By Michael Bell
A number of commentators have called me to account for not providing proper support for my last point.
Michael Spencer had written:
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
I responded by saying that:
If you want to know what America is going to look like in forty years, and how Evangelicals will be treated, look at Canada today… If my statistical analysis up to this point has been correct, then Evangelical numbers in the USA in forty years will be very similar to Evangelical numbers in Canada today. Much of what Michael has said about the way Evangelicals will be treated in the USA is already true in Canada… I do not have the time or space to go into further details, but forty years from now it will be a much different world from what you are currently experiencing.
My mistake was not going into details. I was not trying to say that Canada is a scary place. I was just trying to say that it will be different. Keep in mind that I am saying this as one who is engaging the culture. My kids all go to Public School in Canada, I served for a number of years on School Council. My kids all play soccer in the public league, even though there is a faith based league that they could belong to. I am the lone Evangelical Christian at an advertising agency which has about as secular a culture as you can get.
So here are some of the things that I have experienced or seen happen in Canada that shows society’s increasing intolerance towards Christianity:
- I was told by management at my previous employer that a Christmas gift exchange game could not be played because it might offend somebody.
- At the same place of employment, Christian symbols were banned from the “Holiday Celebrations” unless they were accompanied by appropriate symbols from other faiths.
- My younger children’s school hosts a “Holiday Celebration.” Roughly equal time is given to the celebration of each Religion. Typically the “Christian” songs are about Rudolph and St. Nick, and not about the birth of Savior of the world.
- The public school board initially ruled that “Faith based clubs”, unlike other clubs, could not meet on School Property during the School day. When this was overturned, my son’s High School Principal demanded the right to review every topic discussed by the club, and the club had to meet off campus for topics that he deemed unsatisfactory.
- The Human Rights Commission ruled recently that Christian organizations could not restrict hiring to Christians.
- The B.C. College of Teachers tried to impose a requirements on those graduating with an Education degree from a Christian University would have to undergo a year of “deprogramming and sensitizing” before they could teach in the Public School System
- The courts forced a Catholic school to allow gay dates at the prom.
- Religious instruction is no longer permitted by most public school boards, even on an opt-in basis.
- Our politicians do not dare speak of matters of faith, or they will held up to ridicule. (OK, Sarah Palin can relate to this one) Our current Prime Minister, Steven Harper, is an Evangelical and attends the church my wife and I were married in. It appears that he has learned from the rough ride that his party predecessors took (Stockwell Day and Preston Manning) that he dare not utter anything remotely resembling the word “Evangelical”. Dennis Gruending has an excellent post of the differences between Canadian and American politics especially as it relates to matters of faith.
Maybe you are OK with all these things. Maybe you don’t find them that “scary”. But I think they portray quite a different climate in Canada than Americans are used to. It is an attitude that says that Evangelical Christianity has no place in the public square.ael
Michael Bell
Joshua Hearne
Tim Melton
Joel Black
Mar 13, 2009 at 9:23 pm
[...] + What is happening with evangelicals in the US is simply following what has been happening in Canad… where evangelicals are only about 4% of the population. [...]
Mar 13, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Sounds worse than Western Europe.
Mar 13, 2009 at 10:47 pm
This makes me so sad/concerned/driven to prayer. But you are right. I was amazed at the freedom Christians still enjoy south of the border. Having been restricted and muffled as a Canadian I was stunned when I moved here 6 years ago to see that Americans were not the same. But I am a voice crying out here…it is coming. Persecution. Restrictions. The early church experienced it. Christians around the world are living it now. But God will not bless America unless America starts blessing God again.
Mar 13, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Prayer is always a good first step. Too often we leave it until the end. It is really interesting to go through the book of Nehemiah and see how many times he prayed, and how long he prayed before taking action.
Mike Bell
Mar 13, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Well, I reckon part of the problem w. Canada recently has been the skewed view of US Christianity from the MSM’s inability to get it, or religion in general.
GWB, who was a member of the UMC and more of an informed outsider to traditional USEvangelical Christianity and someone afflicted with a lifelong lack of discipline due to his family’s wealth, ascribed to a facile understanding of economic conservatism and who was similarly shallow in his understanding of his later-in-life embraced faith and thereby trusted his underlings to make a number of bad calls, including GWII and the intentional use of “evangelical” language/championing of cultural wars wedge issues that cemented a strong general association of his administration with traditional US Evangelical Christianity, particularly not long after the 2004 election when a lot of stuff started hitting the fan.
So what I’m saying is that the current fallen sit/increased flack against Christians is by no means a continuation of the past and not going to last by any means.
dlw
Mar 14, 2009 at 11:30 am
Michael, you might want to look at the comment I just made at InternetMonk in your statistical review article. I cite the USA State Department, and I think you will find that particular document quite interesting.
Mar 14, 2009 at 12:35 pm
I cling to the possibility that Evangelical Christianity carried to many “sin burdens” to continue , and that this “collapse” is part of the birthing of a new movement of God. Prayer is a great start.
Mar 14, 2009 at 1:49 pm
@Michael Bell
I appreciate the examples you listed for Canada, but you still haven’t answered my questions or proven your point. You start out with statistical analysis and trending based on US data then jump to anecdotal statements about Canada.
Where’s the corresponding statistical treatment for Canada? I still haven’t been shown a correlation between a decreased percentage of self identifying Christians and increased persecution let alone a causal relationship.
I still haven’t been shown a statistical analysis that shows the key similarities between Canada and the US regarding these trends. So, I have to ask again – where is your reasoned proof?
Regarding your above examples, you’ve not shown laws or regulations that affect all of Canada and some are even accounts of single individual’s actions rather than overall trending.
Regarding the laws and regulations you cite,
are they requiring that other religions also meet the legal requirements or just Christianity? Please give me links to the relevant laws and regulations that you believe do.
All in all, I’m having a great deal of trouble with your assertions regarding persecution. This looks a lot more like an emotional reaction to loss of preferential treatment by a group that is no longer in power.
Such a reaction is natural, but the use of the word “persecution” is grossly overstating the case. I didn’t see you post anything about Christians being beaten, strung up or run out of town.
Mar 14, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Chris,
You make some good points, but I never used the word persecution. I certainly would not claim that term applies to Canada.
Sure most of it can be attributed to just a list of preferential treatment. But I think that overall there is much less positive views of religion in general, whatever the type, compared to what there used to be.
And as Cynthia attests, who has lived in both places, it certainly feels different up here. Her fear is that when evangelicals drop in the U.S. to the sort of numbers that they have in Canada, then the U.S. will start to look like Canada.
Let me the first to say, it certainly isn’t all bad here. We have SOOOO much religious freedom compared to other countries that I have visited. But it does feel different.
I am sorry if I cannot come up with statistical support for absolutely everything that iMonk has written and had to resort to anecdotal evidence for some. I will be doing a follow up post tomorrow which will be looking at some of his other statements.
Mar 14, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Chris,
See the information I provided from official government sources on this same thread in iMonk. I trust this answers your “source of information” questions.
Mar 14, 2009 at 11:21 pm
Thanks for the response. I would appreciate observations about organizations for other religions. Can you post links to information showing that it’s restricted to Christianity?
Mar 15, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Chris,
Not sure completely what you mean by your last response. Are you looking for evidence that other religions have had the same difficulties as Christians? Or the converse? In either case I am not sure that I could provide convincing evidence that one religion is favored over another. I know that my Muslim friends have certainly had a more difficult time of things since 9/11.
Mar 15, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Fr. Ernesto,
Thank for the support. I have really appreciated reading your commentary on Internet Monk.
Mar 15, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Can you provide a link or references about #5? I’m curious to know more. (I’m a Canadian Christian myself, but haven’t followed such issues much.)
Mar 15, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Hi Estel,
Yes I can, number 5 refers more specifically to a group called Christian Horizons, a group that as I understand it exists to provide care to disabled individuals.
All of the information about the current status of the case is available here.
Mike Bell
Mar 15, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Thanks.
Mar 16, 2009 at 7:28 am
Mike, is Christian radio and TV different in Canada than in The States? I have heard rumors of “equal time” etc. What say you?
Mar 16, 2009 at 8:53 am
Hi Will,
I believe (and I may be wrong) that radio does not have any restrictions, because cost of entry is quite low. As for TV, in my area their are only two stations that are licensed to carry religious programming. One, Vision TV, is completely mult-faith. The other, CTS, is Pentecostal based. CTS is primarily Christian in content, but one of the requirements of their license was that they had to provide air time to show other faith perspectives. This was primarily because other faiths may not have the resources to have their own channel, and the number of available channels is limited. I believe the percent of time required is 20%, but I am just pulling that number from the air.
What struck me the last time I was down in Florida was how much Christian TV there was compared to what we have in Canada. Basically I have the choice of 1 TV station committed to Christian programming and 1 radio station. (There are another 3 radio stations with weaker signals that are each about an hour or more away from me.)
Mike Bell.
Mar 16, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Well Mike, the bees are buzzing now! Despite what seems to be a lesser commitment on the part of Canada to uphold the rights of free speech, free association, and free religion (do you guys have an official state church like England?)a lot of the same issues do pop up here. I think we have a bit of over-sensitivity to offending people. Being an outsider sucks, but someone will always be an outsider. I remember Jehovah’s Witness kids leaving the classroom when we colored Santa Claus pictures because even that was against their religion. Many Conservative Christians wouldn’t involve them selves in Halloween activities because they thought they were unchristian. Essentially I’m saying it is impossible to create a religiously neutral common ground and have it be relevant to the community it serves.
On point number five concerning Christian Horizons, I read the article you linked to, and it seems their problem was hiring employees to work a charitable organization. If they had been unpaid volunteers or restricted their activities to sectarian pursuits their Christian only policy wouldn’t be an issue. basically they fall into the category of sectarian hospitals (Jewish hospitals, Baptist hospitals, Catholic hospitals, etc.)
Mar 16, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Mike,
We do not have a official state church, although the Catholic church retains certain rights vis-a-vis education that were enshrined as a result of Canadian Confederation. For example, in Ontario where I live, Catholic schools receive full government funding. Other Christian schools get nothing. This was taken to court and ended with the Supreme Court ruling that the Catholics were entitled to this because of enshrined rights, while other Christian based schools were not.
You noted that “essentially I’m saying it is impossible to create a religiously neutral common ground and have it be relevant to the community it serves.” This is so true. When the Lord’s prayer was banned from Schools in Canada, principals were given the option, or replacing it with a series of readings and prayers from multiple faiths. Very, very few implemented this option, as it was deemed by most to be less satisfactory than having no prayer.
I agree with what you say about Christian Horizons up to a point. In Canada we have two charitable designations, a religious one, and a secular one. The point is that is becomes very difficult to have a religious based charity if you have no control over who you can hire.
Mar 17, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hey Chris – actually, you bring up a very interesting point, because I do have a small disagreement with iMonk on interpretation of statistics.
The reason I cited the “Jewish” statistics is because what I see is an increasing secularization going on. As a result, the number of religious believers of any type will trend downwards. However, secularization may have an additional effect. There are various religious groups that believe in actively looking for new members, or who believe in actively speaking their beliefs into the common marketplace.
My prediction is that groups that fit one or both of those two conditions will find themselves disadvantaged. This is because the current secularizing trend is also linked with a “don’t offend” trend which is starting to be interpreted as a “don’t speak any of your beliefs into the common marketplace.” In some cases it is even a, “don’t act on any of your belief unless you are in the privacy of your home or a safely approved meeting place for only those who agree with you.” That is the substance of some of the complaints documented by the USA State Department.
Mar 17, 2009 at 9:29 am
Fr. Ernesto and Chris:
Here is an interesting story from today’s Globe and Mail, one of the most influential papers in Canada.
Note the tenor of the comments. More and more I hear comments like, “If you don’t believe in Evolution then you can’t be a teacher.” This story is not to that extreme, but disconcerting none the less.
Minister won’t confirm belief in Evolution
Mar 17, 2009 at 9:48 am
That article definitely reflects some of my experience as a person who just moved from Colorado Springs to Vancouver. The view that “tolerance” must trump all else is strong enough in Canada that people freek out at any public expression of faith (especially if there is a hint of proselytizing in it). For example, I recently red an op ed piece berating the guidions for handing out Bibles in a public space near a school. At CC, people just think they are weard and ignore them. In Canada, they deeply offend people.
The emphasis on tolerence is strong enough that ther is even a public advertizing budget promoting it. I see advertizements in buses with slogans like “tolerance is good for everybody.” But how can you tolerate what you are not wiling to even see, let alone understand? There is definatly a danger in this community of inacting the first statement with the actual approach of “ignorance about other ways of living is good for everybody.”
But perhaps I am being too harsh. Regent, an evangelicall seminary, is formally a part of the University of British Colubia. You don’t see acclaimed evangelical seminaries in public universities in the States. Similarily, in E. Canada, I understand that the Catholic schools are publically funded.
I always get concerned and a litle bit annoyed by the “our culture is morally deteriorating” argument. The article felt like primarily a justificaiton for that perspective. I belive that we as Christians are called to live faithfullyl, whatever direction our surrounding culture is moving in. I would not say that I have experienced or noticed anything approaching “persecution” because of my faith in this place. Even if I were to, would that be bad for my faith. Would that be bad for my ability to speak as a witness of the Gospel? I think history provides the answer.
Blessings,
~Andrew
Mar 17, 2009 at 3:04 pm
@Father Ernesto and Andrew:
Thanks for the observations – that gives me a much clearer view of the cultural perspective there. From what you’ve said, it appears that Christianity is definitely supported by the state (which means that the public does as well).
However, the support is for learning institutions rather than public expression of faith. In fact, it is public displays of faith that are treated with intolerance. Is that a fair summary?
@Father Ernesto and Eclectic Christian:
Sorry for conflating your comments with many others that did use the word “persecution”. I also agree that persecution isn’t limited to bodily harm.
At the time, I was equating that term with it’s use in terms of the Christians of the first two to three centuries. Because of that common association, my point was that it’s a very emotionally loaded word to use.
Regarding the story linked to in your post this morning, Eclectic Christian, I guess I am missing the point. Scientific research is SUPPOSED to be conducted without bias. In the aggregate, it generally is.
In this case, you have someone who apparently has a bias based on his religious beliefs and is in control of funding. The fact that he won’t stop being evasive on the issue gives me even more reason for concern as it should to anyone.
I don’t mind that he has a religious belief that conflicts with established scientific evidence. What I do mind is someone who refuses to set that aside when doing his job. If he isn’t willing to perform ALL of the job requirements, why should he continue to hold that office?
I guess I believe the same thing about teachers who are in science education. I’d have no problem with someone who said “I personally have religious objections to the evolutionary viewpoint, but here it is”. That’s especially true if they have done their homework and present it correctly and clearly.
What I do have objections to are science teachers who try to inject their religious beliefs into the subject. That’s not teaching science, that’s teaching religion.
Again, if they refuse to separate the two, why won’t they switch subjects or hand off the module on evolution to another teacher? It just doesn’t make sense to me to refuse to meet the job requirements.
There are two points (as a US citizen) that I can agree on. One is muzzling free speech in public settings that are not government sponsored.
The other are the people you speak of who won’t give the teacher the benefit of the doubt if they say they are willing to teach evolution even if they don’t personally agree with it.
When you are in situations that deal with the general public, I believe it’s reasonable to expect the individual to set personal bias aside. That should be true whether or not the bias is based in religion.
Chris
Mar 17, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Chris,
I think I can relate the Science story best to what happened to my local Member of Parliament. In his previous career he was the President of Promise Keepers Canada, a fact that he was quite open about. As a result, he was villified with the opposition saying that the new Government would have too much of an Evangelical influence in it. This was a national story. Despite this, he won the election. The next election as a result of the bashing he took in the first election, he decided to run on his record in the constituency, and not publicize his previous Promise Keepers connection on his website. As a result he was villified for trying to keep his Evangelical views and history from the public. He won again.
He said to me, “Mike, what do I do, I’m damned if I do, and I’m damned if I don’t publish it. I chose not to publish it this time, because it was quite public knowledge and I thought it would detract from the other issues that I did want to talk about.”
Look at the headline from the article that was published:
“Minister won’t confirm belief in evolution… Researchers aghast that key figure in funding controversy invokes religion in science discussion.”
The Minister didn’t invoke anything. He knew what had happened to my MP, and other members of his Party who were evangelical. So he simply said that he wanted to keep his faith private, and not have it be part of the discussion. He could have said, “Yes, I don’t believe in Evolution” assuming that is his position, “but I intend to tackle my portfolio in complete fairness.”
But, then again, maybe he doesn’t believe in evolution, but did not want to alienate those evangelicals who voted for him. No one was questioning the decisions he was making, just his ability to make decisions because he was an evangelical. As you said in your final comment, “When you are situations that deal with the general public, I believe it’s reasonable to expect the individual to set personal bias aside.” I believe that is exactly what Gary was trying to do in this situation.
Mar 18, 2009 at 1:46 am
First off, am I wrong in assuming you are talking about two different people? If not, I personally would deal with them as two separate cases.
I’d definitely have to agree that the opposition was using fear mongering. Unfortunately, that seems to be how politics the world over works. I’m not excusing it, just saying that religion was just a convenient target, not a special one.
In his first campaign, was he mentioning being president of Promise Keepers on his website as a reason for electing him? If so, he was actually trying to use it in his favor.
I’d say that it’s unreasonable to expect that political opponents won’t use his own statements against him in either campaign. If they had anything else on him, they’d be hitting that at least as hard. My guess is that they don’t.
Since it didn’t work in either election, I’d also say there’s strong reason to believe that the voting public is actually tolerant of religious people so long as they don’t inject their beliefs into their jobs. As I said before, that’s how I personally view things.
If they are not the same person, my comments on the other example still stand. Unlike your friend, he IS being evasive and that’s obviously reason for concern.
Mar 18, 2009 at 2:36 am
Oh – I didn’t address the final two paragraphs of your response. He could have simply addressed the concern by saying “Regardless of my personal beliefs, I’m acting as a public steward and my personal beliefs will not bias my decision making. I have a public record on past decisions. I suggest you and the voting public review that if they have concerns along those lines”.
That addresses the real issue on concerns about bias without being drawn into a media frenzy.
Speaking of media, are there media companies that are privately held? If so, I’d have to say that they were just doing what they have been for the past 20 years or so – trying to make up a story that they could milk and up their ratings for a while.
Ever since “A Public Affair” aired in the US, media companies shifted their emphasis from informing the public to making it another profit center.
In my view, that’s destroyed their credibility. It’s led to my going to various blogs and other online sources for any “analysis” pieces and political coverage rather than television. At least there I know the reason for any particular skewing.
I don’t mean to make light of your concerns and those of other Christians. What I’m trying to do is give an outsider’s perspective on the examples you cite.
I definitely agree that an emphasis on tolerance can be taken too far. In my view, it undermines free speech as well as freedom of association.
If a non-profit is entirely funded by donations, they SHOULD be able to require that the people they hire believe in it’s cause. I’d consider it an essential job requirement to avoid being undermined from within.
It’s obviously biased to say that a religious non-profit can’t refuse to hire an atheist if an animal rights non-profit can refuse to hire a meat eater.
Mar 18, 2009 at 9:40 am
Hi Chris,
An interesting update, the science minister clarified his earlier statements the next day, saying that he did believe in evolution, which was contrary to what most people had thought the previous day.
Here is some followup commentary which is of interest.
It’s not easy being a religious science minister
One final thought. Why should only humanistic or secular based organizations be eligible for government funding?
Mar 18, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Regarding the article, have there been issues with people in Canada who have tried to inject their faith into the performance of jobs that weren’t provided by a Church or religious ministry? My guess is that some Catholics have done so given the special status accorded that Church in your constitution until recently.
If not, religion has certainly been injected into public policy areas here in the US and even Africa. Obama has been rather busy trying to rectify that amongst other concerns.
In another example, the pope’s recent comments about “condoms not being the answer to the AIDS crisis in Africa” are ridiculous on the face of it. No, they won’t cure the disease and they can fail. However, there is a strong correlation between their use and the slowing of the spread of the disease.
He’s actually advocated that condoms not be used because the Catholic Church is dogmatically against the use of all man made contraceptive devices and pharmaceuticals.
THAT sort of dogmatic stand regardless of how many lives it costs is the poster child for those who are science minded. I think that it’s reasonable to raise questions about public official’s potential bias given such public examples.
While I agree that they and the media were a bit over the top, I think it was relevant to ask how his religious views might bias his decision making in that job.
If he hadn’t been evasive and just made clear that they wouldn’t in the first place, I suspect the non-story would have gotten very little media scrutiny.
On your final thought, I guess I have a question. Would you be willing to agree to equal funding of ALL faiths?
That would have to include Wiccans, Druids, Satanists, Scientologists, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Mormons, Moslems, First Citizen religious organizations as well as Christian ones.
Even here in the US, the “faith based initiative” isn’t doing that. On top of that, only a small minority of religions are able to have their symbols shown at Arlington Cemetary.
I consider that grossly unfair. If you’re going to preserve the separation between Church and State, either grant ALL religions equal status or keep the state out of religion entirely.
Given that it’s actually very hard to define the religion in straightforward, clear terms AND the clear bias on which religions are accepted, it seems that the only politically acceptable answer is none rather than all.
On a related note, unless I’m mistaken, Church assets are given tax exempt status in Canada just as they are in the US. I’d say that’s a significant subsidy all on it’s own.
I’m sure there are developers salivating over prime real estate held by various churches that now find themselves inside the city as it’s grown.
I’m not advocating that it be taxed, just noting that the government isn’t getting substantial property and revenue taxes that they might otherwise collect.
Mar 27, 2009 at 10:17 pm
I noticed someone asked for clarification on number 5 in an earlier comment. FYI, the Christian organization that I work with is not allowed to ask if the person they are interviewing is a Christian or not. It is not just Christian Horizons.
Apr 5, 2009 at 2:17 pm
[...] please refer to Michael Bell’s Ancecdotal Look at Canada in reference to the aforementioned Evangelical [...]