BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Religion and the State Locked in Mortal Combat

There is a monumental struggle shaping up in Canada between organized religion and the State. We are now only at the periphery of this struggle, and hear only faint rumbles of thunder in the far distance. However, within a few short years, the thunder will be directly overhead as the storm breaks around us. Much is at stake in this deadly struggle.

This battle will begin officially when the government insists that churches, in their practices and pronouncements, must follow the secular values of the state over the church's own values. If the churches refuse to obey this, they will be punished - not just by lawsuits and fines, but also, one can safely predict, by being denied a tax exempt status that is so necessary for the churches to carry out their many works - not just spiritual, but temporal, such as caring for the sick, the poor and abandoned.

The foundation for this struggle has already been laid over the past few years by homosexual activists who insist that the churches conform to the "equality" rights of homosexuals, as determined by the courts and legislation, and stop allegedly "discriminating" against them because of religious belief. Adoptions, social services, such as nursing homes, religious based schools, marriages, employment conduct etc. carried out by religious organizations will be held to secular standards, not religious ones.

In order to limit the influence of the churches in the public square and at the same time to increase the influence of homosexuals, a number of legal challenges have pitted homosexual equality rights against the freedoms of religion, opinion, and expression in the Charter of Rights. In these cases, religious rights have more often than not, been subordinated to homosexual rights.

The case Marc Hall v. Dufferin School Board 2002 was supposed to be the definitive case to require churches to conform to secular values. In that case, Marc Hall was a student in an Oshawa, Ontario Catholic high school. Assisted by a group of homosexual activist lawyers, he challenged the school board's decision to deny him the right to bring his same-sex partner to the school prom. The court granted Mr. Hall an injunction against the school board, stating that Marc Hall had a "right" to attend the prom with his same-sex partner, even though the prom was organized by the Catholic school and took place on Catholic school property. Mr. Hall received significant support for his legal challenge, not just from the gay rights lobby group EGALE, but also from former federal Minister of Industry, Allan Rock; Buzz Hargrove, President of the Canadian Automobile Workers (CAW); Toronto City Councilor Kyle Rae (openly homosexual); Ontario Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty; Liberal MPP, George Smitherman and now Ontario Minister of Health, also openly homosexual. These high profile individuals put their weight behind this case because they believed the case would force churches once and for all to conform to secular laws prohibiting "discrimination". They also anticipated that the case would have broader implications than just relating to schools and would affect all institutions, organizations, and agencies, including religious ones that receive government funding. These institutions would then be required to apply, at all times, government non-discrimination policies. Although the injunction was granted in this case, the broader substantial issues still had to be argued in a further court case.

This case was not a completely "clear" one for the homosexual activists to take to the higher court because it was complicated by the fact that S. 93 of the British North America Act (1867) provided that Catholic schools in Ontario could operate without government interference and this provision could well protect Catholic schools from conforming to state laws. Consequently, the activists decided, in June 2005 not to proceed with the case but rather to wait for another, perhaps clearer, case in the future to bring a court challenge on the crucial issue of church conformity to secular values.

Criminal Code - Hate Propaganda Provision

An amendment in 2004 to the hate propaganda provisions (S. 318 and 319 in the Criminal Code) added sexual orientation to those groups specifically protected from hate propaganda. This provision will be used in the future to silence churches from speaking out against the homosexual agenda. This is due to the fact that in order to constitute the offence of hate propaganda, it must occur in a "public place". Unfortunately, the definition of public place includes churches, in that a public place is defined in that section as "any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation express or implied". There is an exculpatory (escape) provision (S. 319(3)) in the Criminal Code that provides that no person will be convicted of this offence of promoting hatred if "in good faith he attempted to establish argument or opinion upon a religious subject". On the surface, this provision would appear to protect ministers, rabbis, and priests, as well as all others who wish to argue "on a religious subject". However, same-sex marriage and homosexual rights, abortion etc. are also legal or societal matters, not only religious issues, and we do not know how the courts will interpret this provision. Moreover, unless one discussed the issue from a strictly religious perspective and relied instead upon health, social arguments etc., there would appear to be no protection under the hate propaganda provision.

Resistance to Religious Objections Gains New Weight

This dispute about churches remaining free to carry out their own beliefs acquired new force recently when a respected academic and feminist Janice Gross Stein, Belzberg Professor of Conflict Management and director of the Munk Centre for International Studies in Toronto, wrote an article, published in the September, 2006 issue of the "Literary Review of Canada" in which she raised the issue of churches relying on religious not secular values, despite the fact they receive generous tax exemptions from the state. She wrote:

These religious institutions that systemically discriminate against women are recognized, at least implicitly, by governments. They enjoy special tax privileges given to them by governments. Religious institutions do not pay property tax and most receive charitable status from the federal government. If religious institutions, for example, are able to raise funds more easily because governments give a tax benefit to those who contribute, are religious practices wholly private even when they benefit from the public purse? Are discriminatory religious practices against women a matter only for religious law, as is currently the case under the Canadian law that protects freedom of religion as a charter right? Or should the equality rights of the charter have some application when religious institutions are officially recognized and advantaged in fundraising? Does it matter that the Catholic Church, which has special entitlements given to it by the state and benefits from its charitable tax status, but refuses to ordain women as priests?

How can we in Canada, in the name of religious freedom, continue furtively and silently to sanction discriminatory practices?

Ms. Stein then went on to say that when religious values are in conflict with so called "Canadian" values as set out in the Charter of Rights, the "charter values" should prevail. These so-called "charter values", however, are only the interpretations of the Charter made by the unaccountable, appointed judges who, too frequently, reach conclusions based on their own personal ideology or philosophy rather than on any substantive law. That is, the so-called "values" interpreted by the courts are not necessarily the values and beliefs of most Canadians. Rather, they are the values of the liberal left, whether on feminism, homosexuality or unrestricted sexual activity, as mirrored in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in December 2005 to permit swingers clubs.

The Role of Religion

Religion has an important role in Canadian society because it sets high standards of behaviour and justice. Its role is to bring its goodness and graces of belief to everyone. The Ten Commandments and such admonishments as feeding the hungry and housing the poor etc., serve to civilize society. Religion also puts meaning into life with its inevitable sorrows and joys and provides a reason for hope. The state imposition of political correctness (secularism) in society and on the churches is merely a form of Marxist ideology: posing as tolerance and compassion, it undermines and erodes true democratic freedoms. The oppressive secular ideology infringes on religious liberty and on the freedom of religion to advance itself for the betterment of all members of society.

Surprisingly, the Chinese are well aware of the importance of Christianity in building democracy. There is an estimated 40 million Christians in China but since many attend underground Christian churches, estimates of actual Christians in China usually range between 50 million and 100 million. Chinese scholars have studied western politics, economics and military power and have concluded that the west has been so powerful because of Christianity (Ottawa Citizen, March 3, 2007)

They claim that, because of Christianity, western civilization has corrected itself rather than plunge into decline. That is because Christianity's history is linear not cyclical and holds great hope in this life and the next, especially for those who follow its ethics; its tenets smooth conflicts and help its followers adjust to upheaval with relative calm.

Meanwhile in Canada, we await this coming struggle between the state and the churches with trepidation. Will faith be allowed to flower and grow to protect mankind with charity and hope? Or will we have a society in which faiths will be forced to retreat from the secular power of the state?

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS