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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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