“Jesus talked about faith as the leaven that raises up the whole loaf; the light from the mountain that illuminates the valley below … a treasure that one discovers through constant searching; a gift from a God who invites all especially the poor and sinners to a banquet of rich foods and fine wines. This is the faith to which we witness. Jesus, in our tradition, found this faith more deeply rooted in the hearts of sinners , prostitutes, tax collectors, and shepherds than in hearts of the religious and the self-righteous. He encouraged us not to separate wheat from chaff, but to take care of the fields entrusted to our care and leave judgments to God.” Jesuit Fr. Stephen A. Privett

In 2000, Jason Kenney was invited to speak at his Alma Mater, the University of San Francisco, to a group of young Republicans. What he told them when asked about his success in persuading others to his side was: “I did not persuade them, the truth did. I used the political strategy I gained at USF when I campaigned for student government. I took the truth and I built a pluralistic coalition around it.” (1)

The “truth” for him was the orthodoxy of the Catholic church. Normally when writing about a public figure you factor in all of their life experiences, that led them to who they were. But in the case of fundamentalists or those who follow an orthodox form of religion, there is only one place to draw from. And despite all of his life experiences, everything that now shapes Jason Kenney’s thinking can be found at St. Ignatius in the mid to late 1980′s. It was there that he found his “truth”.

He has said on numerous occasions that he was “converted” while there, which I found a little puzzling. After all, Kenney’s father was the president of a Catholic college, the same college that Jason graduated from. Was he not Catholic then?

However, what I’ve discovered is that his conversion may have actually been to the “church”, the absolute “truth”, as espoused by three controversial theologians: Rev. Joseph Fessio, the founder of the school; Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, the influence for the school, and Fr. Cornelius M. Buckley, whose liturgies based on Catholic orthodoxy, were said to have inspired a “cult like” following.

In 1987 1990, when Jason Kenney abruptly left his studies, both Fessio and Buckley had been fired from their positions at the university, not only for their refusal to conform to the modern teachings of the church, but because they were constantly locking horns with the Jesuit hierarchy, and encouraging their students to do the same.

One graduate from St. Ignatius puts it this way:

I began my undergraduate life in 1980 at University of San Francisco. While there, I witnessed a virtual war between orthodox Jesuits and Jesuits of a different stripe. Jesuits who I regarded as good and holy men, were silenced when they didn’t toe the Jesuit party line. Fr. Cornelius Buckley, S.J., a professor of history, was silenced and sent to work at a small hospital in Duarte, California, where he remained for many years, obedient to his order, even though many in his order are flagrantly disobedient.

The St. Ignatius Institute, under the guidance of Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., operated a classical Catholic curriculum within the larger confines of the university and it attracted many students … It took the Jesuits over twenty years to shut the Institute down, which they finally did a few years ago by firing its director and hiring new professors who would teach the “new” theology. The Institute now exists in name only. It doesn’t teach the same things … Both Fr. Fessio and Fr. Buckley are two orthodox priests, who when they objected to much of what was going on on campus, did not endear themselves to their fellow Jesuits. (2)

One of the things that they objected strenuously to, was the acceptance of homosexuality.

Our ‘Greatest Canadian’ Tommy Douglas, when studying to become a pastor, told a story of how a straight laced preacher had visited his home and how his mother was mortified, when his father offered the teetotaller a beer. He decided on that day that if he was going to be a minister, he would be “one who would accept a glass of beer at a parishioner’s home, who would accept his parishioners as he found them and would strive to be one of them.” (3)

In the testimonial of the St. Ignatius graduate above, he states that “It took the Jesuits over twenty years to shut the Institute down, which they finally did a few years ago by firing its director and hiring new professors who would teach the “new” theology.” This purge was accomplished by Fr. Stephen A. Privett, who in the opening quote says that “Jesus, in our tradition, found this faith more deeply rooted in the hearts of sinners , prostitutes, tax collectors, and shepherds than in hearts of the religious and the self-righteous. He encouraged us not to separate wheat from chaff, but to take care of the fields entrusted to our care and leave judgments to God.” (4)

Privett understood what Douglas understood. You take care of what was entrusted to you and leave the judgements to God. By sharing a glass of beer or reaching out to the gay community, even if you personally disapproved of such things, you reached the hearts of “sinners”.

Since Marci McDonald’s The Armageddon Factor* hit the shelves, there are many defending the enormous power of the Religious Right on the Harper government, by stating that Tommy Douglas also promoted what have been referred to as “Christian values”. But there is a vast difference.

Several years ago, in an interview, Douglas was asked: It has been suggested that you emphasize religion in politics in the manner of Aberhart and Manning. As I recall, you set yourself firmly against doing this, did you not? To which he responded:

“Yes. I’ve always been strongly opposed to using religion as a gimmick for gaining political support. I believe in applying Christian principles to politics and to government. But I think one must remember that in a political party there are people of all religious beliefs, just as in every church there are people of different political points of view.” (5)

Because this movement does not reach out to “sinners”, but passes judgement, something that should be left to their god.

I’m not a religious person, but I’m not an atheist either. I believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, so long as they don’t try to “force” them on others. And I don’t think that homosexuality is a “sin”, or that you need to be a Christian to have “values”.

When Jason Kenney excluded gay rights from our citizenship guide, it was not an oversight. It was part of his “pluralistic coalition”: that he had built around his “truth”.

When he was attending St. Ignatius, “… he made headlines in California trying to ban abortion groups from the university and fighting against gay rights in San Francisco.” (6) In fact, “Jason was a leader of a group of students that sued USF for false representation. USF claimed to be Catholic yet failed to espouse the teachings of the Catholic Church. Kenney, who converted while at USF, was able to see the contradiction. USF began to fund campus organizations, which undermined the teachings of the Catholic Church.” (1)

Jason Kenney went to enormous lengths to oppose abortion and homosexuality, even suing a university. He told the Western Catholic Reporter in 2003 that he felt that “Political activity is “a necessary form of charity in the promotion of the Gospel“.” (6) Or more precisely from the Young Republicans:

Kenney was initially opposed to the life of politics, believing that morality and politics are mutually exclusive. His life was changed when he read the Holy Father’s encyclical, Evangelicum Vitae. Seeing that the Holy Father’s notion of politics was a form of charity changed Kenney’s perspective. “I felt compelled to enter politics as a vocation. I was called to politics, not qua politics, but as a form of charity as a promotion of the message of the Gospel of life”. (1)

Footnotes:

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

Sources:

1. A Mix of Morality and Politics, USF Grad Shakes Up Canadian Political Scene, By Rich Kunz, San Francisco Faith, June 2000

2. Why I No Longer Support the Jesuits, by American Phoenix, July 13, 2006

3. Tommy Douglas: Building the New Society, By Dave Margoshes, XYZ Publishing, 1999, ISBN: 0-9683601-4-9

4. Response by Stephen A. Privett, S.J., President of the University of San Francisco, to the charges made on the website of Friends of the St. Ignatius Institute, February 8, 2001

5. The Making of a Socialist: The Recollections of T.C. Douglas, Edited By Lewis H. Thomas, The University of Alberta Press, 1982, ISBN: 0-88864-070-7, Pg. 82

6. Promote human dignity - Kenney: Politician says faith and politics do mix, By Ramon Gonzalezwcr, Western Catholic Reporter, June 2, 2003

I must admit that I’d never heard of the ‘Work Research Foundation’ and wasn’t quite sure what was meant by a “Christian view of work and public life“. So I perused their site, and though they are now calling themselves Cardus, what I found was a bit alarming, beginning with this:

If you link to their audio section and scroll down to a 2005 recording, you can listen to a lecture series on something they call “spiritual capital.” And just so there’s no mistake, the re-introduction by Michael Van Pelt, clearly states that Cardus is the new name for Work Research Foundation. And  Darrel Reid, Stephen Harper’s deputy chief of staff, went right from there to Harper’s office. From their site:

The third installment of our thINK audio series is here, and our latest WRF product is just in time: spiritual capital is a concept which provides the tread for walking faithfully in a society that gets more secular every day. First, David Sweet introduces, in layman’s terms, the idea of “spiritual capital.” (2)

 For those who don’t know, David Sweet is the MP for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, a backbencher in the Harper government. He introduces himself as the Vice-President of Business Development for the group.I listened to all of the speakers and if there was ever a scripted mandate for a theocracy this is it. On his website, Sweet refers to himself as a motivational speaker, and it’s pretty clear after listening to 15 minutes (twice) of his speech, that he is motivating business leaders to create a Christian workplace.

He praises one such leader for printing that his “Purpose was to honour God” on his business cards. Sweet goes on to describe what spiritual capital is, by suggesting that it could be equated to social, physical and human capital, all requirements to maximize profit. “Faith” economics and devoting your business to the “Glory of God”. (when I was roaming I was linked to The Christian Labour Association, that even encourages companies be unionized by Christians)

The next speakers continue along the same vein, and what they describe is a Utopia where a company’s mission statement is reflective of “Christian values”, with a healthy dose of redemption.

They suggest that if a company bases their business on these “Christian values”, it will be a workplace with integrity and little conflict. And rather than discouraging employees from discussing their religious beliefs, they encourage open discussion, even for non-Christians.

It’s not too difficult to see what would take place here. You have a business with a stated Christian hierarchy. You employ non-Christians and then encourage open discussion of religious beliefs. Sounds like proselytizing to me. And what happens if those non-Christians don’t see the light? Will there be accusations of religious harassment, that would be similar to sexual harassment, where an employee is “saved” or risks losing their job?

Darrel Reid once suggested that gay rights are a form of Nazi tyranny. Is there a place for gays in this wonderful, non-conflict workplace?

Templeton Foundation

One of the groups that David Sweet promotes is the Templeton Foundation:

The mission of the Templeton Foundation is: to serve as a philanthropic catalyst for discoveries relating to the Big Questions of human purpose and ultimate reality. We support research on subjects ranging from complexity, evolution, and infinity to creativity, forgiveness, love, and free will. We encourage civil, informed dialogue among scientists, philosophers, and theologians and between such experts and the public at large, for the purposes of definitional clarity and new insights.

One of those ‘Big Questions’ is answered through intelligent design, rather than evolution. The foundation has also been embroiled in controversy, because despite the fact that they claim to be non-partisan, they regularly provide funding to Conservative groups, including Ari Fleischer’s Freedom’s Watch.

They have also garnered “criticism from some members in the scientific community who are concerned with its linking of scientific and religious questions.”

Another speaker mentions that they had just completed a project with the Max De Pree Center, in Pasadena California, where they promote a ‘servant leadership’ program, and recently hosted a seminar on the “Morality of the Market.”

So what does this all mean?

David Sweet and Darrel Reid from the Harper government are both involved with the Work Research Foundation, now Cardus, who are working to ‘Rebuild North America’s social architecture’  by promoting Christian businesses.

Michael Van Pelt, another speaker on the podcast, is a new appointee at Rights and Democracy, which has been embroiled in controversy after their hostile takeover by the Harper government.

Ray Pennings, another speaker, is the chair of Redeemer University College, where the 4th speaker, Gideon Strauss is one of the faculty.

David Sweet hosted a National House of Prayer ‘dessert reception’ there, where the faithful were invited to “Come and hear what God is doing in our Government.” And Redeemer College recently received three million dollars of public money – our money; despite the fact that they are an elite private Bible school.

Welcome to Reconstructionism 101. Leave your souls at the door.

By: Emily Dee

Sources:

1. Wikipedia

2. Spiritual Capital, By Ray Pennings and Michael Van Pelt, CARDUS, July 1, 2005

His case was handled by the Alliance Defense Fund, who challenged the courts, not on freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. They used the protection of religious freedom to justify hatred and exploited a child to do so.

A student at Sheridan Middle School in Thornville won a federal court ruling Thursday allowing him to wear a shirt to school that insults homosexuals, Muslims and abortion-rights supporters.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the first day of school, seventh-grader James Nixon wore a T-shirt that read on the front, “INTOLERANT. Jesus said … I am the way, the truth and the life. John 14:6″. On the back, the T-shirt read, “Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder! Some issues are just black and white!” (2)

Marlin Maddoux and the Alliance Defense League

One of the founders of the American Defense League who came to the aid of young James Nixon, was Marlin Maddoux (1993-2004), a pioneer of Christian radio broadcasting.

Newspapers usually describe the ADF, which is based in Scottsdale, Ariz., as a “conservative” group but give little additional information. USA Today even called the ADF “a legal alliance that promotes religious freedom….”

Critics say a description such as that doesn’t even begin to tell the story. Far from supporting religious liberty, the ADF champions the exact opposite: It was formed by a band of television preachers and radio broadcasters to advance the Religious Right’s perspective in the courts.

The ADF, watchdogs at Americans United say, champions a radical agenda to destroy the wall of separation between church and state. It even has close ties to the most extreme faction of the Religious Right–a movement that wants to create a harsh fundamentalist Christian theocracy in America. Since its founding, the ADF has played a role in nearly every church-state case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and many lower federal courts. Since 1994, the ADF has directly or partially funded cases dealing with government aid to religion, religion in public schools, abortion, gay rights and religiously based censorship. Throughout, the organization’s goal has been the same: merge religion and government. (3)

 Maddoux was also a member of the Council for National Policy, which appear to represent the pro-military arm of the Religious Right. It was at a conference of the CNP, held in Montreal in 1997, where Stephen Harper was invited to deliver a speech tearing down the Canadian identity.

He told this group of ‘muscular’ Christians that: “your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.” (4)

Another founding member of ADL is James Dobson, the man who created Focus on the Family. Dobson provided the seed money for a Canadian branch of Focus, started up by Stephen Harper’s deputy chief of staff, Darrel Reid. He also indirectly poured thousands of dollars into Harper’s election campaign, focusing on the issue of same-sex marriage, which became one of Harper’s election promises (wink, wink).

Dobson is also a founding member of the Council for National Policy with a strong belief in creating an aggressive theocracy in both the United States and Canada.

From the beginning, the ADF was clear about what it wanted to achieve. Its founders announced the group’s formation in 1994 with a huge direct-mail campaign aimed at fundamentalist Christians. Maddoux and five other high-profile Religious Right leaders endorsed the effort: James Dobson, president of Focus on the Family; Bill Bright, president of Campus Crusade for Christ; D. James Kennedy, a television evangelist and head of Coral Ridge Ministries; the Rev. Donald Wildmon, president of the American Family Association; and Larry Burkett, president of Christian Financial Concepts (now Crown Financial Ministries), a fundamentalist-oriented financial services company.

In a letter soliciting donations for the ADF, Dobson wrote, “By pooling resources, substantial amounts of money can be channeled into a critical aspect of the civil war for values—namely, the legal battle in our nation’s courts for the sanctity of life, the defense of religious freedom, and the preservation of traditional family values.” (3)

 And as you can see from their own website, James Dobson is indeed a founding member of the Alliance Defense Fund.

Cindy Silver and the Religious Right

During the 2006 election campaign, when Ralph Reed suggested that the Religious Right in Canada bring forward as many Christian nationalists (extremists, fundamentalists) as possible, one they hand selected to run was Cindy Silver.

Silver was a lawyer with the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian franchise of the Alliance Defense Fund, and one of her most prominent clients was Focus on the Family Canada, then run by Darrel Reid, Stephen Harper’s deputy chief of staff.

She had the endorsement of former Reform Party MP, Sharon Hayes, who is best remembered as the woman who issued a press release on her House of Commons letterhead, that accused the Chinese of eating fetuses, urging Liberal ministers attending the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing to reject

These petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 in Canada’s Criminal Code as it is currently worded.

Cindy Silver shared those views and as part of a letter to the editor wrote:

But what concerned the citizens of North Vancouver-Surrey, where Silver was running, was her views on things like abortion and homosexuality. In 2003 she had appeared before a House of Commons committee, as a private citizen, (not representing her client Focus on the Family), and made the following statement:

On September 22, 1998, a large group of what I will call “gun enthusiasts” marched on Parliament Hill. They billed it as Fed Up II, so I can only assume there must have been a Fed Up I.

During this, from what I understand, rather large rally; some of the people who were “fed up”, noticed RCMP snipers on the roof of the Parliament Buildings. When reporters asked about the snipers, they were told by the RCMP boss that there were no snipers, only officers with binoculars.

This upset the people who were already “fed up” and with great will and determination, they set out to prove that the RCMP were lying. They filed an Access to Information Request to determine what weapons had been signed out that day, to RCMP officers on the Hill. I think they were big ones … lots of letters and numbers. Very impressive.

Now I can’t speak for everyone, but when there is a large group of angry gun owners marching on Parliament Hill, I for one do not want to see snipers on the roof. I want tanks. Lots of them.

They are gun owners and they are “fed up” .. for the second time!

And one of the organizers of this rally, and the person who set out to prove that the RCMP were lying, was Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz. (You can read his press release here) At the time he was a Reform MP; same party, new name. He has been the most vocal opponent of the Gun Registry, and the quote at the top belongs to him.

Of course I’m only kidding about the tanks, but this reveals a pattern of confrontation with law enforcement, and those who feel they should have the right to bear arms.

One of the speakers at that rally was Karen Selick, now the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation. They take on high profile cases that challenge our constitution, including the right to call gay people names; but that’s a topic for another time.

What’s interesting though is her speech at the rally. She quotes Allan Rock, the former Justice Minister and architect of Bill C-68: “I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers.”

“Sorry, Mr. Rock” Selick says, “but if ever there were a good start towards a police state, that has to be it. We are being asked to give up our means of defence in return for a promise of protection from the very people most likely to become our oppressors.”

The police and military are their oppressors?

Things have changed, because it’s now Breitkreuz’s government that is giving the RCMP even bigger guns.

However, this challenging the police over the gun registry issue is not unusual. Opponents of the Registry will cite the costs or inconvenience, or bill it as an attack on rural populations who use guns to hunt and kill pesky varmints.

But the real issue for them is the belief that we should all be armed as self defense.

I find that quote used often on pro-life websites to equate abortion with violence. However, it doesn’t ring true for most of these sites, that all too often support war and even the death penalty. Clear evidence of a nation using violence to get what it wants.

In fact, if I were to march in one of their “pro-life” demonstrations, carrying a sign with a picture of an Afghan child who was the victim of war, I would probably be called a “Taliban dupe”. Or if my sign had the photo of a Palestinian child, who was an innocent victim of war, I would probably be accused of anti-Semitism and not loving Israel enough.

I might even be whacked with one of their signs suggesting that abortion is the “new Holocaust”, complete with the most horrendous images.

Because there are several quotes also attributed to Mother Teresa, that I never see on a “pro-life” site, including this one: