I have spent much of my time in the past months working on a book with an old friend, and I have been less active in the blogosphere as a result. The book will be called Truth to Power, and it presents the best from 21 years of journalism by Father Andrew Britz, a Benedictine monk at St. Peter’s Abbey in the hinterland of rural Saskatchewan, far from the centres of ecclesiastical and political influence. Kingsley Publishing of Calgary will release it in the fall of 2010.

Andrew was editor of the Prairie Messenger, a Catholic weekly newspaper that has been published by the monks since 1904. He was fearless in speaking truth to the powerful in church and society – to popes and prime ministers, capitalists and clerics. “It is not easy producing a prophetic paper year in and year out,” he writes in one of the editorials published in this book. “Prophets call us to a new age.”

The new age for him is one that resists an imperial papacy, one in which his church honours and takes seriously the gifts of all the baptized – lay people as well as clerics, women as well as men, and the poor, especially the poor. Andrew’s world is also one where the abuses of liberal capitalism are held in check, where militarizartion is curtailed, where the earth and all of its peoples are treated with respect, and one where all religions act in unity for the common good. Although he is best known for his provacative editorials, there is also a deeply contempaltive dimension to his writing, the legacy of his life as a monk and a trained liturgist who is deeply steeped in church history.

In his 21 years as an editor, Andrew wrote close to 2000 editorials. With some expert help from two associate editors, one former and one current, Andrew delved into the archive and sent me his first cut. We have worked from there and have chosen about 150 pieces.  In Truth to Power, Andrew confronts honestly and with clarity many of the issues that confront the church and the world. Here is a sampling:

The papacy: “Nothing that Christ said can be used to underpin the church’s hierarchical model of authority.”

The bishops: “The church needs some mavericks, even maverick bishops who do not hold exactly the ‘right’ position on celibacy, nuclear weapons, condoms and homosexuals.”

Lay people: “The laity is not present in the church for the clergy; the priesthood is for the people.”

Women in the church: “It is embarrassing to read what the great bishops and theologians of age after age in the church have had to say about women.”

Social justice: “The church seldom gets in trouble for proclaiming the importance of charity. Resentment mounts quickly, however, when the Gospel prompts its followers to strengthen the call for justice. ”

Economic development:  “Liberal capitalism, according to [Pope John Paul] cannot be trusted. It is not to be chosen as the model for socio-economic development.”

The environment: “A church based on sacraments should quite naturally be ecological.”

Abortion: “We like many Catholics have refused to see abortion as a single issue. We insist on keeping all the life issues [capital punishment, mindless militarization, nuclear war and terrorism] together in one ‘seamless garment’”.

Birth Control: “To shore up teaching contained in the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (On human life), the church has centralized authority as it has never been previously exercised in the church.”

Ecumenism: “Gone – forever we hope – is the day in which we can boast that the Catholic church alone has the whole truth.”

Fundamentalism:  “[This] is about simple answers, answers freed from all humanization that comes from involvement in time and space, from dealing with life’s inevitable struggles.”

Christmas: “Jesus became flesh. That is what Christmas is all about. In doing so he gave infinite value to the lives real people live.”

Easter: “It is the celebration of community. The community itself is our sign (sacrament) of the Lord’s resurrection.”

Vatican II: “Brilliantly conceived but abysmally executed”

I first met Andrew in 1965. I was a student at St. Peter’s College, a boys’ boarding school that coexisted with the monastery at Muenster, about an hour to the north and east of Saskatoon — and he was a seminarian. I have been a reader of the Prairie Messenger for all of my adult life and have also contributed news stories and columns to the paper. So it was perhaps not surprising that Andrew and I are cooperating on this project. The wonderful and courageous writing is his. I am the book’s editor and will write an introduction provide biographical information about Andrew and background about the rich progressive tradition of the Prairie Messenger.

In addition, two prominent and knowledgeable Canadians will contribute their insights. They will comment on Andrew’s writing and why it remains important for church and society today. Dr. Mary Jo Leddy is a well-known author and activist, and Dr. John Thompson, a sociologist, is the former principal of a St. Thomas More College at the University of Saskatchewan. Thompson says this in his chapter analyzing Andrew’s work: “These editorials exhibit a powerful mind at work – informed, subtle, at home with complexity and uncertainty, compassionate and ethical, clear, and prayerful.”

Andrew was ordained a priest in 1966 and it was his fate to come of age during the Second Vatican Council. He immersed himself in that great reforming project, not yet completed, and he used his long tenure as editor to explore and promote the teachings of Vatican II. In it he finds the keys to justice and to right relationships. Stay tuned.

 Coded biblical inscriptions have been found on the telescopic sights of rifles used by soldiers from several nations, including Canada, who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The company that supplied the inscribed weapons initially defended its actions unapologetically, and the response by the American military spokespersons has been under whelming. The inscriptions, placed where they are, represent a betrayal of the Christian scriptures and their central message of peace and reconciliation, although some obviously see this activity as admirable and patriotic. The incident and responses to it raise deeply troubling questions about elements of the American military.

A group called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the U.S., blew the whistle to ABC News in mid-January, saying it had received a complaint from a U.S. Army infantryman. The gun sights allow soldiers using them to shoot at people with greater accuracy in the dark or in dim light. The inscriptions are in the form of raised lettering and numerals added to the serial numbers along the sights. One of the inscriptions reads: “JN8:12”, a reference to a passage in John where Jesus says, “Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”  A second inscription reads “2COR4:6” and refers to St. Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians. The passage refers to God’s “[giving] us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.”

No apologies

A Michigan-based company called Trijicon, which has a $660 million contract with the U.S. Marine Corps, supplies the rifle sights. Trijicon, when first asked about it, defended its actions saying that, “as part of our faith and our belief in service to our country, Trijicon has put scripture references on our products for more than two decades.” The practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa, who was killed in a 2003 plane crash. His son, Steven Bindon, is now president of the company and well connected to the leadership of the religious right in the United States. Trijicon states on its website: “We believe that American is great when its people are good. This goodness has been based on biblical standards throughout our history and we will strive to follow those morals.”

Initially, U.S. military officials also defended the use of the inscriptions, saying that they did not violate a constitutional ban on religious proselytizing by American troops. Officials said that the military would not stop using the telescopic sights. On January 20, an Air Force spokesperson named Major John Redfield compared the inscriptions to the use of Biblical language on the U.S. currency. “Are we going to stop using money because the bills have “In God We Trust” on them?” he asked. “As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they’ll continue to be used.”

Barrage of criticism

That position changed within a few days after a barrage of criticism from a variety of groups, including the Military Religious Freedom Foundation and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. They said the implied message is that American soldiers are fighting a holy war against Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though American politicians, including President Obama, have said this is not the case. A second, and perhaps predominant concern among soldiers is that publicity surrounding the inscriptions could put them at added risk if ever they are captured in battle. The defence departments and military officials in New Zealand, Australia and Britain, responded cautiously, saying that they had not known their soldiers were being provided with weapons bearing the biblical inscriptions. Within a few days of the controversy erupting, however, those organizations and the even U.S. military had decided that the inscriptions were not acceptable. By January 22, military spokespersons were saying that they did not approve of them and wanted them removed. Trijicon then announced that it would provide “modification kits” at its own expense for that purpose. Owner Stephen Bindon was now describing his company’s action as “both prudent and appropriate.”

A Canadian military spokesperson admits that Ottawa-based Joint Task Force 2 and a special operations unit from nearby Petawawa use the Trijicon rifle sights in Afghanistan, but Major Don MacNair cites national security reasons in refusing to say how many of the sights are employed. The activities of the joint task force are shrouded in secrecy, but the unit often works behind enemy lines and its members are trained to kill with cold efficiency. MacNair told the Ottawa Citizen that the inscriptions are inappropriate and should be removed.

Christo-fascism

The most disturbing question here is whether these military inscriptions represent a rogue act by a company owned by a right wing Christian businessman, or whether they represent an attitude and practice that is pervasive in the military and therefore more sinister. There has been significant reportage on the religious influence in the American military. Jeff Sharlet, writing in Harper’s magazine (May 2009) reported on a “subtle civil war” that is occurring for the “soul of the military.” He reports on a “small but powerful movement of Christian soldiers concentrated in the officers corps” who are trying to turn the military into a “righteous Christian army”. These officers bully recruits and ordinary soldiers to become involved in mandatory assemblies and prayer groups (open only to Christians), and they appear as speakers on the prayer breakfast circuit and on religious media owned by fundamentalists.

“What men such as these have fomented,” Sharlett writes, “is a quiet coup within the armed forces: not of generals encroaching upon civilian rule but of religious authority replacing the military’s once staunchly secular code … they see themselves not as subversives but as spiritual warriors –‘ambassadors for Christ in uniform,’ according to the Officers’ Christian Fellowship.” Sharlett also writes about how the chaplaincy in the U.S. military, which was once apportioned strictly according to the country’s religious demographic, has come to be dominated by graduates from fundamentalist bible colleges.

Every person in the U.S. military, Sharlet writes, swears an oath to defend the Constitution. But for fundamentalist officers and chaplains, “the Constitution is itself a blueprint for a Christian nation.” These officers and chaplains see the campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq as holy wars, exemplified by an example Sharlet discovered of soldiers in Iraq travelling through neighbourhoods with a bullhorn shouting, “Jesus killed Mohammed” – and shooting people who objected. This faction within the military also sees enemies everywhere at home, and believes it must “wage spiritual warfare against their countrymen” – those “post moderns” who believe in diversity and egalitarianism. Sharlet believes this religious intrusion into the American military is so deeply rooted that President Obama has chosen a hands off policy in exchange for “evangelical peace.”

In 2006, President George Bush began to use the term Islamo-fascism, which neo-conservative pundits Washington had been employing for some time to describe America’s enemies in the Middle East. It was an imprecise description that linked an entire world religion with an extremist political ideology — and moderate Muslims were offended. They might now ask in return if Christo-fascism is emerging within the American military.

 A group of the world’s most respected Elders says that religions frequently oppress women and that it’s time for faith groups to change their ways. “Religion and tradition are a great force for peace and progress around the world,” the group said in a statement issued in July 2009. “However, as Elders, we believe that the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a higher authority, is unacceptable . . . We especially call on religious and traditional leaders to set an example and change all discriminatory practices within their own religions and traditions.”

The Elders include Nelson Mandela, former Irish president Mary Robinson, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi, Kofi Annan, Graca Machel, Gro Brundtland, and former U.S. president Jimmy Carter. Mandela brought the group together in 2007. He said that as former leaders no longer in office they could “speak freely and boldy” to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. They have visited and supported peace initiatives in Cyprus, the Middle East, Zimbabwe and Sudan, but now they have turned their attention to equality for women and girls – and upon the role that religions play in prolonging the injustice.

Carter quits Baptists over women’s ‘subservience’

Jimmy Carter is among the most outspoken of the Elders on this point. A lifelong Baptist who continued to teach Sunday school even while he was president, Carter made a painful decision to leave the Southern Baptist Convention in July 2009. He said that his action became unavoidable when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses, decided that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from holding most church positions. Carter wrote at the time that, “Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.”

Carter developed his theme further in December 2009 when he spoke, via teleconference, to a gathering called the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Melbourne, Australia. “The plight of abused women is made more acceptable by the mandated subservience of women by religious leaders,” Carter said. He reminded his audience that in the Christian scripture, St. Paul wrote (in his letter to the Corinthians) that “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Carter took another swipe at the Baptist convention and also at the Catholic church, the two largest religious groups in the U.S. “The Roman Catholic Church and many others revere the Virgin Mary but consider women unqualified to serve as priests,” he said.

Dueling philosophies

There is a philosophy called complementarianism, which holds that God has ordained some forms of leadership (such as being a priest, pastor or elder) as exclusive to men. The counter concept is known as egalitarianism, or biblical equality, which holds that all human persons are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. The logical conclusion here is that both men and women are fit to hold any and all offices within their churches, not to mention their role in secular society. The debate often centres around the interpretation of certain Biblical passages. The complementarians like to quote portions of Genesis, where Adam was allegedly created first. Those who hold this philosophy justify the exclusion of females from leadership due to the deception of Eve by Satan, which resulted in the fall. There are also New Testament passages, including some by St. Paul, about women covering their heads, or wives being submissive to their husbands. These time-limited passages are read to restrict leadership to men.

Carter and his fellow Elders will have none of it. The Scriptures, Carter said in his Melbourne speech, were written when male dominance prevailed in every aspect of life and so it is not surprising that they reflect a dominantly male point of view. “I realize that devout Christians can find adequate scripture to justify either side in this debate,” he said, “but there is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women: he never condoned sexual discrimination or the implied subservience of women.”

Women and the church

The Catholic church is perhaps the most prominent example of complementarianism. Its leadership also clings to the position that because there were no women among the first apostles there can never be female priests. In a church whose decision-making is dominated by clerics, that means women are forever excluded from leadership. The last two popes have said the matter is closed and cannot be discussed. Pope John Paul II was not amused when, on his visit to the United States in 1979, Sister Teresa Kane, president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, challenged him publicly on the church’s treatment of women. The Vatican continues to rail against feminism and in July 2009 it announced a sweeping review of congregations of religious sisters in the United States. Some sisters fear that the Vatican is trying to shunt them back into the old ways.

Catholics and Southern Baptists have plenty of company in their opposition to having women participate in leadership. Pope Benedict recently agreed to welcome as Catholics those traditionalist Anglican priests who are disgruntled with their church. I had assumed their greatest objection would be that some Anglican congregations support same sex marriage or are willing to consecrate gay bishops. I have been surprised to read how often the unhappiness of disaffected Anglican priests is based on their opposition to the ordination of women.

In Canada, the United Church had its debate about women’s ordination in 1936. Yet, as recently as 2006, the Canadian Mennonite Brethren spent much of its national conference debating whether member churches should be free to call women to serve as ministers and pastoral leaders. The resolution was finally carried with 77% voting in favour. The Christian and Missionary Alliance (Prime Minister Harper is a member) will not ordain women and has had an on-again-off-again debate for more than 20 years about whether women should be allowed to serve as Elders in the church.

High stakes

There is more at stake here than another odd quarrel among church members that has little to do with the secular world. Every society has its creation myths and often they are powerful in ordering social and personal behaviour. Catholicism is the world’s largest Christian religion and wields considerable power and influence. The Vatican even has permanent observer status at the United Nations. Catholics compromise the largest church in the U.S. with 70 million adherents. The Southern Baptist Convention, with 16 million members, is the second largest religious group, and is growing rapidly. The leadership of both churches has veered to the right in recent years. Both, for example, opposed President Obama’s 2009 health care reform on the basis that it might lead to the state paying for abortions.

Church leaders are saying that women are not welcome to participate at all levels in their churches, or that women must be subservient to their husbands. That sends a strong signal to all of society’s institutions, from home to school, to boardroom and legislature. The message that women must be subservient and cannot lead is potentially of enormous consequence in the secular world. It is there, Carter said, that progress is being made and he fears that gains could be reversed. “It is ironic,” he added, “that women are now welcomed into all major professions and other positions of authority, but are branded as inferior and deprived of the equal right to serve God in positions of religious leadership.”
In fact, Carter fears that religious discrimination against women helps to create a general environment “in which violations against women are justified.”

These violations include widespread physical assault and the sexual abuse of women and girls; the use of rape by soldiers as a tactic of warfare; the recruitment of an estimated four million women and girls each year into the sex trade; restriction (mainly in Muslim countries) placed on the movement, education and social interaction of girls and women. We are mistaken if we believe that violations exist in faraway countries but not in our own. Carter could have said that 520 Aboriginal women have been murdered or gone missing in Canada, half of them since the year 2000, or that men with guns murder about 30 women each year in our country.

So the Elders have spoken. Carter, Mandela, Tutu, Robinson and the others present a formidable counterweight to blind tradition. They are immensely respected for their achievements and their integrity. They say that they are fully committed to the realization of equality and empowerment for all women and girls. They call upon all leaders, religious and secular, to promote and protect those inalienable rights. Theirs is a powerful message.

I have been posting to my Pulpit and Politics for just over two years now and it has been a rewarding project. Not long ago the trusty software that counts visits to my blog clocked 50,000 – not exactly a blockbuster but nonetheless significant. I am also pleased that in the Canadian Blog Awards for 2009, Pulpit and Politics placed second in the Religion and Philosophy category. In 2008, it placed first. The awards are based solely upon the number of votes received, so thanks to all of you who cast an online ballot for Pulpit and Politics. The blog is satisfying for a number of reasons. There is an intellectual challenge, which involves a lot of reading, watching and listening. There is the writing, which I love to do. Also, I enjoy the thoughtful responses that I receive from many of you. Often those remarks are posted to the Comments section on my blog, but even more often they take the form of personal email messages from those of you who do not want to have your comments or names posted for all to see. Each of your responses is welcome – including those that are critical of what I have written.

God is Back

I said that I enjoy the reading. Other than my occasional forays into the suspense novels of John Le Carre, Ian Rankin, or various Canadian writers, I like to organize my reading around social and political themes. My stated ambition in creating Pulpit and Politics was to explore the connection between religious faith and public life. This is a broad theme and there is much good writing to support its investigation. In one of my first blog posts, in November 2007, I reported on a special 18-page section in The Economist magazine called In God’s Name: A special report on religion and public life. Editor John Micklethwait said then, “In the 20th century people, particularly among the elites, tended to think that religion was disappearing. That obviously hasn’t happened.” With the exception of Western Europe, he said, “religion has forced itself dramatically into the public square.”

This year Micklethwait and a fellow writer Adrian Wooldrigde delivered a book called God is Back, which extends The Economist’s earlier investigation. The book opens by describing a meeting of Chinese Christians in a house church in Shanghai, attended by a group of young professionals with Blackberrys on their belts and their BMWs parked on the street outside. They believe, among other things, that religion and personal prosperity go hand in hand, because of the disciplined lives that Christians are called to live, and because co-religionists create communities in which people are prepared to support and help each other. There is some truth to that, I suppose, although I much prefer religious faith with a broader perspective. |God is Back then looks into the social and political effects of religious faith in Europe (where it is declining), in America (where it is reviving), and in the Muslim world (where it is thriving but uncertain how to deal with modernity). The authors are quite sanguine about the prospect of greater Christian involvement in the public sphere but they appear more concerned about Islam.

Black Mass

Another writer who I encountered (again) this year is British political philosopher John Gray. He is much more pessimistic in his critique. In his book Black Mass, Gray insists that totalitarian movements, including communism and fascism, were based upon utopian visions that have their roots in religion. “The very idea of revolution as a transforming event in history is owed to religion,” he writes. “Modern revolutionary movements are a continuation of religion by other means . . .With the death of Utopia, apocalyptic religion has re-emerged, naked and unadorned as a force in world politics.”

American Fascists

Another book that is dark in its reportage and analysis is American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges. He believes that the Christian right in the U.S. wants to turn the country into a theocracy governed by Biblical principles as they interpret them. The movement calls for Christian “dominion” over the nation and eventually over the earth itself. “Under Christian dominion,” Hedges writes, “America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the 10 Commandments form the basis of our legal system, and the media and the government proclaim the good news to one and all. Labour unions, civil rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the workforce to stay at home and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship.” Hedges believes that this movement in stronger than most of us think, and that it has fascist tendencies. Reviews of Hedges’ book in the New York Times and in the publication Foreign Affairs charge him with over-reaching in his analysis.

Gray makes the point that various religious utopian movements are relatively harmless to society when they consist of small and marginal groups, but become menacing when they achieve power and influence. Obviously, Hedges believes that with Dominionism that movement has arrived in the U.S. There are Dominionist groups in Canada as well although they remain marginal to public discourse. The youth group that organizes events called the Cry each year in Canadian cities is one example, as is a group called the Watchmen.

Feminist Theology

I used the In God’s Name article from The Economist in preparing a 12-week course that I gave at the Ottawa School of Theology and Spirituality early in 2009. (The school is offering winter courses again this year beginning on Monday, January 11 for the information of those of you who live in the Ottawa area). My courses in 2009 allowed me to pull together the disparate threads of much that I had read in the previous year or two and place it into the lecture and discussion sessions that we held. It became clear in my research that men dominate writing and scholarship about religion and public life in Canada. I began to look for a good resource that was written by women, and I found one in a book called Feminist Theology with a Canadian Accent. It’s a collection by a number of Canadian women writers, and one man.

I found the chapters on ecology written by Heather Eaton and Jessica Fraser to be excellent. Fraser, for example, talks about the importance of ecological literacy, arguing that each of us must learn more about the ecological context in the communities in which we live, whether it’s learning more about geology or biology, or measuring our ecological footprint — how much gas we use in our cars, how much we fly, how we heat and insulate our homes. These writers say that we must take heed of the ecological crisis and somehow make that central to our lifestyle, our activism and our theology. I believe that we have done a poor job of this in our churches and our society in general.

Now or Never

An Australian scientist named Tim Flannery, who appeared at the Ottawa International Writers Festival in October, buttressed that point for me.  Flannery has written a book about climate change called, Now or Never: Why We Need to Act Now to Achieve a Sustainable Future. Flannery writes, “With global food security at an all-time low, and greenhouse gases so chocking our atmosphere as to threaten a global climatic catastrophe, the signs of what may come are all around us.” Flannery did not once mention God in his appearance, but upon purchasing and reading his book I was surprised by how clear he is that our scientific crises are at base deeply moral crises. But what, exactly, do we do?  Flannery deals with practical topics such as the practicality of electric cars; whether or not people should stop eating beef; about how we can bring back tropical rain forests; and upon whether the Canadian government’s focus on carbon sequestration rather than upon reducing our carbon emissions is responsible public policy.

I ended the piece on Flannery’s book by writing that “no church that I have attended has placed an emphasis upon the urgent need for environmental stewardship.” A number of you either left comments on my blog or sent me email messages to say that your parish or congregation is, indeed, making environmental sustainability a priority.  Someone even sent me a list of web addresses for faith groups and organizations working on environmental issues. Thanks for that. I hope that we will continue our conversations in the months to come. Happy New Year.

I reported earlier in December that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) had cut off all funding to the ecumenical justice group KAIROS. I speculated that likely it happened because KAIROS was challenging the government’s support for rapid development in the heavily polluting oil sands in Western Canada. But alert readers raised another possibility for the government’s action. Emily Dee wrote to the Comments section of Pulpit and Politics on December 12: “I agree that the criticism of the tar sands was no doubt a factor, but I think there was another reason — both Jason Kenney and Stockwell Day claim that KAIROS was anti-Semitic because they criticized Israel.” In fact, on December 16, Kenney, the Immigration Minister, was to level just such charges against KAIROS in a speech that he made in Jerusalem at a global forum for combating anti-Semitism.

Kenney is now denying that he said KAIROS was anti-Semitic, but says he made the more limited accusation that KAIROS was supporting efforts to apply economic sanctions against Israel. But for the record, here is what  the Conservative-friendly National Post quotes Kenney as saying in Jerusalem: “We have articulated and implemented a zero tolerance approach to anti-Semitism. What does this mean? It means that we eliminated the government funding relationship with organizations like for example, the Canadian Arab Federation, whose leadership apologized for terrorism or extremism, or who promote hatred, in particular anti-Semitism. We have ended government contact with like-minded organizations like the Canadian Islamic Congress, whose President notoriously said that all Israelis over the age of 18 are legitimate targets for assassination. We have defunded organizations, most recently like KAIROS, who are taking a leadership role in the boycott.” A videotaped version of Kenney’s remarks is also available. Obviously, one must assume that Kenney meant what he said and knew that it would be reported, even though he is now backpedalling.

Bullying KAIROS

KAIROS was surprised when its funding for international projects was cut off but now the organization and its church sponsors are outraged at having Kenney accuse them of being anti-Semitic, a heavily-loaded phrase that carries with it the dark resonance of the holocaust. “Minister Kenney’s charge against KAIROS is false,” KAIROS said in a statement released on December 18. “Two points need to be made: Criticism of Israel does not constitute anti-Semitism; and CIDA was developed to fund international aid and not to serve political agendas”.

Many organizations and governments have criticized the state of Israel for its long-standing and illegal occupation of Palestinian land and its continued harsh treatment of Palestinians. However, for Kenney and others any criticism of Israeli government policies is quickly branded as anti-Semitism. Ironically, there is a freer and much more robust debate within Israel’s own media and among its citizens than is possible in North America with its active pro-Israel lobby.

Church leaders speaking on behalf of faith groups that belong to KAIROS have denounced the government cuts of $7 million. Writing in The Globe and Mail, Michael Valpy reports that, in protest, members of congregations in 250 church groups across Canada “banged bells and pots and pans at their gathering for worship [on December 13].” Valpy also reports church leaders are telling him off the record that they are worried that the controversy will endanger harmony between Christians and Jewish groups.

KAIROS acts on behalf of 13 of Canada’s major churches or church-based organizations, and it includes under its umbrella the Anglican, Catholic, Christian Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian and United Churches, as well as the Mennonite Central Committee, the Quakers and others. KAIROS, or its predecessor groups, have received money from CIDA for 35 years to support partners working in some of the world’s difficult trouble spots, including the Middle East. When KAIROS was told on November 30 that it had been cut off, no detailed explanation was given. CIDA’s minister Bev Oda, when questioned in the House of Commons, said KAIROS lost its funding because of shifting priorities at CIDA. She said nothing then, or later, that would indicate that she believes KAIROS is anti-Semitic.

Kenney, however, is a more powerful and rigidly ideological minister. He worked in 2000 to organize the religious right on behalf of Stockwell Day in his campaign against Preston Manning for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance party.  Day won but when his leadership imploded and Stephen Harper succeeded him in 2002, Kenney became a trusted operative. When the Harper-led Conservatives became the government, Kenney was given a key responsibility in winning over new Canadians and certain religiously identified groups to support the Conservatives. One imperative has been to woo Jewish voters and their financial support. Kenney and the Conservatives have clearly chosen sides – supporting Israeli no matter what actions it undertakes. This unflinching support also plays to the fringe elements of the Christian right – who believe that Armageddon in the Middle East would fulfill what they believe is a biblical prophecy that End Times and the rapture are drawing near. Arab and Muslim Canadians have not been amused by the Conservatives’ unwavering support for Israel, but Kenney and Harper have chosen their ground deliberately.

Wedge and conquer

One would expect a national government to promote unity rather than discord, but that faint hope does not account for how the Conservatives do politics. No party in Canada is likely to receive support from a majority of voters in a country beset by regionalism and fractured parliaments. In this context, it is seen as important to mobilize and maintain your core support. One way to do it is to use wedge issues to create division and provoke  anger.  The Conservatives have used a wedge and conquer strategy in their campaigns against same sex marriage and the gun registry to name just two issues. They are using the same tactics against KAIROS and in the way they treat any criticism of the war in Afghanistan. Personal attacks are a staple against any person or group that disagrees with the government lines on anything.

Bullying Richard Colvin

I reported on November 30 about Richard Colvin, a Canadian diplomat who served in Afghanistan, and who has blown the whistle on the government’s complicity in the torture of Afghans taken prisoner by Canadian soldiers and turned over to Afghan prison authorities. The Conservative government responded by denying Colvin’s allegations and attacking his integrity. The Prime Minister and Defence Minister Peter McKay both described Colvin as essentially a dupe of the Taliban. Those ministers and Transport Minister John Baird meet most questions from the opposition parties by accusing them of sullying the integrity and efforts of Canadian soldiers. The strategy is to attack anyone who questions the actions of the military high command or the government’s behaviour as being disloyal and unpatriotic.

Colvin was a trusted civil servant and following his tour in Afghanistan he was assigned as an intelligence officer at the Canadian embassy in Washington. He made his comments when summoned to testify before a Parliamentary committee. He is being punished by the Conservatives for his diligence and honesty and his career may well be in jeopardy as a result. A group of 133 retired Canadian ambassadors has taken the unprecedented step of circulating a petition defending Colvin from his attackers. The former ambassadors say that the Conservative government is politicizing the civil service and that Colvin’s treatment will intimidate all public servants whose job has been traditionally to provide honest advice to the government and its ministers.

Haroon Siddiqui, a Toronto Star columnist, describes the government’s action in the following way: “The extent of Harper’s misuse of power becomes clearer when you realize that the Conservatives are replicating some of the worst practices of the Republicans under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney: Consolidating executive power; eviscerating the legislative branch; operating under extreme secrecy (by keeping an iron grip on information, through endless court challenges and censoring/redacting documents); riding the coattails of the military and questioning the patriotism of political opponents; and forcing out public servants who refused to fall in line.”

KAIROS and its supporters in numerous Canadian churches have chosen not to fall in line. KAIROS is continuing with its campaign to have the CIDA funding cuts restored. See their petition here. Please consider signing it.

And Merry Christmas, happy holidays – really!