percentage of abortions.
Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion, and unless the Religious Right start pushing for MORE social programs instead of less, women and young girls will be given fewer choices. I saw a sign at one of the "pro-life" rallies that read "poverty is no justification for abortion". Maybe that marcher should have sat down, turned their sign around and read it. Duh!
Maybe those self-righteous, sanctimonious teabaggers who can actually read, should read this article, because what they believe they're marching against, might just result in an increase in what they're marching against, if they're successful.
And since we know that abstinance doesn't work with teenagers, they could just lose their own daughters to Dr. Coat Hanger. Then what will they march for?
[Harper] has given the suggestion of landing on the righteous side of a religiously charged debate, while keeping himself at arm's length. This way, Harper doesn't alienate himself from the average Canadian – particularly the centre-right voters. It is a repeated, adept, but not at all secretive, pattern of finding and exploiting those secular issues that strike at the heart of a silently religious nation.
It all means that the decision not to allow funding for safe abortions in developing nations most likely has very little to do with the security and health of the approximately 70,000 women who die annually during unsafe ones. Instead, it has everything to do with the Conservative party's own domestic political gains, and pandering to a lucrative – and growing – conservative base. It's decidedly cynical, but it seems to have worked. A recent poll found that, though 58% of Canadians said they were against the government's decision, it was those in favour of the move who held the biggest ever pro-life rally on Parliament Hill to celebrate it.
I've been avoiding to a certain extent the topic of the coalition that is being discussed between the NDP and Liberal parties, mainly because I'm afraid of getting my hopes up. With only one right wing option in Canada, they have no competition for support, while the other four parties are scrambling for funds. We NEED this.
With revelations this week about how Stephen Harper has controlled the public service, after hearing for four years that he's controlled the media and the message, we have to take this seriously. I'm frightened that another election will just give him more power, not that he can really achieve any less, given what he has been able to accomplish with just a minority.
I read a piece today from Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning American journalist and war correspondent, entitled: The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger. We thought with George Bush out of office, the movement might slow down a bit, but it would appear to actually be picking up steam. And Harper has given them a four year head start in this country, so we're not far behind.
Tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, have begun to dismantle the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment. They are creating a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and shutting out all those they define as the enemy. This movement, veering closer and closer to traditional fascism, seeks to force a recalcitrant world to submit before an imperial America. It champions the eradication of social deviants, beginning with homosexuals, and moving on to immigrants, secular humanists, feminists, Jews, Muslims and those they dismiss as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace their perverted and heretical interpretation of the Bible. Those who defy the mass movement are condemned as posing a threat to the health and hygiene of the country and the family. All will be purged.* (1)
The alarms have been screaming from this country, but with less than 1% of our media independent, those alarms are being silenced.
Elizabeth Dilling, who wrote “The Red Network” and was a Nazi sympathizer, is touted as required reading by trash-talk television hosts like Glenn Beck. Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, is ignored in Christian schools and soon will be ignored in Texas public school textbooks. The Christian right hails the “significant contributions” of the Confederacy. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who led the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s, has been rehabilitated, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is defined as part of the worldwide battle against Islamic terror. Legislation like the new Jim Crow laws of Arizona is being considered by 17 other states. The rise of this Christian fascism, a rise we ignore at our peril.
Those who remain in a reality-based world often dismiss these malcontents as buffoons and simpletons. They do not take seriously those, like Beck, who pander to the primitive yearnings for vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. Critics of the movement continue to employ the tools of reason, research and fact to challenge the absurdities propagated by creationists who think they will float naked into the heavens when Jesus returns to Earth. The magical thinking, the flagrant distortion in interpreting the Bible, the contradictions that abound within the movement’s belief system and the laughable pseudoscience, however, are impervious to reason. We cannot convince those in the movement to wake up. It is we who are asleep. (1)
If Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff care at all they will do something. This isn't the time for vanity or one-up-manship. When the Harper government was first elected in 2006, it was determined that about half of his MPs were Christian fundamentalists. It's probably closer to 80% now, including many key cabinet ministers like Stockwell Day, Jason Kenney and Jim Flaherty. As Hedges says, "it is us who are asleep".
Steve Paikin from TVOntario's The Agenda, had Marci McDonald, author of the Armageddon Factor, on his program not long ago, and I thought he was a pretty smart guy. Indeed he is. But his final question floored me. In deciding that it took 30 years for the American Religious Right to destroy the Republicans and possibly America, he suggested that the worst that could happen in Canada is 30 years from now abortions in the final three months might be illegal.
When you have one of the brightest, or I always believed so, downplaying this and dismissing it so handily, what are you going to do?
I watched a documentary this afternoon, on Youtube called Blood in the face. It was produced by Kevin Rafferty in 1991, and was filmed inside the KKK. I think the title was actually taken from a book written by a Canadian, but I'm not sure. The idea for the title is that only white people blush, so anyone who can't blush has no conscience. Very clever (geeesh!).
But listening to the rhetoric from these guys, it's not unlike what we hear from many of these so-called Christians. Horrific things about homosexuals and feminists. And they keep quoting scriptures and suggest that they are doing God's work. Fortunately, the Religious Right don't really represent the majority of Christians, but unfortunately, they are dragging them all down with them. What a shame.
There is some encouragement from a poll suggesting that half of Canadians now support a coalition. Even Warren Kinsella, a longtime Liberal insider, knows that this is a must. An absolute must. Vote-splitting is no longer an option.
Footnotes:
*I don't think he means concentration camps or anything like, just purged from academia, schools, government jobs, etc.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
I was looking for a book on the shelf the other day and another came crashing down that I had forgotten about. Was it divine providence? Maybe.
It was Maude Barlow's Too Close For Comfort, published in 2005, before Stephen Harper came to power. I had read it shortly after it came out, and it had added to my concern with the direction this country would take, if Stephen Harper was ever successful in fooling people into voting for him.
After plonking me on the head, the book fell open to a section "Northward Christian Soldiers", so was it the left hand of God that threw the book at me, literally?
In it Barlow raises the alarm over the influence the American Religious Right could have under a Harper government. This was five years before Marci McDonald's explosive book, The Armageddon Factor, hit the shelves:
...the sometimes narrow convictions of Christian sects are being exploited by politicians in both Canada and the United States (where the tendency is highly developed) to introduce into the political realm a degree of inflexibility, passion, and rancour that tend to undermine the spirit of accommodation and tolerance that is essential to the functioning of a democratic society. Our civil liberties are threatened as a result. The point is that people are free to believe what they want privately, but if they enter politics to inflict those beliefs on others, then their religious concerns become fair game. (1)
But it wasn't the religious elements discussed by Barlow, but her predictions should Harper form a government, that caught my attention. We should probably call her a prophet because I went through her list and every single one has happened. Every single one.
The quote about multiculturalism being a "weak nation strategy" was from a speech he made to the Institute for Research on Public Policy, in May of 2003. IRPP is another "non-partisan" think-tank that lists itself as a "charity". They are clearly not non-profit though, with assets of $31.5 million dollars. Aren't tax breaks for the wealthy grand?
To ensure that Canada is "never again" perceived as a potential source of threats, Harper called for a "long-overdue" reform of our refugee programs. (1)
Jason Kenney was a perfect choice to do that. Not only does he arrogantly refer to himself as the "minister of curry in a hurry", but when he was with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, he campaigned hard against money going to multiculturalism. So while exploiting our immigrant communities, he's working overtime to keep out "undesirables", so as not to "weaken" our nation.
Barlow the Prophet:
Maude Barlow - As leader of the Alliance, Harper called for active participation in George Bush's continental ballistic missile defence program and the massive "hard-power" buildup of Canada's military capacity. As Conservative Party leader, however, he vacillated on the issue when polls showed BMD to be unpopular, even with Conservative Party supporters, earning a stern rebuke from President Bush when he made his first visit to Canada. And now, the party has adopted resolutions in favour of BMD, in keeping with Stephen Harper's natural inclination. (1)
Reality - ... during a June 2007 G8 Summit of Nations in Germany, Liberal leader Stephanie Dion and New Democratic Party (NDP) leader Jack Layton accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of “...quietly throwing his weight behind the US missile defence program...Harper has stepped up to defend US President George W. Bush and the missile-defence scheme in an ongoing showdown with Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Whether this was a simple coincidence or an overt act on the prime minister’s part is subject to conjecture. (2)
Maude Barlow - Stephen Harper promotes "continental economic and security integration" with the United States, which would pave the way for a customs union between the two countries. Under a Harper government, Canada would lose the right to set its own labour, environmental, and security standards. He proposes to negotiate international trade agreements in partnership with the very superpower whose corporations want to come to Canada and deliver our public services on a for-profit basis. (1)
Reality - Government ministers have avoided saying just how much the recent deal on Buy American preferences, whose implementation was announced at a quiet news conference in Vancouver this week, is worth to Canadian suppliers. As the details of the agreement emerge, the reasons for this evasiveness are now clear. ... In return for these meagre scraps, the provinces and municipalities have offered up temporary market access to U.S. suppliers worth an estimated $25 billion Canadian). More ominously, Canada has bowed to U.S. pressure to permanently bind purchasing by Canadian provincial governments under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. (3)
Maude Barlow - Stephen Harper has also called for a continental energy strategy that would be broadened to "a range of other natural resources." (This sounds like code for Canada's water.) (1)
Reality - Harper signed away our water rights but we had to learn about it from the Irish Parliament.
Maude Barlow - Stephen Harper supported American military aggression around the world. "The time has come to recognize that the U.S. will continue to exercise unprecedented power in a world where international rules are unreliable and where the security and advancing of the free democratic order still depend significantly on the possession and use of military might." (1)
Reality - SAN ANTONIO, Texas — U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
The signing of this plan is an important symbol of the already strong working relationship between Canada Command and U.S. Northern Command,” Dumais said. “Our commands were created by our respective governments to respond to the defense and security challenges of the twenty-first century, and we both realize that these and other challenges are best met through cooperation between friends.” (4)
Smart lady that Maude Barlow. And this is just chapter one.
Sources:
1. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 19-24
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.
During the 2008 election campaign, several Canadian church groups prepared kits for their members, to provide direction when choosing a candidate or party.
Those falling under the Religious Right movement, wanted only to know what party best reflected their views on abortion, homosexuality, feminists, etc., but the more established faith based organizations, wanted answers to questions dealing with social justice and human suffering. The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) did highlight abortion as a factor, but also included questions about poverty and justice.
But KAIROS committed a mortal sin. They questioned the Harper government and his shadow cabinet of corporate executives:
KAIROS includes mainline Protestants, including the Anglican, United and Presbyterian churches, as well as Quakers, the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) along with Development and Peace, the Catholic organization tasked with promoting international justice, represent Catholics at KAIROS. Most of the KAIROS member churches and groups have also issued their own election statements or kits.
The first in a list of questions that KAIROS recommends be posed to candidates asks, "Will your party commit to the immediate ending of subsidies to oil companies and redirect these funds to energy conservation and sustainable, renewable energy?" The second question relates to aboriginal rights: "Will your party endorse the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and conclude treaties with Indigenous peoples that implement the rights contained in the Declaration?" (1)
"Commit to the immediate ending of subsidies to oil companies and redirect these funds to energy conservation and sustainable, renewable energy?" What were they thinking? Canada is now a petro-state, fueled by God and gasoline. You don't question either.
Charles McVety, friend of Jim Flaherty, Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day, called them left-wing ideologues, and poof, with his voice from on high, KAIROS was stripped of their funding.
Christian Week saw this as a sign of things to come.
Bev Oda, the minister responsible for CIDA, wouldn't speak to the press, but said in a statement that Kairos' work "does not meet CIDA's current priorities." In September, CIDA stated on its website it would be focusing on 20 countries under the themes of food security, children and sustainable economic growth. "As far as we know, those are priorities that are applicable to bilateral aid [aid given directly from one country to another] and not to the partnership branch," says Corkery. "So they would not be applicable to groups like us at this point unless the minister is planning to make very big changes in what CIDA's about."
... Kairos supports grassroots partners in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Canada and the Middle East that work for justice in areas of human rights, mining, indigenous people and the environment. Kairos is supported by Anglican, Christian Reformed, Lutheran, Mennonite, United, Quaker and Roman Catholic churches in Canada.
John Rafferty, NDP MP for Thunder Bay, believes Kairos' advocacy on environmental issues makes it distasteful to the Harper government. Kairos has challenged the government on Canada's mining practices overseas, the side-effects of Alberta's oil industry and for dragging its feet in the lead-up to climate change talks in Copenhagen.
"You work on justice and environmental issues and Ms. Oda says, 'CIDA's not going in that direction,'" says Rafferty. "Knowing this government, it may be the first of a number of cuts." "I think that the NGO community are very fearful about this. People are phoning and saying, 'It could be me next,'" says Corkery. (2)
And they had reason to worry, because there has definitely been a change into the way that relief money is being doled out. Only religious groups who speak favourably of our prime minister, and support unbridled capitalism as the key to salvation, will see any funding.
Adding to the fury of the neo-conservative attack on the welfare state is an alliance forged with the new Christian right, which has become a force to be reckoned with in American politics. The Christian right claims to have Biblical sanction for free market economics, and prescribes moral solutions for the problems afflicting society. Poverty, unemployment, family breakdown, crime, drug addiction, pornography, sexual permissiveness would all end if people were "born again." Because the new Christian right is profoundly anti-government, it is compatible with secular neo-conservatism. Government social programs and anti-poverty campaigns are judged to be useless because all social problems are simply questions of individual morality.
Socialism and feminism are the twin enemies of the family, one because it allegedly robs families of their rightful role, the other because it takes mothers out of the home. Although the Christian right is anti-government in that it opposes the welfare state, it heartily approves of some types of government activity. The power of the state can legitimately be used to curtail individual liberty as long as the purpose is the enforcement of Christian morality, as defined by the Bible and authoritatively interpreted by the new Christian right. Values such as tolerance, pluralism, and freedom of choice are rejected in the name of a higher morality, one that "would make America great again." For the Christian right, morality is not a private but a public matter. On these grounds, it campaigns for coercive state action on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and school prayer. Neo-conservative economics merged with moral majority values to create a potent political movement. (3)
The Harper government and Canada's religious right have borrowed from the American Republican Religious Right movement, so we can expect Canada to become a nation that rids itself of human compassion in exchange for a new inquisition. So be prepared to kneel to their god.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
"Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work." ( Stephen Harper endorsing Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders)
In October of 2008, Harper MP Rob Anders, told a humanitarian rights lawyer that he believes Canadian diplomacy and humanitarian work should focus on changing foreigners' language to English and their faith to Christianity.
Ms. Kennedy-Glans, a Calgary West constituent, said she has come forward in the middle of the election campaign because she wants fellow voters to understand his perspective. She recognizes missionary work has value, but as the founder of a volunteer agency that helps train female professionals in Muslim countries such as Nigeria and Indonesia, she believes Mr. Anders' apparent views pose a security risk to Canadians abroad.
"If anybody in the world saw or heard that the MP in my riding was saying that he thought humanitarian agencies should go out and change religions, I am at personal risk and so are the volunteers that get on the plane and go do this work," said Ms. Kennedy-Glans, founder of Calgary-based Bridges Social Development. (1)
Naturally Anders claimed that his remarks were taken out of context, but another person who was privy to the conversation, states that Kennedy-Glans was accurate in her interpretation.
However, there was something else that was part of Ander's defense that I found interesting: He has also been a staunch defender of liberties of Falun Gong practitioners and Tibetans, harshly decrying the actions of the Chinese government.
Falun Gong is something that is coming up a lot with the theocons lately, here and in the U.S., which I've generally dismissed, but when one of the more controversial members of our government goes on record as defending them, I thought it warranted a second look.
From their own website: The Falun Gong teachings borrow terms and concepts of Buddha school and Tao school, but it is not a religion like Buddhism and Taoism. Falun Gong does not have any religious formality or worship .... And yet all of the claims made about their conflict with the Chinese government, cite religious persecution.
So What is Falun Gong?
First off, what I've discovered is that, like Yoga, it has helped many people, by combining a spiritual and physical regimen. But what I've also discovered is that it is a very powerful political movement, that has gained a lot momentum, earning the support of many western governments.
But it has also garnered warnings about cult-like practices, stemming from the beliefs of the movement's founder Li Hongzhi, which can be found in his own writings and interviews with foreign press. For instance, he claims that the Earth is under attack from extraterrestrial aliens who are getting ready to clone and supplant the human race even as we speak. From Time magazine, May 1999:
Suddenly, however, conversation veered to a topic Li has thus far broached to none but his inner circle: aliens on earth. "One type of alien looks like a human but has a nose made of a bone ... others resemble ghosts. The extraterrestrials, who arrived circa 1900, have not been idle. "Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own," said Li, "when in fact their inspiration is manipulated by the aliens." The aliens intend to replace all humans with clones, he added. "In terms of culture and spirit, they already control men." (2)
And also from his book Zhuan Falun:
Li's rambling dissertation, Zhuan Falun, has only added to accusations that Falun Gong is a cult. Li writes he can personally heal disease and that his followers can stop speeding cars using the powers of his teachings. He writes that the Falun Gong emblem exists in the bellies of practitioners, who can see through the celestial eyes in their foreheads. Li believes "humankind is degenerating and demons are everywhere"extraterrestrials are everywhere, too and that Africa boasts a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly. (3)
Mythology in religion is nothing new, but he relies on a mythology of his own modern day creation. However, what warrants a second look are his remarks about homosexuality, that are not unlike those of some members of the Religious Right.
"Is homosexuality human behavior? Heaven created man and woman. What was the purpose? To procreate future generations. A man being with a man, or a woman with a woman-it doesn't take much thought to know whether that's right or wrong. When minor things are done incorrectly, a person is said to be wrong. When major things are done incorrectly, it's a case of people no longer having the moral code of human beings, and then they are unworthy of being human…
When gods created man they prescribed standards for human behavior and living. When human beings overstep those boundaries, they are no longer called human beings, though they still assume the outer appearance of a human. So gods can't tolerate their existence and will destroy them." (4)
However, after being accused of being not only a cult, but a homophobic cult, Li suggests that he is actually on earth to save homosexuals:
"Let me tell you why today's society has become how it is. It results from there not being an upright Fa to keep human beings in check. This Dafa is taught right in the most chaotic environment, at a time when no religion can save people, and where the circumstance is that no god takes interest in people anymore. The Fa is almighty. The best time periods wouldn't require such a great Fa to be taught. Only in the worst time periods can the power of the Fa manifest. There are other reasons, too."
"Let me tell you, if I weren't teaching this Fa today, gods' first target of annihilation would be homosexuals. It's not me who would destroy them, but gods. ... You know that homosexuals have found legitimacy in that homosexuality was around back in the culture of ancient Greece. Yes, there was a similar phenomenon in ancient Greek culture. And do you know why ancient Greek culture is no more? Why are the ancient Greeks gone? Because they had degenerated to that extent, and so they were destroyed." (4)
That same speech could have been given by John Hagee or Charles McVety. And yet we have a Parliamentary Falun Gong Friendship Group.
I understand that it was formed in response to human rights violations imposed by the Chinese government on practitioners of Falun Gong, but for someone like Rob Anders and other, what are being dubbed 'Christian Conservatives, who have little to do with Christianity or conservatism, there is a different agenda: anti-Communism.
Falun Gong and a Holy Purpose
Tim LeHaye, one of the founders of the American Religious Right movement, recently reassured his followers that Obama was not the Antichrist. He knows this because before the end times can occur, we must first get rid of communism. Apparently this was chiseled into a stone tablet.
This brings us to the reason why end timers defend the Falun Gong movement. They pose a direct threat to Communism in China.
Banning the fastest growing religious group in modern Chinese history may be a risky move for Beijing, but letting it flourish may have been even riskier. That appears to be thinking behind a government decision Thursday to declare the 70-million strong Falun Gong religious cult illegal. The move came as protests continued in Beijing and other major cities against the arrest Wednesday of thousands of members and leaders of the group. "The government fears that Falun Gong, as a nationwide movement with more members than the Communist party, could become a lightning rod for the political frustrations of a nation undergoing traumatic social and economic changes," says TIME correspondent William Dowell. "Their belief system is a symbolic representation of the difficulties of modern life, and that could make it a very powerful force in a largely peasant population easily swayed by mysticism." (5)
And:
Even more terrifying for the government is the possibility that Falun Gong could morph into a political organization, as has happened with other sects in Chinese history--most famously during the 19th century Taiping rebellion, when a martial-arts cult triggered a civil war that left more than a million dead. But so far police have found no evidence of a political conspiracy, and the official media have accused Li of being a cult leader who promotes superstition and witchcraft. (6)
And:
Historically, secret societies and spiritual masters have challenged, and even toppled, Chinese dynasties, and President Jiang Zemin has stressed a need to "suppress cults and the use of religion to engage in illegal activities." (2)
Rob Anders has always been a vocal opponent of China and communism in general. In 2000 he was lauded on the xtremist C-Far site, by Stephen Harper's old pal* Paul Fromm:
Wednesday night, at a Chinese New Year's celebration on Parliament Hill, he [Anders] was asked by officials of the Red Chinese Embassy to leave because he was quietly wearing a tee-shirt calling on the Communist Chinese to get out of Tibet. The shirt also proclaimed: "Stop Tiananmen tanks, forced abortions, burning books" and "Independent Indo-China, Korea, and Taiwan." (7)
As an elected Member of Parliament, this is not the way to go about opposing a foreign country.
He was also the only MP to deny an honorary citizenship to Nelson Mandela, which would have had more meaning if it could have been unanimous.
I don't think that, you know, anybody would argue that if Nelson Mandela was saying, you know, 30 years ago, that you should go around with matches and necklaces and strangle people or burn them out of their homes, that is not terrorism ... "[Honouring Nelson Mendela is a] total political-correctness poster-boy thing... He was a Communist. He was a terrorist... " (8)
Human rights abuses need to be challenged by any government, but is it wise to put so much support behind a political movement whose leader believes he can fly? (Stephen Harper only thinks he can walk on water) And should we not condemn their blatant homophobia? Despite the fact that it might give Jason Kenney a case of premature rapture-lation, Falun Gong's leader believes that only he can save Gays from annihilation, when no one else has even used the term.
However, there is another reason why we must proceed with caution.
The Falun Gong and Media Manipulation
Dr. Heather Kavan, a lecturer in Communication, Journalism and Marketing at Massey University, New Zealand, spent a year with the Falun Gong, to assess in part whether they were indeed a cult or as it's followers suggest an organization that promotes spiritual and moral well-being, and cures illness. Maybe it's both.
Dr. Kavan began her quest with empathy and a desire to learn why Falun Gong was banned, while she has no doubt that there are human rights violations against them, also discovered that "much of the material about Falun Gong in the Western news misleads the public."
Falun Gong, literally law wheel practice, is a new religious movement that is now illegal in China. Of all religious adherents, Falun Gong members are perhaps the most media savvy. They have despatched thousands of press releases, staged headline-generating events, maintained a strong Internet presence, and brought defamation suits against anyone who publishes unfavourable material. Consequently, Falun Gong adherents have been treated relatively kindly by the western press, who have sometimes supported their religious and political agendas.
While several studies have examined how Falun Gong, the Chinese media, and the Western media have framed and presented their material, from a practical perspective the issue of the material's accuracy is more important. Western governments' policies regarding human rights issues in China are often largely based on media reports ... (9)
This certainly shows things in a different light.
Conflict with the media has been central to Falun Gong almost since its inception, for it was not the Chinese government, but journalists, writers, scientists and ex-members who first criticised Falun Gong. Li's unscientific claims and professions of divine status invited scepticism, and by mid 1996 Chinese journalists began to publish critical articles about Falun Gong's supernatural beliefs and Li's egoism. In response, Li directed members to defend the fa (his spiritual law) whenever it was attacked. The protests were large and relentless.
... In China the media are free only as far as they facilitate social stability, so when Falun Gong threatened civil unrest, media managers were quick to capitulate to their demands. For example, when 2,000 protestors surrounded Beijing Television after the station broadcast a segment about a doctoral candidate who became psychotic while practising Falun Gong, the station fired the reporter, aired an immediate sympathetic portrayal, and – to show extra goodwill – handed out 2,000 boxed lunches to the protestors.
Having learnt that such protests were fruitful, Falun Gong members were unstoppable. To prevent social unrest, Beijing authorities introduced a blackout against any negative media reports on the movement. However, not everyone was aware of the blackout, and an obscure academic magazine in Tianjin published a critique of Falun Gong by renowned physicist He Zuoxin. The article might have gone unnoticed, except that six thousand Falun Gong protestors occupied the University over three days, demanding a retraction. The editors refused, responding that scientific publications do not print retractions. The protest developed into a riot – although this appears to have happened after the riot police arrived – and up to 45 people were arrested (the numbers vary in different accounts). (9)
So it would appear that the Chinese government is not suppressing religious beliefs, but a powerful political movement that threatens to create social unrest. Dr Kavan concludes:
At the heart of the battle between the Chinese government and Falun Gong are two warring ideologies with highly committed protagonists. Both use the media as pawns. Both use the same rhetorical strategies: issuing blanket denials when accused, devising conspiracy stories, and redirecting allegations by accusing the other of the same thing. What is being played out is a conflict of intransigent beliefs. The Western media's uncritical acceptance of Falun Gong's version suggests that Li, by appealing to ideals of amelioration of suffering and freedom of religion, has produced a story that the West wants to believe. (9)
That the West WANTS to believe.
Kavan also mentions her own confrontation when news of her own story was leaked.
When the research was finished, I was quoted in a press release on new religious movements, in which I said that the FBI's definition of a potentially violent religion was so broad that several groups in New Zealand would fall into it, and cited Falun Gong as one of several examples. Falun Gong members monitor the media daily, and discovered the press release even before I did. They were offended that they were classified with other religions that they perceived to be "totally evil", and I received a phone call warning me that I would be deluged by a hundred callers from a Falun Gong email list. Several emotionally–charged phone calls followed, in which the callers demanded the press release be removed from the Internet. A member contacted me at home and relayed accusations that I was being paid large amounts of money by the Chinese government, and repeatedly said that the situation was "extremely dangerous". Each time I asked exactly what the danger was, she did not explain. (9)
We need to be very careful here, because even for those who oppose communism, is the alternative really better? Maybe for Rob Anders and other extremists, but Canadians have to be diligent, especially when we already have a Parliamentary Falun Gong Friendship Group.
Footnotes:
*In 1987 Reform Party member, Paul Fromm, arranged to have author and journalist, Peter Brimelow, speak at their convention. As reward, he was allowed to set up a table in the hall, where he distributed literature and sold memberships to his anti-immigration organization C-FAR. (10) Peter Brimelow's book Patriot Game: Canada and the Canadian Question Revisited, is said to have been one of the motivations behind the formation of the new party. After reading it, Harper and his buddy John Weissenberger, were so enthralled with the book that they bought ten copies and gave them to friends. (11)
Sources:
1. MP says comments on aid, religion 'torqued': A lawyer and humanitarian says Calgary West Conservative MP Rob Anders told her he believes Canadian diplomacy and humanitarian work should focus on changing foreigners' language to English and their faith to Christianity, By The Ottawa Citizen, October 1, 2008
2. The Man with the Qi, By Jaime A. FlorCruz/Beijing; Time Magazine, May. 10, 1999
6. Inside The Falun Gong, By Mia Turner/Beijing;Terry McCarthy/Shanghai , Time magazine, August 09, 1999
7. Calgary West MP Rob Anders deserves the thanks and appreciation of all Canadians Citizens for Foreign Aid ... . By Paul Fromm, Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform Inc. (C-FAR), February 12, 2000
8. Conservative MP Rob Anders after blocking a resolution to declare former South African president Nelson Mandela an honorary Canadian citizen, June 11, 2001. Anders also implied that South Africa was better off during Apartheid than it is today. (Hansard)
10. Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. Author: Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 48
11. Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada, by William Johnson, 2005, ISBN 0-7710 4350-3, Pg. 52
