Randy Hillier Takes a Stand: Is Tim Hudak Losing Control of His Caucus?

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 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. Their first 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

3. Tests and double tests, By Andrew Steele, Globe and Mail, February 5, 2010

4. Hudak and the Tory sit-in bring to mind Wile E. Coyote, By Jim Coyle, Toronto Star, December 7, 2009

5. Opinion: G20 crackdown reeks of tyranny, By Randy Hillier, Toronto Star, July 12, 2010

The Rule of Law or the Supremacy of God?

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.

Touche!

Chapter Thirty-Two: Creating a Theocracy

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

"The will of the people is bound to come into conflict with the will of God" Ernest Manning

Ernest Manning's parents belonged to the United Church and were never particularly pious. (1) But as a young man, he began listening to William Aberhart's radio Bible program, and convinced his parents to allow him to register at the Calgary Prophetic Bible Institute, becoming their first graduate.

Aberhart's brand of Christianity was of the most radical fundamentalism, bordering on the occult. Manning himself, ascribed to much of this, but when he took over the radio broadcasts, he had moderated somewhat, though was still clearly a fundamentalist. He told his audiences that every aspect of their lives could be found in the scriptures and as such they should allow themselves to be directed by the "word of God".

But he also found a new and powerful enemy that he alone could protect good Albertans from: Communism. And that enemy, whether real or imagined, has survived through the generations.

Manning continued Aberhart's tradition with his own weekly National Back to the Bible Hour broadcasts, but the flashy occultism and Bible prophecy were forsaken for stolid anti-communism and godly materialism.
"Godless Materialism Condemned: Convention Speakers Urge Return to God as Necessary to Survival," announced the lead story in the December 1950 Canadian Social Creditor. Essentially, Social Credit had transmutated from a messianic movement dedicated to changing the laws of economics to a moralistic government with a middle-management vision. (2)

Time magazine felt that Alberta was the closest thing to a theocracy in the Western Hemisphere, and indeed it was. Manning was rarely seen but he sold his government's policies on his weekly Bible program, that included his wife and children. Citizens were to accept him on blind faith, just as they did Christianity.

Manning's government is the nearest approach to a theocracy in the Western Hemisphere. The slight (5 ft. 9 in., 135 Ibs.) premier, who practices his own brand of Baptist-fundamentalist evangelism, has been blending religion and politics throughout his public career. Says Manning: "Religion isn't to be kept on a shelf and only taken down on Sundays." A well-thumbed Bible is always open on his desk in Edmonton's Parliament Building. In every public speech, religion, not politics, is the dominant theme. "I abhor the word politician," Manning has repeatedly told Albertans. "I am not here by choice. I would much rather concentrate on my Bible work." (3)

Alf Hooke also speaks of Manning in divine tones:

Like thousands of other people throughout the length and breadth of Western Canada, I looked upon him as a man sent by God to better the conditions of mankind in those dreary depression days. I still believe this to be true. In the same way, I'd come to recognize Premier Manning and believed him to be so saintly and so God-guided that anything he did or anything he recommended to be done had to be right. Time out of number, entirely unknown to him, I had come to his aid in no uncertain way when I heard unscrupulous people criticize him, especially if they stated or even implied that he was a religious bigot concerned only with his own aggrandizement.

My Wesleyan Methodist background always came to the fore, as it did with my immediate family whenever a critical word concerning Mr. Manning was mentioned in their presence. Until her dying day in 1964 my dear mother would listen faithfully to his Sunday broadcasts and thanked God that such a man as Ernest Manning had been chosen to spread Christ's message of brotherly love in our time. He and his family were always included in her nightly prayers.

... All the ministers of his first cabinet had remarked one time or another on this ability and in my zeal to serve him, I had, in my own mind, compared this trait with that of Jesus who, though only twelve years old, had astounded the wise men in the temple in Jerusalem by this same characteristic and the depth of his knowledge .... The old British adage that the king can do no wrong was certainly carried into the realm of Alberta politics to such a degree that the Premier can do no wrong was sincerely believed by thousands. (4)

But not everyone viewed his as the Messiah, something that no one should have done.

All political leaders who survive long enough become the subject of jokes as well as editorial cartoons. Ernest Manning was no exception. According to Barr, two of the popular jokes of the time help reveal Manning's public image: "St. Peter searching through new arrivals for a psychiatrist, then asking him: 'Come in and help us out with the Supreme Being; he thinks he's Manning.' Another, Manning looking for a burial plot. He finds a nice one but protests its high cost. The owner says, 'But sir, it has a lovely view ...' Manning replies, 'You don't seem to understand. I'll only be needing it for three days.' " (5)

Continued: The Mark of the Beast

Sources:

1. Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Manning and Preston Manning, By Lloyd Mackey, ECW Press, 1997, ISBN: 1-55022-299-6

2. Slumming it at the Rodeo: The Cultural Roots of Canada's Right-Wing Revolution, Gordon Laird, 1998, Douglas & McIntyre, ISBN: 1-55054 627-9, Pg. 47-48

3. Texas of the North, Time Magazine, September 24, 1951

4. 30+5 I know, I was There, A first-hand account of the workings and history of the Social Credit Government in Alberta, Canada 1935-68, by Alfred J Hooke, Douglas Social Credit Secretariat

5. Preston Manning and the Reform Party, by Murray Dobbin, Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing, 1992, ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 3

Maurice Vellacott and the Culture of Christianity

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In 1996, a very pregnant, 40 year old Bettye Joyce Beal from St. Louis, slipped and fell in her home, and as a result lost a lot of blood. When she arrived at hospital it was determined that the baby in her womb was not getting the blood and oxygen it needed, and therefore, the doctor on duty recommended a transfusion.

However, Beal declined treatment, because as a Jehovah's Wittiness, blood transfusions were against her religion. The hospital sought a court order, but by the time it was received, the woman and her unborn son had died. (1)

According to their website: "Jehovah's Witnesses condemn abortion, teaching that life begins at conception and life is sacred to Jehovah."

This is a perfect example of religious beliefs in conflict, not only with state's laws, but laws within a religious sect.

Maurice Vellacott has on many occasions tried to push through a bill allowing health care workers to refuse to provide medical assistance if certain procedures were against their religious beliefs. Of course, we know that this was just another attempt at criminalising abortion and clearly Vellacott had not thought this through.

If a health care worker's religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job, they need to find a different profession. There are far too many varying religious beliefs in this country to accommodate them all.

I was recently berated by Vellacott's legislative assistant Timothy Bloedow because I questioned his boss's education. At issue was the use of the term 'doctor', since Vellacott does not hold a PhD, but a religious doctorate, which makes him well qualified to act as a pastor. Fair enough.

I kind of like Mr. Bloedow because he keeps me on my toes.

However, at issue here, is whether Vellacott is qualified to act as a Member of Parliament in Canada, and it's not his education that is the problem, but his interpretation of religion. The Religious Right, to which he is a card carrying member, have created a culture of Christianity, based on a few talking points.

The various think tanks and non-profit organizations that operate within this "culture" or "sub-culture", do all the thinking, and rather than leading their followers toward an understanding of faith, they lead them through a mimicking of faith. 'Just do what our pamphlets tell you to do, and leave the rest to us. And please make your cheques payable to ....'

The understanding is that the heads of these organizations have read the Bible from cover to cover, and have found the absolute "truth". However, while I've no doubt that they have read the Bible from cover to cover, they did not unearth the "truth" and stuck it in their pamphlets. They have unearthed a palatable "truth", leaving out the meat of the Bible which would prove why it can only guide, but not dictate.

In fact if Canadians really lived by the infallible word of the Bible we would probably be arrested. The late Charles Templeton, a former televangelist, who even toured with Billy Graham, provides an example in the story of Abram and his wife Sarai.

And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels. (2)

Templeton suggests that this speaks to the morality of God, which would be astonishing by today's standards. Abram pimped out his wife to save his life, while enjoying the rewards of the arrangement.

Could I then set up a brothel and claim that it is based on the Bible?

The Old Testament is filled with stories like that, that speak of a vengeful and immoral God, so why would we want to have our laws based on Biblical principles?

The Religious Right use their faith as a weapon, and have established imaginary enemies. They believe they are being victimized because of their beliefs, but they are not the victims here. In fact I think the biggest victim of this new political movement is Christianity itself, because they've turned it into the most unwelcoming religion on the planet.

As a politician, Maurice Vellacott makes a great preacher. As a preacher he makes a lousy politician. The two can mix, but he has not sought to find the formula. Next election, the progressives in his riding must work together to remove him from office, because not only does he not represent Canadian values, he does not represent Christian values.

He is not the only poster child for the need to separate church and state, but he is definitely one of them.

Sources:

1. RELIGIOUS BELIEFS & LIFE SAVING THERAPY, Kevin O'Rourke, December 1996

2. Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith, By Charles Templeton, McClelland & Stewart, 1996, ISBN: 0-7710-8422-6, Pg 59-61

Is the Religious Right Losing it's Grip on Conservatives?

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.”

Focus on the Family is losing focus and have released a statement:

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.

And the Family Research Council had this to say:

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.

We'll rescue Canada one extremist at a time.

Tithing Yourself Into Knots: John Hagee Says Show Me the Money

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

“These proposals included cries for billions of new money for social assistance in the name of “child poverty” and for more business subsidies in the name of “cultural identity”. In both cases I was sought out as a rare public figure to oppose such projects.” (Stephen Harper, The Bulldog, National Citizens Coalition, February 1997)

I have lived in the same neighborhood for more than twenty five years. When we moved here there was a little church around the corner, that I was told had been there at least twenty years before we arrived. I had never been inside and could not tell you what denomination it was. But it was a familiar landmark. "Go past the little church on the corner" ... "turn right at the little church on the corner".

And besides the Sunday services, it was often a hub of activity. School buses lined up to take members of the congregation on picnics. Evening meetings, where voices were raised in song. There always seemed to be something going on.

And every year they held a lawn and bake sale on the parking lot, and every year I attended. (Someone made the best banana bread on the planet). But last summer the sale seemed to be bigger than usual, with furniture, folding chairs and even a piano. I asked the woman at the table if they were renovating, but she said that they were going out of business. They could no longer afford to operate.

I noticed that one table had a rather large selection of John Hagee books and tapes, with a ridiculously low sale price. I think maybe fifty cents apiece. In my mind I thought there was a connection, not only in the fact that they had such a large collection of them, but that they had now deemed them to be almost worthless.

I was going to buy Jerusalem Countdown, out of curiosity, but decided that I didn't want that garbage in my house.

I've always believed that these small community churches serve such an important function, as they become like an extended family. Someone always knows when you are in hospital, under the weather or down on your luck. In a different variation to the song, "everyone dies famous in a small church." Somehow John Hagee didn't fit.

The Tithes That Bind You Up

The above video is of Hagee screaming "starve" to applause. Now first off, he has the Bible quotation wrong. He says the man who "does not work", while it should be the man "unwilling to work". There is a difference, but clearly he does not see one.

You know it's very easy for Pastor Hagee to call anyone without a job "lazy", when he lives on a $5.5 million dollar ranch with its own private airstrip, smokehouse, skeet shooting range, etc. and launders money through his non-profit "church related activities", while drawing a salary of more than a million dollars a year. In fact he is now known to be the highest-paid nonprofit executive in San Antonio.

And a lot of his money comes from bullying people into tithing 10% of their income to his church.

When you give to God, He controls your income. There is no such thing as fixed income in the Kingdom of God. Your income is controlled by your giving." Believing or not believing in these principles is one's choice, and if you make the wrong choice, you've clearly sided with Satan and will be cursed financially: "The difference between living a life of prosperity and a life of poverty is a matter of choice. ... Tithing is a choice. If you choose to not tithe, you will be living under a financial curse." (1)

And his wife pleads with other women, even suggesting that should leave their husbands if they will not tithe:

Real men tithe to their church and follow the word of the Bible, which according to Hagee "is the only foundation on which America can build and survive" and provides the greatest financial counseling in the world. To emphasize the supernatural power of its blessing, Hagee added that "it will do for you what the phone booth did for Clark Kent." But even when her husband is not abiding by the biblical imperative to tithe, the wife should still submit to his wishes, even though she knows his position is unbiblical. "I minister to many wives who are tormented by the fact their husbands refuse to give back to the Lord one-tenth of what the Provider has allowed them to earn," Diana Hagee writes. "A man who rejects the principle of tithing cannot understand the feelings of a woman who believes and trusts in the Word of God regarding prosperity."

What to do, in Diana Hagee's view? The woman "knows that the Lord requires the tithe, . . . that he will provide blessings to those who obey the Lord with their tithe, . that the Lord promises to devour the enemies of her family when her family is obedient to the tithe." Yet obedience to her husband supersedes all of God's laws: "Based on the Word of God, she does not have many options. She must be obedient to her husband's decision." A former member of Hagee's church said that Cornerstone's marriage counselors hewed to that philosophy: "If your husband was a big tither, and you had money, you were in the wrong.... But if he wasn't a good tither, and a big tither, leave him. (2)

But all these promises of riches if you just hand over your cash, rarely materialize, and many people have suffered financially, simply because they could not afford to keep feeding Hagee's enormous appetite for the good life.

One former member of Hagee's church, fearful to talk on the record because Hagee is "really powerful" and has "got so much clout," described Hagee as "very angry" and "not approachable." The former member, who attended Cornerstone for about ten years, recalled that she had been going to Cornerstone for six years before she actually met Hagee. "I said, 'Oh, Pastor Hagee, I'm finally getting to meet you after six years,' and he said, 'Oh, I've been back here every Sunday' and turned and walked off." Her husband is bipolar, and when they went to marriage counseling, the church "told him he was a loser and an infidel." The counselors encouraged the former congregant to leave her husband, but "thankfully, I prayed enough. ... I began to see trouble, you know, I began to see things that wasn't right."

[She] said that even though she and her husband wrote a big check to the church after they sold their house and tithed close to 10 percent of their income, "We never prospered there." Most of the people she knew there were struggling financially, including some who were evicted from their apartments because they couldn't pay their rent. Hagee, she said, has a "very powerful hold, and you don't even realize it. ... We were there ten years, and I knew something was wrong, but I couldn't figure out what it was." She even feared speaking to a reporter: "If I say too much about him, God's going to get me. ... [Hagee's] got so much money and he's so powerful, he could take everything we have in a minute."

Another former member told of tithing even when she had to borrow out of her 401(k) plan to make her mortgage payments. At one point, she said, "at Christmastime I didn't have gifts under my tree. Two small gifts for my kids, that was it. I was so broke, and I was tithing." At the time, she believed that tithing would result in her own blessing. Still another former member, a single mother divorced from an abusive husband, told of tithing out of her child support checks, even though she was living in an apartment with subsidized rent. Contrasting her small apartment with Hagee's home in an exclusive San Antonio subdivision and his multimillion-dollar ranch, she added, "I don't even have a house! My kids grew up on top of each other like sardines. ... I just want a little house." She added, "I thought something was wrong with me. Why am I still [living like this]. I've given and given and given and tithed and tithed and tithed." But while attending Cornerstone, she, like the others, felt guilt and enormous pressure not to question Hagee or his doctrine, and that atmosphere was reinforced through multiple church services each week and mandatory meetings with smaller cell groups whose leaders were vetted on the basis of classes, tests, and the faithfulness of their tithing. As a result, the former member said, "I looked to Pastor Hagee as a god." (1)

I wonder what Hagee's god has to say about that? Single mothers giving him money from that "cheque in the mail every month"?

John Hagee is a swindler. If he wasn't hiding behind his religion he would be in jail. And that is the man helping to dictate Stephen Harper's foreign policy. Business partner of Jim Flaherty's pal Charles McVety.

These people don't represent Christianity, but if ordinary Christians don't start speaking out against this nonsense, there's are the only "Christian" voices we will hear. And those little "churches on the corner" that provide so much comfort, will be a thing of the past.

Sources:

1. John Hagee's Controversial Gospel, Sarah Posner, March 12, 2008

2. God's Profits: Faith, Fraud, and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, By Sarah Posner, PoliPoint Press, 2008, ISBN: 0-9794822-1-6, Pg. 85

John Hagee, Menachem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu and Jimmy Carter

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

3. A critical analysis of the Jewish alliance with the Christian Right regarding Israel, By Rabbi Caryn Broitman, Yom Kippur 2008

4. Stephen Harper delighted to help flotilla 'farce', By Linda McQuaig, Rabble.ca, June 15, 2010

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

The Religious Right is Reviving Their "Good Old Boys Platform"

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 ... BJU 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

6. Harper's U.S. neocon booster changes his story, By Beth Gorham, Canadian Press, January 27, 2006

7. Corruption of the Jean Pool, By Calvin Trillin, Time Magazine, March 08, 1999

Ted Byfield and the Company of the Cross

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In June of 2003, little more than a year after winning the leadership of the Alliance Party of Canada, Stephen Harper told members of the Civitas Society that he would now be embracing the support of the Christian right in Canada. Looking on with approval was long time mentor, and a founding member of the Reform Party, Ted Byfield.

He had been there in the early days when Harper was first cutting his political teeth and was in attendance when he delivered his "Achieving Economic Justice in Confederation" speech at the opening assembly of the Reform party on October 1, 1987.

In his presentation, Harper recited a litany of western grievances, from Macdonald's National Policy to 'the unlimited appetite of the Welfare State for tax grabs' and 'the special treatment accorded the Province of Quebec' in the form of transfer payments 'paid exclusively by Western Canada.' He then stated his reasons for believing that the existing political parties were incapable of correcting these injustices ... But Harper's comments regarding the Conservative party were the most telling, revealing implicitly where the new party believed its greatest potential support lay:

"... the Mulroney government has shown itself far too willing to back down on the issues that matter to its political base. We must serve notice to the Red Tory leadership that we will provide its Western supporters an option they can desert to en masse should they, for any reason, fail to successfully deliver on [free trade] or any other major initiative of importance to Western Canada. (1)

Manning would call his throwing down of the gauntlet speech the best of the weekend and Stephen Harper would then be named the head of Reform policy, and would serve as Manning's lieutenant. The same role that father Ernest Manning had played for William Aberhart, decades before.

Ted Byfeld had played an integral role in the formation of the party, through his Alberta Report magazine. He not only advertised their conventions and assemblies but before it's formation, he began running columns suggesting that it was time for a new Western party. The seed was planted and bore fruit on that fateful weekend in Winnipeg.

Things could have gone quite differently for Ted Byfield after a tragedy and controversy that continued to rage for several years after. It ended on a lake in Ontario but began several years before.

Company of the Cross and the St. John's Schools

Ted Byfield was a journalist who began his career as a copy boy for the Washington Post. Returning to Canada in 1948, he wrote for the Ottawa Journal, the Timmins Daily Press and later the Winnipeg Free Press. In the 1950s, he underwent a religious conversion after reading books by C.S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton.

Inspired, he joined the Anglican Church and working through them opened a private Christian school; Saint John's Cathedral Boys' School, and in 1962 left journalism to teach there full time. In 1968 he opened another near Edmonton and later a third in Ontario.

The schools were said to be cult like, run by a lay religious order, the Company of the Cross, who lived in a communal apartment building, and were paid a mere dollar a day. When Byfield started his magazine in 1973, he used the same group to create and deliver the publications, which regaled against things like homosexuality, abortion, the public education system, crime and prostitution.

The students at his schools didn't fare much better than the staff. They did all the janitorial work, cooking and serving food, cleaning the kennels of the sled dogs they raised, and even making and selling processed meat products door-to-door for fundraising (hopefully not from the sled dogs they raised). Byfield and co-founder of the schools, Frank Wiens, believed that boys were not challenged by the education system or by society in general, so pushed them to their breaking points to "build character", and if they didn't toe the line, they were dealt with a "flat stick across the seat of the pants."

In 1974 the National Film Board produced a glowing documentary about the schools:

St. John's Cathedral Boys' School, at Selkirk, Manitoba, is the most demanding outdoor school in North America, but it cannot accommodate all the students who would like to enroll. Boys of thirteen to fifteen begin with an initiation tougher than they have ever faced: paddling canoes through some five hundred kilometers of wilderness in two weeks, portaging and camping all the way, learning not only outdoor lore but cooperation and self-confidence as well.

But then in 1978 a gruelling canoe trip turned deadly for the Ontario campus. "The tragedy occurred after a group of 27 boys, aged between 10 and 15, and four instructors from St. John's School of Ontario, in Claremont, northeast of Toronto, began canoeing up Lake Timiskaming, about 370 kilometres northwest of Ottawa." Twelve boys between the ages of 12 and 14 and one instructor were drowned. (3)

There had been storm warnings earlier in the day that had either been ignored or missed.

James Raffan wrote a book about the tragedy, and took issue with the schools, that he stated were little more than sweatshops. He also expressed surprise with the attitudes of the parents and staff after the deaths. They seemed to be very defensive of the school's program, and unwilling to cast or share blame. (4)

However a law suit filed years later revealed the horrendous details of life at one of the schools.

A private Christian boys residential school near Edmonton, renowned for its tough discipline, has been sued by a former student for alleged physical and mental torture during and after a wilderness trip more than a quarter-century ago ... in the 14-page document he "was forcefully exposed to experiences on the trip that put his life, health and safety at risk."

The 10-day trip, which began on Sept. 2, 1976 -- the day after the then 13-year-old boy arrived at the school near Stony Plain, 30 kilometres west of Edmonton -- was comprised of a 100-kilometre hike through steep mountain passes and a 500-kilometre canoe trip through some of the most treacherous parts of the North Saskatchewan River.

"The plaintiff states that the defendant's putting his life at risk by forcing him as a 13-year-old boy, untrained, unprepared and unsuitable to participate in the dangerous and unsafe physical activities of the wilderness trip, such as the long and arduous canoe trip often through treacherous waters, as well as its other conduct and treatment of him, amounted to a callous and wanton disregard of his safety and well-being and of his civil rights and a betrayal of his trust," the claim alleges.

The claim says the school's staff picked on and encouraged other students to pick on the weak, subjecting Birkin to "public ridicule, contempt, humiliation, degradation and sadistic and verbal abuse." Birkin spent 10 days in Stony Plain Hospital following the trip, suffering from ulcers on his feet and legs and blistering on his thighs. According to hospital records, the claim says, when Birkin was admitted he had a large bruised area and linear marks on his buttocks which he told a doctor had come from being beaten with a stick to make him hike faster.

He claims that while he was on the canoe portion of the trip, when he was exhausted and unable to keep up with the five other student paddlers, he was
repeatedly struck in the lower back with a heavy wooden paddle. ... It is not the first major claim of negligence against Saint John's School, which has an enrolment of about 130 students and 30 staff and is located on 110 hectares of bush, park and farmland.

A 15-year-old boy, Matt Riddel, sued the school for $1.7 million in 1996 after he lost nine toes to frostbite on a winter camping trip. He sustained his injuries during a four-day, 50-kilometre snowshoe and dogsled expedition, under the supervision of the school's teachers, in which temperatures dropped to -28 C.

The schools are all closed now and his magazines defunct, but Byfield has moved on to other things. Besides being a founder of the Civitas Society, he also helped to found the Canadian Christian Coalition, based on the American counterpart, after attending a Washington Convention in 1995. Jason Kenney is also a founder of CCC and a founding member of Civitas.

Sources:

1. Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. By Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, pg. 116

2. Harrison, 1995, Pg. 60

3. Ville Marie, QB Canoe Accidents, Winnipeg Free Press Manitoba , June 14, 1978

4. Deep Waters: Courage, Character and the Lake Timiskaming Canoeing Tragedy, By James Raffan, Harper Collins, 2002

5. School sued after 26 years, By Daryl Slade, Calgary Herald, February 08, 2003

6. The Christian Coalition Comes to Canada, by Kim Goldberg, The Albion Monitor, May 5, 1996

Stephen Harper Calls Canada's Multiculturalism a "Weak Nation" Strategy

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 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. (2)

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

2. “PM backs ‘Star Wars’: Critics,” , By Susan Telecourt, Toronto Star, June 7, 2007

3. Canada gives away the store in return for scraps from U.S.: Deal will tie hands of provincial governments to use procurement as a public policy tool. By Scott Sinclair, Toronto Star, February 19, 2010

4. Canada Command establish new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan, Northern Command, U.S. Army North headquarters, February 14, 2008.

Will the Religious Young Save us From the Religious Right?

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

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 this from a purely political perspective.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And young Muslims are also looking for new direction:

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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