|
By Lloyd Mackey
AS the Canadian federal election campaign and the U.S.
presidential contest race toward their respective conclusions, observers
note key differences in the ways faith is presented publicly in the two
countries.
In Canada, Green Party leader Elizabeth May was the
subject of a photo in the September 9 Ottawa
Citizen showing her donating some
organically-grown pumpkins to The Mission – an Ottawa inner-city
ministry to street people, sited virtually within the shadow of the Peace
Tower.
The gesture was one of a series of occasional Canadian
forays into the world of relating faith and politics. All federal political
parties attempt to engage at this level. But they appear to do so much more
subtly than do their American counterparts.
David Kilgour, recently retired federal cabinet
minister and a serious advocate for spiritual input on public policy
issues, suggests some reasons for the Canadian subtlety. Kilgour
co-authored Uneasy Neighbo(u)rs, an exploration of contrasts between Canada and the U.S.
He says Canada’s lower religious commitment
profile causes politicians to use “universal” terminology,
rather than “religious” language, when dealing with potentially
contentious values-based issues.
The sense with many politicians is that “if you
are open to one faith, you will draw hostility from other faiths who feel
they are being left out,” Kilgour explains.
He emphasizes that elected representatives
“don’t want to [be seen to] represent only some of the
people.”
But American politicians, too, can be cautious on such
expressions, Kilgour adds, noting that such caution goes back to president
Abraham Lincoln, who “really understood different religious
motivations and nuances, and was never exclusionary. He was able to have a
resonance with many faith communities.”
However, Kilgour allows that, in Lincoln’s day,
religious diversity was limited basically to Protestant and Catholic
Christianity; whereas present day Canada’s populace includes
increasing numbers of non-Christian religious groups.
And he points out, as well, that “a politician
might be more at ease in using specifically religious language in, say,
Abbotsford, than in mid-town Toronto.”
Elizabeth May – who hopes one day to be ordained
as an Anglican minister – likes to make the point that many
Christians are prepared to give a nod to issues that aren’t
necessarily perceived as ‘socially conservative,’ such as the
need to save the planet.
She makes the point because mainstream media coverage
often leaves the clear impression, in both the United States and Canada,
that there is a symbiosis which ties the political and religious right
together.
The Palin factor
That perception has been heightened in the U.S. by the
addition of Alaska governor Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, as John
McCain’s vice presidential running mate.
Palin represents many things which seemed to be needed
on that ticket, not the least of which was the rounding up of evangelical
support for the Republicans.
The possible downside of that support is the logical
desire of mainstream media to dig into Palin’s church background,
which some of her critics decided exhibited a theocratic bent.
Throughout her life, Palin has been associated with
Pentecostal or charismatic churches which help to shape the culture and
politics of life in small town Alaska. It was not hard to find clips
showing clergy friends of the Palin family who reference a biblical quote
about “the ends of the earth,” and portray it as a prophetic
portrayal of God’s future blessing on Alaska.
Continue article >>
|
Biblical rhetoric
Some Christians are inclined to dramatize biblical or
historically religious references to encourage the involvement of people of
faith in the political process.
In Canada, the particular text they draw upon is the
psalm declaring that God “shall have dominion from sea to sea.”
Some Christian leaders often bring tour groups to the
Peace Tower in Ottawa, for the purpose of praying that God will soon
fulfill this prophecy – and bring his dominion to Canada,
publicly anointing the leader of his choosing.
A wide range of serious Canadian Christians take
encouragement from the ‘dominion’ reference. But most see the
kingdom of God as being established in people’s hearts, more than in
the legislative chambers. They would suggest that when people pray and
fellowship together, they draw strength. And they believe that those who
are politically active among them will allow their faith to shape the
influences they bring to bear on public policy issues.
To that end, a September 6 analysis in the National Post is instructive.
The piece deals with new approaches being taken to one
of the issues considered most crucial to socially conservative Christians;
it was written by David Frum – a Canadian conservative analyst who
works with a U.S. think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.
Entitled ‘The new (softer) face of
pro-life,’ the article pointed out that when Palin made her
acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, she
“welcomed her family onto the stage: her husband, her five children
and the fiancé of Bristol, her visibly pregnant 17-year-old
daughter.”
Noted Frum: “That moment confirmed a dramatic
evolution in American politics: the transformation of the pro-life movement
from an unambiguously conservative force into something more
complex.”
Unlikely allies
Frum made the following points to defend that thesis:
• The pro-life movement is finding new allies in
unlikely places.
• It has made cause with the rights of the disabled.
• It has accepted gender equality and leadership roles
for women.
• And “most fascinating of all, it has come to
terms with the sexual revolution.”
Religious groups, he said, have opened some 2,200
crisis pregnancy centres across the United States in recent years. Frum
also cites the development of in-school nurseries, so unmarried teenagers
who have given birth can keep their children and still attend high school.
The point of Frum’s piece is that this broadened
approach on the part of the pro-life movement has worked.
His proof? Statistics show that “in 1981, 29.3
abortions were carried out for every 1,000 women of childbearing age in the
United States. By 2005, that rate had tumbled to 19.1 per 1,000
women.”
In other words, abortion, he says, “has been made
more rare; unwed motherhood has been normalized. However you feel about
that outcome, it is not well-described as either left wing or right
wing.”
October 2008
|
