Keeping faith: The changing face of religion in Canada

Just as immigration is driving population growth, it is driving growth in some religions:

University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginald W. Bibby has spent several decades surveying Canadians about their attitudes on faith.

He isn’t optimistic about a Protestant turnaround anytime soon.

“The United Church, the Anglicans, the Presbyterians and the Lutherans were all being fed with these wonderful immigration pipelines for an awfully long time with people coming from Europe.”

“What’s happened,” says Bibby, “is those pipelines have been shut down.  And the reality is unless those groups do some proselytizing, they are going to continue to decline rapidly as far as numbers.”

Proselytizing — not to mention their often livelier church services — may have helped some Evangelical Christians buck that downward trend.

The Angus Reid survey, which Bibby co-designed, suggests roughly 12 per cent of Canadians are members of an Evangelical group, and unlike other Protestant groups, that percentage has kept relatively constant with population growth.

Catholics, as well as non-traditional religions in Canada, such as Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists, have fared far better than Protestants in terms of overall numbers.

Roughly, one in five immigrants — particularly those from the Philippines and South America — come to Canada and bring their Catholic faith with them.

“No question the whole religious scene in Canada has been lit up a lot by immigration,” says Bibby.

So, in spite of an overall drift away from organized religion, he notes there are some religious hot spots.

Keeping faith: The changing face of religion in Canada – Canada – CBC News.

How a change of heart led to a backlash from the ‘Church of Nasty’ | Michael Coren

Michael Coren on the backlash against his leaving the Catholic Church and becoming more liberal in his social views. Well worth reading:

It’s been an interesting two weeks. I was fired from three regular columns in Catholic magazines, had a dozen speeches cancelled and was then subjected to a repugnant storm of tweets, Facebook comments, emails, newspaper articles and radio broadcasts where it was alleged that I am unfaithful to my wife, am willing to do anything for money, am a liar and a fraud, a “secret Jew,” that my eldest daughter is gay and I am going directly to hell. As I say, an interesting two weeks.

The reason for all this probably seems disarmingly banal and for many people absurdly irrelevant. At the beginning of May it was made public that a year ago I left the Roman Catholic Church and began to worship as an Anglican. More specifically, from being a public and media champion of social conservatism I gradually came to embrace the cause of same-sex marriage, more liberal politics and a rejection of the conservative Christianity that had characterized my opinions and persona for more than a decade. I’d won the RTNDA Broadcasting Award for a major radio debate where I opposed equal marriage, I was the author of the bestselling book Why Catholics Are Right, I was Michael Coren, for God’s sake — certainly not someone who would ever appear in the pages of the Toronto Star!

The change was to a large extent triggered by the gay issue. I couldn’t accept that homosexual relationships were, as the Roman Catholic Church insists on proclaiming, disordered and sinful. Once a single brick in the wall was removed the entire structure began to fall.

I refused to base my entire world view and theology, as so many active Catholics do, around abortion, contraception and sex rather than love, justice and forgiveness. Frankly, it was tearing me apart. I wanted to extend the circle of love rather than stand at the corners of a square and repel outsiders. So I quietly and privately drifted over to an Anglican Church that while still working out its own position on many social issues, is far more progressive, open, relevant and willing to admit reality.

But social media being what it is I was “outed” by some far-right bloggers and the gates of media hell opened roaring wide. Thus the comments above. Actually, my daughter lives with her long-term boyfriend in Paris, not that her sexuality matters to me and shouldn’t to anyone else. I am far too ugly to cheat on my wife and we’re very much in love. My dad was Jewish but I’m not and never have been really, secret or otherwise. I’m boringly honest and have never defrauded anyone. I’ve lost a substantial amount of money through lost work because of all this, so if financial gain is the purpose I’m pretty dumb. As for going to hell, I suppose that’s still open to question.

But on a serious note, why? Why would the religious and political change of what is at best a mid-level Canadian journalist and broadcaster cause such visceral anger and aggression in so many people? Their disappointment is understandable, of course, but that they would troll my children’s Facebook pages and make up lies about my family says something far greater and more worrying about contemporary religion and politics and in particular the conservative right.

Over the years I have been attacked by various people in various camps, but I have never witnessed such an organized, personal and unkind campaign — all from men and women who claim to follow the Prince of Peace, a Messiah who preached turning the other cheek, empathy and endless light. I’m trying to forgive because as a Christian I’m in the forgiving business. But I tell you in all honesty, it’s hard.

…If any single characteristic dominates the mindset and ideology of such people it is fear. They have built themselves a hobbit-hole of seclusion, a bunker of protection against the outside world. Nor can this simply be blamed on their age because some of the fiercest and cruellest of them are fairly young. The fear is a result of their socialization, their mingling of church and state and their desire for a cause in an era they see as corrupt and immoral.
I don’t see that corruption and immorality. I see the same challenges, the same greatness and the same brokenness that has always been. But here’s the paradox: while Canada may be less explicitly Christian than ever before, it has arguably become in its sense of equality, fairness and downright decency more Christian than ever. Perhaps that’s why my new friends are so angry with me, with Canada and with pretty much everything.
As for me, in spite of, or perhaps even because of, all this I’ve never felt deeper and more content in my faith and never happier to be a Canadian. As I say, it’s been an interesting two weeks.

How a change of heart led to a backlash from the ‘Church of Nasty’ | Toronto Star.

Khadr’s release is bittersweet for Canada’s Muslims: Sheema Khan

Sheema Khan, in an uncharacteristically harsh judgement of the Government, makes the point about the need for a more inclusive approach:

The release of Mr. Khadr is bittersweet for Canadian Muslims. Many were touched by the young man’s modesty and warmth. His words were genuine – much like his smile. He seemed truly grateful for the freedom so long denied, for the support of so many, for the chance to start his life anew. He expressed remorse for the pain he caused. No hint of bitterness. Only the desire to complete his education, with hopes of entering health care – a field, he noted, rooted in compassion for those in pain. We should all be cautiously optimistic for Mr. Khadr’s reintegration into society.

However, Canadian Muslims have seen this scenario before in the post 9/11 era: A Muslim swept up in the “war on terror,” denied basic rights, tortured and left to rot in legal limbo to be saved only by the noble efforts of human rights activists, ordinary Canadians and our justice system. Canadian citizens Maher Arar, Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El-Maati, Muayyed Nureddin and Abousfian Abdelrazik were all detained abroad with the aid of our security agencies. Mr. Abdelrazik’s case was particularly vexing. The Harper government repeatedly blocked his return from Sudan (citing him as a “threat”), even after the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP cleared his name. A federal judge finally ordered Mr. Abdelrazik’s return. Meanwhile, Canadian Muslims saw the Harper government’s deferential treatment of convicted felons Brenda Martin and Conrad Black. Or, as Mr. Abdelrazik said: “The Canadian government has a racist mind. It is because I am black and Muslim.”

These words were echoed by Mr. Khadr’s lawyer, Dennis Edney, when asked why Mr. Khadr was left to languish in Guantanamo: “Mr. Harper is a bigot” and “doesn’t like Muslims.” These words were cathartic. We are the low-hanging fruit in the politics of fear. Omar Khadr is exhibit A; Zunera Ishaq is exhibit B. With an October election, it won’t be surprising to see political machinations at our expense – such as sweeping arrests of suspected terrorists and disparaging remarks against niqabs at voting booths.

Mr. Khadr asked Canadians to “see who I am as a person, not as a name.” It is a wish Canadian Muslims have for their themselves and their children: “Please see me for who I am, not as an object of fear.” An inclusive future lies in the fairness and compassion of Canadians.

Khadr’s release is bittersweet for Canada’s Muslims – The Globe and Mail.

Don Cayo: Time for corporate boards to take diversity seriously

More of corporate board diversity (or lack thereof) and the work of Pamela Jeffery of the Canadian Board Diversity Council to change this:

If you, like me, think most big Canadian companies have too few women on their boards of directors, then what should we make of the under-representation of aboriginals and other visible minorities?

The numbers for these two groups are much worse. To compare:

  • Women comprise 50.4 per cent of the Canadian population, or 51 per cent in Metro Vancouver. They hold just eight per cent of the executive positions in Canada’s 500 largest companies, but their representation on boards of directors has inched up and now is 17.1 per cent.
  • Aboriginals comprise 4.3 per cent of Canada’s population, although less than half that in Metro Vancouver. They hold 0.8 per cent of big companies’ board seats — a percentage that has been stalled for years.
  • Other visible minorities comprise 19.1 per cent of the population, but the number is much higher and growing briskly in Metro Vancouver. It had reached 45.2 per cent, mostly people of Asian extraction, by 2011. In 2010, members of this group held 5.3 per cent of big companies’ board appointments, but by 2014 this number had slipped to two per cent.

Pamela Jeffery, the founder of both the Toronto-based Women’s Executive Network and the Canadian Board Diversity Council, is pleased to see at least women making progress — although not enough, in her view, and not at a fast enough rate.

But she has a sinking feeling that women’s successes in getting seats at the boardroom table may come at the expense of aboriginals and other visible minorities. When boards decide to recruit beyond their usual source of new directors — that is, their old boys’ network — the easy way is to find a well-qualified woman and then look no further.

So, to tackle the worst problem first, Jeffery is working with the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business to beat the drum for more aboriginal representation on boards that oversee Canada’s biggest companies. The council has held back-to-back summits, one in Vancouver and one in Calgary, to engage business leaders on the issue.

Jeffrey doesn’t advocate quotas, and neither do I. The problem is that quota-driven recruitment can lead to candidates being selected solely on the basis of their ethnicity, not what they can bring to the table.

But boards undermine their own potential effectiveness when all their members are near clones of each other, with similar backgrounds, experience and attitudes.

Diversity can bring new insights to the table — new ways of looking at under-served markets, whether geographically or demographically distinct from the tried-and-true, as well as ties to new talent pools that a company could tap.

Don Cayo: Time for corporate boards to take diversity seriously.

Rex Murphy: ‘White privilege’ on the march

Rex Murphy, in a typical rant, misses the point entirely and the evidence that “white” or European privilege exists. Yes, some academics and activists take this to ridiculous extremes but that does not mean that it does not exist, and that those of Caucasian origin should not be more mindful of any advantages that they have.

But to use historic examples of how whites suffered through famines and wars while being silent on slavery shows an incredible blindness, as does his silence on more contemporary examples like US police disproportionate shootings of blacks or Toronto police carding:

To even set up white privilege as a category is prima facie racist. It is to reduce the sum of a person, his dignity, his drive, his worth and his soul to the colour of his skin; it is to posit skin colour as the point of departure for all interactions with that person, to found judgments on that skin colour, to draw feverish and deliberately negative conclusions from it.

That such a pseudo-concept even exists, and has full annual academic conferences to elaborate on its tedious fancifulness, and undergraduate courses to inject it into half-formed sensibilities, testifies — one more time — to the modern university’s descent into fatuousness. That any institution which claims to be one of higher learning even allows such trivial exchange offends the dignity of expression, and purporting to offer “instruction” under its banner is just the latest fulfillment of Alexander Pope’s prophetic alarm: A little learning is a dangerous thing. Emphasis on little, very little.

Some universities have become parodies of themselves, shops of petty moral vanity, given to feverish exhibitions of their putative sensitivity and moral preciosity. Hence “trigger warnings” for Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the hysteria over “rape culture” and, as here, activist sideshows masquerading as academic courses. (Exhibit A, from Columbia University’s Spectator: “Ovid’s Metamorphoses is a fixture of Lit Hum, but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom.”)

It is to the great shame of modern universities that they have debased themselves to the pursuit of these follies

The obsession of seeing everything in race-coloured terms is itself racist. Anti-racism pursed by zealots transforms itself into the very vice it deplores. This is the cost of identity politics, and its close bedmate, victimology enterprises — the desire to judge, define, represent and indict the individual by the group he or she belongs to. Every human being’s experience in its infinite particularities and potentials transcends category.

It is to the great shame of modern universities that they have debased themselves to the pursuit of these follies, and that they do not cast this cant aside as being hollow, sublimely tendentious and utterly shameful to the idea of, or the aspiration to achieve, an educated mind. Wasn’t Doctor King’s most famous prayer that he hoped to see the day “when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character?”

Fatuousness is not limited to universities as Rex demonstrates all too well.

Rex Murphy: ‘White privilege’ on the march

‘Lack of clarity’ over level of UK antisemitism, says new report

A useful note of caution in interpreting the degree of antisemitism in the UK, which likely applies to other countries as well, and the corresponding need for better research and data:

The extent of antisemitism in the UK is hard to gauge because there is a lack of accurate data, according to the Jewish community’s main think tank.

Despite a number of surveys carried out over the years, there remains a “distinct lack of clarity”, the Institute for Jewish Policy Research said in a new report, entitled “Could It Happen Here?”, this week.

Some sources showed that the level of antipathy towards Jews was “comparatively low and stable in the UK, even though other sources demonstrate that 2014 broke all known records for the number of antisemitic incidents.”

Other data suggested that fewer British adults held antisemitic attitudes than French, but that over the previous seven years more antisemitic incidents per head took place in Britain than in France.

During conflicts such as last summer’s Israel-Gaza War, the number of antisemitic incidents in the UK is usually three times above the monthly average, JPR said.

Antisemitic incidents usually rise by 30 per cent around the High Holy-Days.

Excluding these two exceptional periods, the number of antisemitic incidents has increased from 35 per month in 2004 to 51 last year, the report found.

“They may well indicate that levels of antisemitism in the UK have climbed over the course of the past decade,” JPR stated.

“However, one cannot rule out an alternative explanation – that the increase shown is due to an increased prevalence among Jews to report incidents in the first place.”

While Islamic extremists clearly pose a threat, the report says that “not enough is known about the extent to which their ideas, even in diluted form, permeate the Muslim population as a whole and whether the danger is growing, declining or stable over time”.

Calling for investment in proper research, JPR says the “Jewish community needs to steer away from knee-jerk reactions and ad hoc research enterprises. Monitoring trends in antisemitism requires more than having ‘being concerned’ or having good intentions.”

The alternative is wasted resources and persistent uncertainty “at the expense of greater clarity and, we believe, greater safety for Jews”.

‘Lack of clarity’ over level of UK antisemitism, says new report | The Jewish Chronicle.

Sex-ed controversy exposes how different religions, cultures fit into Ontario’s mainstream: Cohn

One of the better pieces of commentary on the opposition to Ontario’s sex-ed updating:

Should a minority movement be able to impose its own viewpoint — and veto — on the majority? Thousands of protesting parents withdrew their children from all classes earlier this month to protest future sex education classes, but let’s be clear on what they are demanding — and what they aren’t.
They are not merely trying to keep their kids out of sex-ed classes. They already have the right — rightly or wrongly — to deprive their children of a curriculum that teaches them how to protect themselves from sexual infections.
Anyone can claim an exemption currently. No, what these parents are fighting for is a veto on all other children benefiting from updated sex-ed classes that the protesters might disagree with — even if the majority of Ontarians support a modernized curriculum.
Consider this analogy: In some GTA schools, parents regularly withdraw their children from dance and music classes they deem to be in conflict with their faith. What if those parents demanded that all music and dance classes be banned in our schools?
An absurd notion — it would never happen — yet the latest wave of protests against sex-ed has taken on that character: Not only shall the protesters’ children not be exposed to updated sex-ed classes, neither should anyone else’s.

No matter that the 240-pages of turgid material does not provide masturbation lessons in Grade 6 (it merely offers basic teacher prompts in case kids raise the subject), or that it does not extol anal sex but rather alerts students to the risks. Never mind that the curriculum was assembled after consultations with hundreds of pedagogical experts (and thousands of parents from school councils), and that it mirrors similar updates in places like Alberta.

Sex-ed controversy exposes how different religions, cultures fit into Ontario’s mainstream: Cohn

Advising resistance to police’s carding efforts grows more tempting: James

Royson James on Toronto police carding and the recent court decision:

In awarding damages to a man stopped in Moss Park and beaten up by police after he refused to engage the officer, citing his right to walk about the street without police harassment, Superior Court Justice Frederick Myers wrote:

“One who is not being investigated for criminality is allowed to walk down the street on a cold night with his or her hands in the pockets and to tell the inquisitive police officers to get lost without being detained, searched, exposed to sub-zero temperatures, or assaulted.”

You think?

Judge Myers awarded the victim, Mutaz Elmardy, $27,000 in damages in the 2011 incident.

“That police officers shattered Mr. Elmardy’s feeling of the law strikes at the rule of law itself and requires condemnation by the court,” the judge wrote.

You, sir, are a credit to your profession.

The same cannot be said of our Mayor John Tory (open John Tory’s policard). Since his election, it seems like he has done everything to perpetuate this odious police practice — from manipulating the membership of the police board, to hiring a chief committed to carry on the controversial exercise.

Tory calls carding corrosive. He says the police board is reviewing it. Yet he wouldn’t demand basic police accountability: provide those carded with a receipt of the encounter and respectfully inform them of their right not to engage.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/05/13/advising-resistance-to-polices-carding-efforts-grows-more-tempting-james.html

Barbara Kay: Call barbarism what it is

Barbara Kay predictably misses the point on the use of the word barbaric. It was used in Discover Canada to provide the media quote rather than more neutral but equally strong language (e.g., against the law, not acceptible, will be severely punished). It also fits into the drift towards more dog whistle and identity politics by playing to the Conservative party base.

The risk of using such language is within communities themselves. The use of a label (even if correct) reduces the likelihood of the substantive message being heard. 

Moreover, one of Discover Canada‘s omissions was to put this statement in the overall context in the history of women’s rights in Canada, noting the evolution of what is considered acceptible (or non-barbaric) treatment of women. Such a strong narrative would have strengthened the Government’s arguments without the ‘bumper sticker’ label:

But not only are they wrong; they are not even popular amongst the silent majority of the cultural communities they are currying favour with. No politician in Canada is more familiar with what cultural communities want than Jason Kenney, who on March 12 rose in the House to speak, with regard to barbaric practices, words I believe most Canadians strongly approve:
“Yes, [barbaric] is a strong term. It is a judgmental term, but we do sometimes need to make judgments.” He continued, “I will be absolutely blunt. When I first came to government and started as minister of multiculturalism eight years ago, for political reasons I would have probably recoiled at the name of this bill. However, my enormous exposure to and close work with the huge diversity of our cultural and faith communities taught me something over the course of time. It taught me that the vast majority of new Canadians believe passionately that there are certain hallmarks of integration into this country that we must all respect, that there is a duty to integrate, and that there are certain practices that are rooted in custom or tradition that have no place in Canada….
“They said, ‘Please do not tolerate female genital mutilation, forced marriages or polygamy. Please stop this.’ … It was women who were victims of forced marriages, including here in Canada, who most strongly motivated the bill.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-call-barbarism-what-it-is

USA: Citizenship for Sale

On the US business immigration program. Similar issues as in the previous Canadian program:

Now let’s turn to the United States. Under the EB-5 visa program, foreigners can obtain a green card and then citizenship by making a small investment—$1 million, or $500,000 if it’s in an area with high unemployment—that will create or preserve 10 jobs for U.S. workers. Foreign investors can funnel their funds through “regional centers,” which are private organizations that finance commercial projects. These centers spare investors the trouble of figuring out for themselves whether an area suffers from high unemployment and whether a specific investment would generate the requisite 10 jobs.
The program is a mess. The government “is unable to demonstrate the benefits of foreign investment into the U.S. economy” under the program, in the words of the Inspector General of Homeland Security. Among other things, it’s almost impossible to figure out whether a specific investment generates jobs rather than reshuffles them from one place to another. There have also been examples of outright fraud and political cronyism. Part of the problem is a lack of documentation but the real problem is that the program is misconceived.
When we think about investment, the starting point is that investors don’t need citizenship or any other inducement to put money into a project when they will earn higher than the market rate of return. So given the risk and other opportunities, someone will invest $1 million or more in a mall complex or housing development if the expected return is, say, 10 or 15 percent. Many foreigners make such investments, and the vast majority of them make them not to obtain citizenship but to make money. In 2013, they ponied up $236 billion. Meanwhile, Americans invested another $2.5 trillion in the economy. At most $10 billion can be attributed to foreigners who seek visas, and probably a lot less.
The EB-5 program, then, just pumps up aggregate foreign investment in the United States by a few tenths of a percent per year. Given the size and liquidity of capital markets, the program has reduced the cost of capital by an infinitesimal amount, basically zero. A tiny reduction in the cost of capital might produce a tiny increase in the number of jobs, but most likely it will produce a tiny increase in profits for other investors or tiny reductions in price for consumers. It’s a bit like saying that you can immigrate to the United States if you buy a few cars from a domestic auto dealer at a price slightly higher than what the dealer is charging.