While the Christian Right in Canada has been able to slow down momentum in some areas, notably abortion rights, they have little success in really shaping public debate and setting the agenda. They react; they rarely initiate. This is what makes the sex education case so interesting.

The curriculum changes were apparently made public months ago, but few — including Premier Dalton McGuinty — took notice until McVety blasted the government and called for a province-wide protest. Suddenly it was front-page news. The premier and government were the ones reacting and on the defensive.

In policy analysis terms, McVety set the agenda and framed the debate, playing offence rather than defence. The media repeated McVety’s key points, such as how the new curriculum featured “instruction on the pleasures of masturbation” and “vaginal lubrication” and “anal intercourse.”

McVety successfully framed the issue as whether this was too much information at too young an age, as opposed to other narratives like promoting healthy sexuality, counteracting schoolyard misinformation, preventing teen pregnancy and STDs, etc.

Note: Joe Gunn is executive director of Citizens for Public Justice, an Ottawa-based ecumenical group advocating for social justice. He has worked for churches and church organizations, mainly Catholics, in Canada and Latin America, and he was director for the Social Affairs office of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). In March 2010, he delivered the Sommerville lecture in Christianity and Communications at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario. I am, with Gunn’s permission, providing here an excerpt from that speech.

On October 17th, 1996, Canadians turned on their evening newscast to hear CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge begin with these words: “Good evening. A blistering attack on governments across the country today, from Canada’s Roman Catholic bishops. The issue is poverty. The bishops accuse governments of using the most vulnerable people in society as human fodder in the battle against deficits. And the bishops weren’t the only ones speaking out…”

The bishops were holding their annual plenary gathering in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Before they began the meeting, however, the bishops of the Social Affairs Commission gathered with a roomful of local activists, including the president of the National Anti-Poverty Organization. To the assembled media, the bishops released their pastoral letter at Hope Cottage, a church-run soup kitchen in the downtown core. People living in poverty spoke, so it wasn’t only the bishops who got the microphone. And after the press conference, the media accompanied the men in black to serve lunch and eat together at the soup kitchen.

Today there seems to be a big change in terms of the public voice of the churches. The Catholic Church has not been totally silent, but if you go to the “Documents” section of the website of the Social Affairs Commission of the bishops, only one text has appeared since March 2008. Today, the capacity and determination of the churches to work for social and ecological justice seems weak. Service to the world now seems less of a concern than doctrine and maintenance of a shrinking membership base among the largest, historical denominations. Economically, the mainline churches are suffering, with unfortunate cuts to church staff and budgets becoming widespread. Is this change happening in all the Christian churches? Is there still a role for conscientious Christian leadership in public justice in Canadian society today? And if so, how might it best be done?

Should Christians be engaged?

Citizens for Public Justice [the organization that Gunn leads] believes that “if religion is understood to be one’s ultimate commitment or life orientation, then it cannot be confined to private life, particular rituals or institutions.” After all, why argue for keeping Christianity or Islam out of public life, when other “religious” value systems like capitalism, liberalism or humanism are not restricted? To ask a person of faith to leave their beliefs behind as soon as a political discussion begins is like asking a lung to refuse to breathe in air. The real issue is how people of faith can and should contribute to a hopeful citizenship.

Not only do Christians have to get involved in public justice, then, but the proper way to advance on this path to holiness is by addressing the causes of suffering of the poor, the disadvantaged, and the Earth community.

Status of faith-based work for justice

A month ago I contacted the social ministry offices of Canada’s nine largest Christian churches and asked if they’d answer a few questions about their social ministries. Eight of the nine were more than pleased to do so: only the CCCB refused to respond. I received helpful replies from the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church in Canada, the Christian Reformed Church, Mennonite Central Committee, the Canadian Religious Conference, and the Canadian Council of Churches (CCC).

Among the nine church groupings in the survey, more than two-thirds have fewer staff resources today as compared to five years ago. Several organizations now use short-term internships filled especially by students. Increasingly, volunteers are mandated to serve on committees where staff once served. One respondent expressed disappointment that there were “few, if any” justice educational resources for church use in congregations, and expressed disappointment that there is “no capacity to draft briefs or make presentations to government committees.” When asked what had happened to budgets for this work of social ministry over the past five years, five of the groups reported that they had suffered decreases (some of even up to half), and two had no increase.

When asked about future expectations, six of eight churches that responded to this question expect decreased budgets in the short term future, with the larger groups at reductions of 9-10%, which are levels that could mean losing staff. One church office gave staff a week off without pay as a cost saving measure.

Finally, I asked the most difficult question: “Do you feel that your church office has increased, decreased or enhanced effectiveness in social justice ministries over the past five years?” Seven respondents answered. Three mentioned greatly decreased effectiveness, while two said things remained about the same. One respondent felt his church had “in practice, essentially abandoned its work on social justice” spending most of its time on internal issues and sexuality. This person added, “I suspect those who are passionate are working outside the formal church structures.”

Another revealing commentary was that, “With the sequential decimations of church office staff in all the important member churches of the CCC, there is nothing like the capacity there used to be to undertake substantial joint work compared to five years ago. We continue to rely on sister organizations for substantial policy work: Project Ploughshares, Citizens for Public Justice, KAIROS. . . but unfortunately, those partners are also vulnerable.”

The case of KAIROS

The situation of KAIROS having its funding cut by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has been in the news recently. What has not been well-covered is that official Catholic support for ecumenical social justice work through KAIROS has been curiously muted. Although both Development and Peace (D&P) and the Catholic bishops serve on KAIROS’ board, their financial commitment to the organization has diminished over the years. The Catholic bishops now give KAIROS $100,000, and all of that comes from D&P. Six years ago, they gave over $250,000. It is the faithful and generous contributions from religious sisters that maintain the Catholic contribution to this ecumenical social justice ministry today.

Not only financial support, but also political support has been waning. In early December, a memo sent to all the bishops reported, “the CCCB executive committee unanimously agreed that the Conference of Bishops will not embark on a campaign to pressure the government of Canada to reconsider its funding decision” concerning the cuts to KAIROS. The executive gave two reasons for inaction: “The international program of KAIROS has always been secondary for the CCCB,” and “The CCCB is not convinced that such a campaign will result in success.”

Contrast this response with that of South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who stated on December 9 that, “The world needs more of KAIROS Canada. It would be an unparalleled setback for the poor, vulnerable and disenfranchised if the voice and work of KAIROS in the global South is muted.” The board of Citizens for Public Justice echoed this concern in their letter to the prime minister, stating “CPJ is concerned that this decision may be another in the trend to discontinue funding of groups who raise questions about current policies, thereby silencing some of the diverse voices that are essential for a healthy public debate about international issues of justice and stewardship.”

New tone needed

While the recent voices of the Christian churches in Canada have been muted and maligned when they have engaged in the public sphere, public dialogue and political advocacy are still constitutive elements of what it means to be a person of faith. But it seems clear that this must now be done differently than in the past.

First, there is still a role to play in defending ecumenical social justice ministry in the churches – I see no reason to cede hard won ground now occupied by the organizations like KAIROS that represent almost 40 years of struggling to live the Gospel faithfully in action. We cannot spend all our strength in attempting to maintain church structures for social ministry if these efforts make such demands upon our energy that we are not free to address the real social and ecological challenges that history places before us.

Secondly, lay people will have to lead the way in defending ecumenical social justice ministry in the Canadian churches, and even start new movements. We should get over any assumption that the churches’ social witness has to be further clericalized in order to be valid. Laypeople of all sexes should be able to reclaim their social mission as well as their contribution to the emerging non-white church’s more inclusive voice.

Thirdly, the way we’ve designed the process of preparing and delivering church statements must change. Have you ever been asked your opinion on an issue, or invited to help develop an opinion in dialogue, study and debate with your church leadership? If we don’t involve more people in these processes, we can’t expect them to fully accept any eventual stances as their own.

Fourthly, we need to walk the talk before we squawk. The example of the 1996 pastoral letter on poverty suggests how a process was developed to draft a message with others, and deliver this text with the only people who could be the architects of their own liberation: people with a lived experience of poverty. Otherwise, the message would have lacked authenticity and credibility.

Fifth, it is important to ensure that the spoken word of the churches is delivered to defend the poor and vulnerable. It is crucial and not always easy to ensure that these words do not arise in order to promote the churches’ own interests and reputations, instead.

Sixth, any pronouncement has to be delivered with appropriate humility. Polls tell us that Christianity is the affiliation of 77% of Canadians, but only 17% attended a place of worship in the previous week. As some say, “Canada is a nation of believers, but not belongers.” A Christendom view of the world is no longer prevalent. A whole new role, perhaps a smaller role, for organized Christian religions is emerging.

Perhaps the situation offers possibilities for groups like Citizens for Public Justice and other lay associations to be more collaborative and helpful to churches that are desirous of recovering their voice on public justice issues. And perhaps we need to remind ourselves that large, unwieldy institutions don’t always have the genetic make-up to be prophetic. The cutting edge seems to flourish more easily on the margins, in smaller groupings that are more nimble, responsive, and enjoy fewer organizational constraints. Perhaps the Christian voice in public affairs today should best be presented in new tones – but we should not accept that voice being either muted or maligned.

McVety uses his imaginings and a 2006 US commercial from the Competitive Enterprise Institute called Global Warming=Energy to promote his hyperbolized climate change denial. The commercial he bases his sermon on is a common anti-science tool of the religious right. The desmogblog:

The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line “C02, We Call it Life.” Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

He starts off railing against cap and trade being  under the control of  ’them.’ (global megalomaniacs)

1) Any cap and trade program would keep all revenues within the United States. It isn’t one central program, but a movement of national programs working towards the same goal, reducing C02 Emissions.

2)There was never a scientific consensus on global cooling.The issue attracted some attention in the media attention in the 70’s.The impact of CO2 on climate has been studied since the 60s.

3) One snow storm in the United States is not evidence that global warming is a myth. Increased snowstorms is actually one of the predicted outcomes of global warming. Increased warmth over the oceans increases evaporation putting more moisture in the air. When that moist air hits a region that is still below zero the result is more snow.

This last winter was the warmest and driest on record in Canada. Even that doesn’t prove or disprove climate change. Only as we look at the very long term do we see trends and since the seventies each decade has been warming than the last.

He speaks to Barak Obama, Stephen Harper and Dmitriy  Medvedev.

Obama went to Copenhagen and said, Yes the globe is warming and we can change it so he said yes I’m going to tax you to death so we can change the weather. Well you know what? God said to Barak Obama and every other leader in this world, I’ll show you who changes the weather and He buried the United States in massive amounts of snow that they have never seen before, and He showed them Barak Obama you can’t change the weather…

Stephen Harper, you cannot change the climate and President Medvidev you cannot change the global temperature, but somehow they think they can.”

…only God commands the wind, only God can change this weather, God played a joke on them by burying them in snow.

4) Does the bible say that only God can command the wind?  The passages that speak of God command the wind are Gen 8:1, Pro 30:4, Jon 4:8. None of them declare that only God commands the wind.

It has been proven that we can impact our climate. In the 30’s farmers used farming techniques that contributed to high winds and dust storms. When the farmers changed their practices it significantly reduced the amount of dust storms.

For years we have been using silver iodide and frozen carbon dioxide to stimulate rain. It is called cloud seeding.

He then mocks meteorologists and climatologists.

5) Weather forecasting and climatology are two different fields. Because global weather systems are incredibly complex it is very hard to predict the weather more than a few days out. There are different weather events like El Nino that have a temporary impact on temperatures. However we know that if we change one variable, the amount of Green House Gases in the atmosphere the inevitable result is warming. That doesn’t mean we can predict how warm it will be 3 months from now, it does mean we have a good idea that each decade will be warmer than the last.

I went to U of T and studied geo-physics and they taught me in those days the globe in cooling, all of a sudden in 1991 they said never mind, forget that 40 years past, we now say the globe is warming. 2005 they decided no, well it was cooling, now warming, now climate change, but we’re going to tax you anyway, we’re going to tax everything that you do through this global warming scam.

6) Skeptics often like to bring up the change in language from global warming to climate change in a manner that implies that climatologists have changed their mind. The truth is climate change is just a broader term that encompasses all the impacts of warming. This includes increased droughts in some areas, and precipitation in others.This includes the intensification of storms.

7) Cap and Trade is essentially a financial mechanism that will provide financial incentive for the free market to come up with solutions for transportation, energy and heating that don’t put so many greenhouse gases in the air.The goal is not control people, let alone their breathing. It will encourage efficiency in the development of all products and services which has a great simulative impact on the economy.

CO2 is one greenhouse gas that is essential to life. There is no plan to get rid of it, just keep the concentration of CO2 at a certain level to limit the impact of climate change.There are other things in life that are essential in appropriate quantities, but toxic with too much. Salt is essential for life, but if you get too much you can develop heart disease. Fat is essential as well. McVety doesn’t seem to understand there can be too much of a good thing.

He then proceeds to mangle stewardship and dominion.

But when you start saying that we are going to put the concerns of these hyper-environmentalists, these earthies over the concerns of God, the word of God, and the bible, then you are treading on religious ground, and  you are treading on ground of turning your back against the living God.

9) The vast majority of scientists and activists believe in fighting climate change because of the potential impact on the environment, wildlife and humanity. For most of these people it has little to do with any religion. If the oceans rise and displace tens of millions of the words poor that is an issue of justice. If droughts wipe out crops causing famine or raising the price of food this is a justice issue. If wildlife species go extinct it is issue of global stewardship. There is nothing unbiblical about caring for the poor or ensuring the hungry are fed. We have a biblical mandate to care for the planet, we do not have permission from God to wreck what he created.

Yes, it will bring them trillions of dollars they’ve already legislated  this in Europe and it’s about to come this country of Canada about to come to the Untied states and yes, it is a fraud, it is a fallacy, and unfortunately it has even trickled into our evangelical church in NA.

Before the break I talked to you about how Ted Haggard as the head of the NAE started to engage in this, he gave his testimony how he was converted to it and he started to preach this green gospel as he would say, we know the story, God turned him over to his vile passions, his rebrobate mind. We know the story.

This is the consequence of turning our back against the eternal God, of worshipping the temporary earth. We cannot do it. Yes, we have to be good stewards of the earth but not slaves or servants to the earth.

Unfortunately I believe this is the apostate faith that is talked about in 2 Thessalonians that one day there will be this great turning away. Well it’s already happening, why? Well, because this environmentalism, earthism, paganism transcends all religions, it transcends all cultures it transcends all governments and around the world. We are serving the creation instead of the creator, serving the temporary instead of the eternal and the end result is catastrophic even to the point where the NAE, the WEA and the EFA our evangelcial collabrative leadership groups have distorted the gospel of Jesus Christ.

10) Ted Haggard never converted to an environmental religion.

11) McVety never defines the difference between stewardship and serving the earth. He just labels any initiative to stop global warming an act of earth worship. Is generating power from wind an act of worship?
Is parking an SUV in favour of hybrid car and act of worship? Is insulating our homes an act of worship?

12) None of the Christians or organizations that McVety ever instructed Christians to put the priorities of the environment over God or the bible. We are being called to follow scripture, not subvert it. The bible is very clear that we have mandate to care for the earth (Gen 1:28), love justice (Isa 61:8), and to not oppress poor and foreigners (Zec 7:10).

13) McVety fundamentally misunderstands cap and trade. It is the exact same approach Canada and the US used to reduce acid rain in the 80s. It worked very well.

From Wikipedia:

A central authority sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society.

Companies wouldn’t be buying credits from Greenpeace, they would buy them from other companies that pollute less.

14) Cap and Trade doesn’t work like indulgences because companies buy credits from each other, not a central authority.

These people are teaching an Apostate faith.

In this country you’ll then have to give money to all these left wing organizations like Greenpeace, like Al Gores organization, why? Because they say that this is cap and trade, all it is, is the recreation of indulgences.

These  preachers  these teachers theyleaders are saying we have to pay indulgences to create carbon monoxide, something that God gave us.  You’re never going to stop evaporation Barak Obama, you’re never going to stop clouds from forming. We can’t listen to the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada that calls us to submit to mother earth, no way no how no where.

16) Water vapour is the most dominate greenhouse gas but that doesn’t mean C02 and other GHGs like methane don’t have an impact. As human activity releases the more modest greenhouse gasses in to the atmosphere the earth warms. This in turn increases evaporation and puts more water vapour in to the air. Water vapour amplifies the impact of C02.

Breathe, Charles, breathe.

Surrey parent Paul Jubenvill has withdrawn his human rights complaint over an elementary school’s refusal to provide space for a Bible study group. Jubenvill said Wednesday he was taken aback by the storm of controversy over his plans to hold voluntary meetings on Christianity at Colebrook Elementary School. “It turned into a war. It’s not what I want. I’m not a political person. I didn’t even know what this tribunal is,” said Jubenvill. “It’s turned into Us vs. Them. It’s become a mudslinging thing. People have totally misunderstood my actions,” he said.

Jubenvill had filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal on Dec. 1 after he was refused space for the noon-hour group. By way of explanation, the school board said it had a legislated duty to separate church and education in elementary schools. According to Jubenvill, a 35-year-old software designer who lives “by God’s word,” his freedom of religion was guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act. But he has now withdrawn his official complaint “after further reflection.”

He didn’t know what this tribunal is – then who pushed him to file?

Paul Jubenvill, a member of the Cloverdale Canadian Reformed Church, filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal on Dec. 1, saying the district’s decision violates his freedom-of-religion rights.

“This is no different than the freedom to have a jazz club or a badminton club,” he told the Province newspaper. “There can’t be discrimination on the basis of religion.”

Jubenvill has two sons, Jasper, 7, and Levi, 9. The School Act separates church and school.

Alberta is set to enact “parental rights” into law today, at the expense of their children’s more fundamental right to education, with Bill 44, the amendments to the Alberta Human Rights Act.

But where did these notions come from? The Alberta Conservatives are not known for being creative with respect to policy, preferring incremental steps rather than sweeping revolutions. So where’s the push coming from to enact rights that are supposedly protected under the current School Act in Human Rights Legislation?

The ideas of parental rights over education are nothing new. In the mid to late 1990s many States, under pressure from the Religious Right, held constitutional amendment initiatives that would enshrine things ominously similar to what is being proposed here in Alberta.

In 1996, Colorado narrowly (57:43%) defeated a proposed amendment that would have stated:

The rights of parents to control the upbringing, discipline, education, and values of their children shall not be abridged.

While this is a bit stronger with words like “discipline” and “values” included, it comes very similar desires.

The 1996 initiative was proposed by various Conservative Christian groups, which united behind “Of The People” and included the Christian Coalition, Eagle Forum and the Traditional Values Coalition.

Coincidentally to our situation here, it is quoted that from 1994 to 1997 about half of the states in the US have enacted these “rights,” however Colorado was the first to put it to the people. The Guttmacher Institute article suggests that these measures are often put forth in “seemingly innocuous language.” That sounds familiar to the innocuous Bill 44 right?

So it’s clear that the Religious Right has thought of these issues before and pushed for them in the States. But where are the Canadian Evangelicals and Canadian Religious Right on this issue?

Let’s see what Focus on the Family’s Canadian wing has to say about “How to Make Changes in the Public School System” in 2003:

There has been a new movement in the last few years that is best described as ‘opt in’ schooling. In these schools (such as ‘Fundamental’ schools, ‘Back to Basics’, ‘Traditional Education’, ‘Charter Schools’, etc) the parents are consulted on what the school will stand for and teach, and the school will not teach what the parents do not agree to (do not ‘opt in’ to) have taught in the school.
…
3. Continue to opt your child out of classes of which you do not approve.
…
4. Push your trustee to approve more ‘opt in’ schools in your district, or if this is not an option, elect new trustees.
…
5. Push your provincial MLA/MPP/MNA and Minister of Education to promote legislation that would allow for ‘opt in’ schooling in your province.

They reference Alberta’s “Bill 16″ as a good example of progress. By the date of the article I assume this refers to the 2001 Bill 16 (since our province restarts the numbering every year), the “School Amendment Act” which set out to:

Sponsored by Learning Minister Lyle Oberg, Bill 16 clarifies the process for establishing charter schools and removes the ability of school boards to establish them; furthers the move to coterminous public and separate school board boundaries; ensures public and separate school supporters are assessed the same property tax rates; and abolishes the School Buildings Board, leaving final decisions on new school facilities in the hands of the ministers of learning and infrastructure.

Or in laymen terms, basically entrench a few more powers in the Minister of Education and make it easier for religious separate schools to be established.

Focus on the Family is diverting a lot of their efforts toward their vision of “education” in Canada, and even titles a whole section of their website “Homosexuality in Education,” as though we truly do have “Gay 101” in schools already.

The best explanation we have so far of who proposed this legislation in Alberta comes from an exchange in the Legislature between NDP Leader Brian Mason and the Bill’s sponsor, Lindsay Blackett:

Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. The government proposes adding new human rights for Alberta children, including the right to not learn about sexuality, sexual orientation, or religion, which according to the Premier includes evolution. It’s an interesting list, considering that it could have included the creation of rights for disabled students or protection against bullying. Obviously, someone has been urging this government to create this specific list of rights. Can the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit tell the House what groups have been urging the government to protect so called parental rights?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’d be my pleasure. One such group was a group of Alberta faith leadersthat I met with a little over a year ago. They include Bishop Fred Henry; Reverend Tim Seim, the president of the Alberta Church Executive Fellowship; Syed Soharwardy, the president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada; Reverend Glen Johnson, chair of Synod Council, Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada; Kulwant Dhillon, adviser to president, Dashmesh Culture Centre, the Sikh temple; Majeed Ahmad, national vice-president, Ahmadiyya Muslim Community; Reverend Jonathan Gibson, chairman, Calgary and southern Alberta chapter, Anglican Essentials Canada . . .

Mr. Mason: Will the minister confirm that each one of those individuals and groups that he has named urged the government to create these categories of rights in the human rights act?

Mr. Blackett: Actually, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Calgary Herald today, Bishop Fred Henry, the spokesman for the group, has said that they had met with us and that they were disappointed that we didn’t go with further recommendations, not only parental rights, not as far as they wanted to go. They wanted us to amend many other such things, and our caucus, when we looked at it, decided that in the best interests of Albertans we would go forward with the parental rights portion of the human rights bill because we believe in parental rights, we believe in family values, and we believe in the best interests of Albertans.

Mr. Mason: That remains to be seen. However, the minister did not answer the question. He quoted from a newspaper article quoting one person, being Bishop Henry. The question I asked and that I would like an answer for is whether or not the minister is claiming that every one of those groups and individuals he named supports the changes that he is proposing.

Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, I said that they don’t support that because they believe that we didn’t go far enough. Now, Bishop Henry has been on the record. I’d be glad to give those names. The hon. member can contact them and ask them himself if they believe in that or not. [emphasis added]

Well, we can rest a little easier perhaps, knowing that the Tories aren’t going far enough for some faith leaders, but that also could be because of the aforementioned incremental steps this government likes to take.

It seems too late to stop this Bill, but isn’t it odd we still don’t know who’s really sponsoring it? Perhaps one day we’ll have some sort of registry for those who wish to lobby the government.

Used by permission. Ian Bushfield May 28, 2009. Terahertz

Note: The Alberta Legislature has moved 3rd reading of the bill into next week citing too many other bills up for third reading this week.

Remember when that bogus coalition tried to smack down Beverley McLachlan for her alleged role in getting Henry Morgentaler his Order of Canada? Well, it looks like the religious right is back playing that game again. The subject du jour is the Albertan “parental rights” legislation, which I’ve covered before, as have many others, and which would – the premier and at least one minister have argued – let religious parents take teachers before the Human Rights Commission for discussing evolution or sexual orientation in the classroom.

Yesterday there was a new development when a self-described “coalition of five family organizations” issued a press release through CNW, declaring their support for the legislation, which is still being debated. According to the press relesae, “family is the fundamental unit of society and parents have the right to choose the kind of education that shall be given their children.” I wonder whether that includes the parents of this girl in Winnipeg.

Anyway, like in the McLachlan incident, there is some funny footwork going on here. (Also some fuckery over at Equipping Christians’ blog, by the way, where Tim Bloedow says the coalition is “mostly Albertan conservative organizations,” when in fact they’re national organizations and a provincial chapter.)

For one thing, as in the McLachlan affair precisely in fact, REAL Women is actually listed twice: once as REAL Women of Canada, and again as REAL Women of Canada Alberta Chapter. Now unless those two organizations have oddly divergent policy positions, which I find unlikely, there are actually only four organizations here.

As for the others, well, United Families of Canada is listed, and I’m not even sure they exist anymore. Their website doesn’t seem to, anyways. The phone number listed for “Jill Cahoon, President,” is actually registered to David Cahoon, who is presumably her husband, which presumably means that the organization is fallen on hard times and this is a home telephone number.

That’s not conclusive, mind you – REAL Women of Alberta President Corry Morcos’s number is registered to Fawzy Morcos, again presumably her husband. Ditto with the number of Michele Dow of United Mothers and Fathers, though in that case, at least, it seems that she actually owns her own phone.

REAL Women and the Catholic League, of course, have their own phone numbers. And offices. Which is good for them. And United Mothers has a website, at any rate. As for the others, if I were them, I’d be grateful right now about the fact, as you so frequently and paranoidly assert, that the mainstream media “ignores” you. After all, you wouldn’t want reporters deluging your house with phone calls this evening, would you?

The Albertan controversy, which has been discussed previously on this site as well as at other blogs, is being covered regularly by Big City Lib, who writes that the Stelmach government now seems open to looking at some amendments to address concerns from teachers over chilling effects in science classrooms:

You know, one thing politicians know how to do better than anyone is count votes. The Stelmach government looked around and realized that the over-haul of their Human Rights Act would involve balancing the demands of the Gay and SoCon communities. If Speechies got stiffed (and they did), that’s because the Stelmach government realized there weren’t enough of them to be worth the fuss.

Another perspective, critical of the implications of Bill 44, has also been offered in the Calgary Herald by pundit Rob Breakenridge. Views from the other side have been offered by blogs such as No Apologies, which recently accused a Religious Right Alert author of being “McCarthyite.”

Meanwhile, over in Québec, religious right forces are gathering in opposition to
the new Ethics and Religious Culture which is intended to replace existing religious instruction on morality with a new comparative look at various world faiths’ approaches to moral questions. The course has been controversial among many parts of society, not just the religious right, but it is from religious sources that a pair of legal challenges have recently originated.

Several organizations have emerged in support of the legal cases. One, naturally, is the Catholic Civil Rights League, which recently released a press release on the matter here, in which it defends “the right of parents to direct the education of their children, and in particular to choose the religious education of their children” (thanks to No Apologies for the link).

Another supportive organization is the Canadian Constitution Foundation, currently led by former Reform candidate John Carpay. In a Globe and Mail op-ed, he argues that the course is superficial, “inherently anti-religious,” and a case of “state-imposed… relativism.” As RevDave of Terrible Depths observed, Carpay’s foundation is funded by the Donner Foundation and Aurea Foundation, and draws personnel from Civitas, the Physicians for Life, the Montreal Economic Institute, and the Fraser Institute.

Religious Right Alert will continue to follow developments in both these disputes.