Putting a Number on the Cost of Religion in Canada

Last month I had the pleasure of being part of a roundtable discussion with the BC Humanist Association, hosted by Humanist Canada, about the cost of religion in Canada. It was a fun and engaging conversation, covering most of what was discussed in CFIC's Cost of Religion reports, plus some additional insights based on original research done by the BCHA.

Watch and learn how just a few policy choices from all three levels of government costs Canadians over $5.6 billion - yes, with a "b" - every year, in direct and indirect subsidies to religious organizations. 

Podcast for Inquiry S03E03: Sandra Dunham asks: Why does Canada give $5.6 billion annually to religious charities?

Canada allows organizations that do nothing but “advance religion” to be classified as charities. This policy decision costs Canadians at least $5.6 billion every year, according to the Centre for Inquiry Canada's Cost of Religion reports. Sandra Dunham explains what this amount includes, how it was calculated, and the many benefits that religious institutions enjoy in addition to this figure.  

Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple Google Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:  

A video recording is also available: 

Despite a facelift, the Salvation Army hasn't changed

Ten years ago, I implored people not to donate to the Salvation Army. 

This was because, at the time, the Canadian chapter was evangelical and despicably homophobic. I decided to check whether they had changed in the decade since.

Unfortunately, it has not.

The Salvation Army Canada's  Official Position Statements (2007) (the most recent version I could find) shows they believe that not just marriage, but also sexual intimacy, should be limited to between a man and a woman.

• "We believe that the family is ideally rooted in the biblical concept of a marriage covenant of one man and one woman." (Page 7) 
• "biblical standards calls for chastity outside of heterosexual marriage and faithfulness within it." (Page 9)
• "The Salvation Army believes marriage is the covenanting together of one man and one woman for life in a union to the exclusion of all others." (Page 13)
• "The Salvation Army affirms the sanctity of sexual relationships based on the teaching of Scripture. The Bible presents sexual intimacy as a gift from God that is ordained and blessed exclusively within the context of heterosexual marriage." (Page 14) 

That is an explicit denial of same-sex equal marriage. The Salvation Army Canada affirms that no LGBT people should have sexually intimate relations.

But that was over a decade and a half ago - well before I wrote my initial essay. Perhaps they are no longer (quite as) homophobic.

Three years ago, Forbes published The Salvation Army Wants You To Believe They’ve Changed, citing the organization’s "long and horrid history of discrimination." They have quite the history of anti-LGBT actions. 

What of the Salvation Army in Canada today?

Their current mission statement begins with, "The Salvation Army exists to share the love of Jesus Christ". Similarly, the Salvation Army Vision ends with, "building communities that are just and know the love of Jesus." So it's clearly a proselytizing Christian organization. Any organization that wants to appeal to all segments of Canadian society (such as police services, grocery stores, and retailers) should steer clear. 

Though the Salvation Army's Values emphasize non-discrimination and valuing everyone, this one of their four values: "Hope: We give hope through the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ." This not very welcoming to non-Christians.

Further proof that The Salvation Army is a proselytizing organization, trying to get as many people as possible to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, can be found by looking at the "Corps Health Stream" portion of the program of their 2023 Inspire conference. It includes workshops such as, "God Space: Making the Most of Every Opportunity to Start Spiritual Conversations" and "Faith Formation: Helping People with Disabilities Connect with Jesus". It also includes biblical apologetics: "But Didn't You Know the Bible Says...? A Study of the Scriptural Texts Often Used to Challenge Women in Ministry". Their leadership stream has a workshop called, "Jesus-Centred: Serving with Jesus at the Centre of Who You Are and What You Do". 

The Salvation Army is clearly an organization by Christians, for Christians, seeking to convert as many non-Christians to Christianity as possible.

Anyone who doesn't believe that to be the case need only look at the Salvation Army's Doctrines page, any line of which will be sufficient to convince any reasonable observer. 

I'm not the only one who thinks so. Canadians are tiring of the Salvation Army's bigotry and proselytization: they are critically short of volunteers in Winnipeg, Burlington, Victoria, and West Kelowna.

To be clear: as a religious organization, the Salvation Army is perfectly within their rights to use their resources to spread the "Good Word" in an attempt to get more people to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. It is inappropriate, however, for any governmental entity (including those operating at arm's-length, such as police services or the LCBO in Ontario) to partner with a sectarian group like the Salvation Army. In addition, private corporations should rethink their partnerships with the Salvation Army. Any organization that wants to give presents to the poor (a genuinely charitable aim) should find another group that does charitable works (there is no shortage) and partner with them instead.  

If someone from the Salvation Army asks for a donation, politely decline and tell them you will make a contribution to a genuinely charitable organization - one that does not endorse bigotry and seek to convert the world to their faith. 

CFIC's Cost of Religion in Canada series of reports is complete!

Over the past year, the Centre for Inquiry Canada has published a report series called The Cost of Religion in Canada. The final report, More Than Just The Money, was released earlier this month.

CFIC obtained data from Canada Revenue Agency about charities that self-identify as existing for the primary purpose of "Advancement of Religion". While several religious organizations support genuinely charitable activities such as soup kitchens or English as a second language classes (among others), the vast majority of funds collected by religious charities go to maintaining houses of worship and proselytization. The societal benefit of this government policy is, at best, questionable. 

Furthermore, the cost is enormous. Combined with the fact that houses of worship are exempt from paying property taxes in every province and territory in Canada, the cost comes to $5,400,000,000 - nearly five and a half billion dollars, every year.

Read the report series, and join me and CFIC Executive Director Sandra Dunham on Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 3 PM ET for a webinar that will summarize our findings and describe the important implications for Canadian society. Registration is free. 

I hope to see you there.

Time to end tax breaks for religious groups

This essay was published in the August 27, 2021 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press. A version of it also appears in the September 2021 issue of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's Critical Links newsletter.

Time to end tax breaks for religious groups

It might surprise Canadians to learn that many of our laws and regulations were not made in Canada, but were inherited from England and France. What the Canada Revenue Agency considers a charity comes from a decision by the British House of Lords in the late 1800s, itself based on the preamble of the 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses (also known as The Statute of Elizabeth).

To be a registered charity in Canada, you can either perform charitable acts (such as alleviating poverty or educating people) or you can "advance religion." It is long past time for Canadian rules to be made in Canada, and updated on a time scale that is not measured in centuries.

This may seem small potatoes, but the numbers are quite large. Canada treats religious organizations differently, and consistently preferentially, compared with other non-profit institutions. Of Canada’s 86,000 charities, more than one-third (32,000) exist to advance religion. Over 90 per cent of these are Christian organizations. Religious charities write tax receipts worth more than $3.5 billion every year, which has helped them accumulate net assets exceeding $38 billion.

The largest public subsidy of religion comes from the Ontario government, which continues to fully fund the separate (Catholic) school system through Grade 12. Such an arrangement has been condemned as discriminatory by the United Nations. Ontario spends approximately $10 billion per year on Catholic schools, and would save $1.5 billion annually if it followed the examples of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, which merged their sectarian school boards into a single publicly funded secular school system.

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec provide subsidies (40-60 per cent) to religious schools that meet certain provincial criteria. Manitoba (under its Fair Funding Agreement) provides private religious schools with half the funding per student that public schools receive.

The list goes on. Religious charities — groups whose primary purpose is not to feed the hungry or increase literacy, but to advance religion — receive more than $1 billion every year in direct subsidies from the three levels of government in Canada. And there is a housing tax deduction available only to members of the clergy, which costs the federal government (and benefits houses of worship) more than $100 million annually.

It is true, of course, that some religious groups do good works. It is also evident from reading the headlines over the past several weeks that religious institutions have been responsible for horrific acts of inhumanity. Given their mixed record, it is not clear whether religious organizations are good or bad for society overall.

Let those that conduct genuine good works continue to enjoy charitable status. Those called to their faith by a strong desire to help others in need will continue to do so. Those organizations that exist to advance religion — that is, to proselytize or fund denominational efforts — are perfectly legitimate entities, but are not charitable and should not reap the benefits of being considered so.

Research has shown that societies benefit when religion is neither supported nor suppressed. Just about every socio-economic indicator is positive where governments are neutral in matters of religion: from GDP per capita and life expectancy (high) to poverty and crime rates (low). This is true both across countries and within them.

It is also time to remove the property-tax exemption for houses of worship. Advancement of religion should no longer be sufficient to gain charitable status. Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan should have a single publicly funded school system for each official language. Provinces that fund private religious schools, even in part, should cease doing so.

The clergy residence deduction should be eliminated. These subsidies amount to a massive transfer of wealth from the non-religious to the religious. Canada should treat all its citizens equally, regardless of their philosophical worldview, but does not do so.

Government should fund only those groups performing objectively good works, not those with the nebulous aim of advancing religion. Not only would adopting a neutral stance toward religious organizations provide over $7 billion every year for debt-laden governments (or nearly $200 per Canadian), but it would move Canada closer to the ideal of government steering clear of matters of faith.

Nations where religion dictates government policies are theocracies. Countries where the government runs faith-based groups do not have freedom of religion. Let us keep church and state separate, maximize freedom for believers and non-believers alike, and create the conditions for all Canadians to thrive.

Leslie Rosenblood is the secular chair of the Centre for Inquiry Canada, a not-for-profit organization advocating for a secular society based on reason, science, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values.

Should Canada tax its houses of worship? - with Ryan Jespersen

Earlier this week, I was a guest (representing the Centre for Inquiry Canada) on Ryan Jespersen's Real Talk program to discuss whether houses of worship in Canada should continue to enjoy tax-exempt status. I maintained that as a secular nation, Canada should not favour religious organizations over their secular peers via tax policy; Brian Dijkema of the Cardus Institute argued that directing money to churches is a good investment that benefits society. 

Our ~40 minute conversation starts shortly after the 16:15 mark in the video below. 

Some thoughts about the discussion: 

• I find it interesting that Brian led off with criticizing the topic of the segment as an attack on religion, when instead we should have been talking about taxing venture capitalists. A few minutes later, he sounded like a VC himself when he defended investment in churches as having a great ROI. I was pleased that Ryan called this out as "whataboutism".
• The implicit assumption Brian makes, which I wish I had mentioned during the discussion, is that churches would cease doing their good deeds if they lost their tax exempt / charitable status. Either the good works of houses of worship are integral to their existence, in which case their good works would continue, or they only do it because of / in order to maintain beneficial tax treatment. If the former, there is no loss to society. If the latter, Canada would be better off if the additional tax revenue went to fund more (secular) food banks, counselling services, poverty reduction initiatives, and so on.
• Upon further reflection though, "good works" in this context is a red herring. Advancement of religion is assumed to be a social good in and of itself. Objective good works make for better PR, but are not relevant to qualify for charitable status. That religious organization can gain charitable status for evagelizing, while those seeking to gain adherence to other ideologies cannot, is the injustice CFIC is seeking to remedy. In principle, this can be addressed by granting charitable status to all proselytizers, or none. This is where Brian and I diverged. I believe those seeking to convert others should do so on their own dime. He clearly stated that he thinks all such organizations should be recognized as charities. Brian's position has the merit of consistency, but I believe it is poor public policy. (Those houses of worship that actually do good works like feeding the hungry should keep their charitable status - but for alleviating poverty, not for advancing religion. I did mention this, but could have emphasized it more.)

Centre for Inquiry Canada Responds to the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities

The article below appeared in the June 2021 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

The Canadian Centre for Christian Charities (CCCC) published a blog post commenting on the first two reports in the Centre for Inquiry Canada's Cost of Religion series. Perhaps not surprisingly, the CCCC took issue with the series' thesis that advancement of religion is not an inherently charitable activity. 

The CCCC claims "volumes of peer-reviewed research" show advancing religion is a public good, but offers only one example: a 2020 book that describes itself as "an apologetic for maintaining the presumption of public benefit for the charitable category ‘advancement of religion’". Thus the book is a work of advocacy, not one of scholarship. Research demonstrates an inverse relationship between a country's religiosity and most sociological indicators of well-being (see, for example, selected works from Greg Paul and Phil Zuckerman). Note that this correlation, while well established, says nothing about whether a lack of religion causes prosperity, having a thriving society leads to a reduction in faith, or some other factor contributes to both. It is also possible that religious influence in society contributes to human suffering. 

The purported benefits of religion are well publicized, and trumpeted regularly from the pulpits of the land as well as from organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities. The extent of favourable tax treatment and direct governmental subsidies to religious organizations comes as a surprise to many Canadians, demonstrating the need for such research and commentary. It is curious that CCCC chose to criticize CFIC's Cost of Religion in Canada report series for focusing on... the cost of religion in Canada.  

The CCCC then makes a completely unsubstantiated claim: that "places of worship [...] transform people into civic-minded, caring, generous neighbours who support Canada’s secular charities" such as environmental conservation, healthcare, and education. The best response to this declaration is Hitchens's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Their next argument is that religious people are more generous, with those attending worship services weekly donating approximately four times as much to charities as those that do not attend at all. This is misleading, because the statistic combines donations to churches (and other religious causes) with contributions to other charities. Are churchgoers more likely to contribute to secular causes, such as education and healthcare? Not according to Statistics Canada, which came to the underwhelming conclusion in a 2004 report that "The 19% of Canadians who attended religious services weekly gave 74% of the total value of all donations to religious organizations and 22% of the value of all donations to other organizations." Even Ray Pennings, Executive Vice President of the faith-based think tank Cardus, implicitly undermines the apparent benevolence of the observant. In a 2010 article entitled Religion not the only source of division, he touts that in "the purely secular donations sector, [...] 32 per cent of believers donates 42 per cent of the $2.1 billion raised [for charities] annually." He acknowledges that those with "a non-theist belief system contribute [...] 35 per cent of Canada’s total contributions''. A 2008 Harris-Decima survey estimated that 23% of Canadians did not believe in any god. Thus, while the observant punch above their weight in secular charitable donations (by 31%, according to Pennings' figures), nonbelievers do so to a considerably greater extent (by 52%).

The conclusion of their article is revealing. The CCCC argues that removing advancement of religion as a charitable purpose "would have serious undesirable consequences for all Canadians by reducing the dollars the religious among us have available to donate to secular charities." This is only true if you assume that the Church has "first dibs" on money from the faithful - remove the tax credit on religious donations, and secular charities will get less of the leftovers. Were this to be true, it hardly paints religious Canadians in a favourable light. If the faithful are truly as civic-minded as the CCCC claims, the tax treatment of churches and other religious charities should have a minimal effect on their contributions to noble secular causes. 

The CCCC’s objections are natural for an institution that is protecting its own interests. However, these objections further highlight the need for a national conversation about whether advancing religion in Canada is a truly charitable activity, and one that benefits society as a whole.

CFIC report examines direct government subsidies of religion

The following brief article appears in the June edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter of the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

The Centre for Inquiry Canada has released the third report of its Cost of Religion in Canada series, looking at transfers from all three levels of government to charities with the primary purpose of "Advancement of Religion".

In total, Canadian governments give more than $1,000,000,000 to religious charities every year. Some organizations receiving subsidies, such as the YMCA of Greater Toronto, clearly serve the entire community. Others are focused on providing services through an explicit Christian lens. Christian Horizons receives over $150 million annually from Ontario and Saskatchewan, while the federal government gives over $20 million every year to the Kelowna Christian Center Society (“Where People belong and Jesus matters.”).

Read the full report about government transfers to religious charities, or read the whole Cost of Religion in Canada series of reports. 

Centre for Inquiry Canada publishes the first two reports in its Cost of Religion series

The article below appeared in the May 2021 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

Did you know that Canadians subsidize religious organizations to the tune of billions of dollars every year? The Centre for Inquiry Canada, in its Cost of Religion in Canada series of reports, quantifies the cost of one type of religious institution: charities with the primary purpose of "advancement of religion".

Using information submitted by the charities themselves for their 2018 fiscal year (the most recent full dataset available at the time of writing), CFIC analyzes the favourable treatment religious charities receive with respect to tax credits, various exemptions, and direct subsidies. The first two reports in the Cost of Religion series have now been published. 

The Introductory report defines the scope of the series, describes the benefits of being a registered charity, and provides examples of religious charities from across Canada. 

Some highlights from the Introductory report:

• Religious charities are free to discriminate based on religious faith in their government-funded charitable efforts.
• Over 32,000 registered charities in Canada exist primarily to advance religion. 
• Religious charities in Canada have used their favourable tax treatment to amass over $38,000,000,000 in wealth.

The second report examines the cost of religious charities issuing tax receipts for donations. When Canadians make donations to charities, they receive receipts that can be used for an income tax credit. CFIC looks at donations to organizations that exist primarily (or solely) to advance religion and amongst its findings:

• Religious charities received donations worth nearly $7.5 billion in 2018.
• Applying a conservative set of assumptions, this translated to over $3.2 billion in tax credits.
• There are alternatives to maintaining "advancement of religion" as a valid charitable purpose. 

CFIC will continue to publish additional reports in the coming weeks and months, including a summary of direct government subsidies to religious charities and the tax breaks religious charities enjoy. Bookmark this CFIC page to see the entire series as it's published. 

The Centre for Inquiry Canada quantifies the cost of religion in Canada

Canada, like most countries, treat charities very favourably, granting them many privileges and tax breaks not available to other organizations. To register as a charity with Canada Revenue Agency, it must declare one of four charitable purposes:

• Advancement of Education
• Relief of Poverty
• Advancement of Religion
• Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community

The Centre for Inquiry Canada analyzed data about all Canadian charities with a purpose of advancement of religion. The results are being published in a series of reports entitled The Cost of Religion in Canada. The first report (PDF) was published last week; others will follow in the weeks and months to come. 

Among its findings:

• Over 30,000 organizations that exist to advance religion have been granted registered charitable status in Canada.
• Religious charities in Canada are overwhelmingly Christian (more than 80%).
• Over the decades, religious charities have accumulated nearly $48 billion in assets and have a net worth of over $38 billion.

I am one of the lead authors of this report. Please read and let me know what you think.

Two short articles: Atheism is not a Religion and Alternatives to God-driven Addiction Recovery

I wrote two short articles for January 2020 edition of Critical Links, the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter.

Atheism is not a religion, says Federal Court of Appeals

All Canadian charities must declare their primary purpose when the register with the Canada Revenue Agency; approximately 40% of Canadian charities exist for the "advancement of religion".

The Church of Atheism of Central Canada applied for charitable status under the "advancement of religion" category. Its request was denied by the CRA, and this decision was upheld by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. It is possible this will go the the Supreme Court, but that remains to be seen.

The core of the decision is: "Fundamental characteristics of religion include that the followers have a faith in a higher power such as God, entity, or Supreme Being; that followers worship this higher power; and that the religion consists of a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship." The Church of Atheism of Central Canada lacks belief in a deity, and therefore can not revere a Supreme Being, and does not have a system of worship, according the the Court. (That Buddhism is eligible for charitable status while also lacking belief in a God failed to persuade the Court that the Church of Atheism should also be considered a religion for charitable purposes.)

The Court also stated that charitable registration is a privilege, not a right, so no Charter considerations come into play.

Mark Blumberg, a lawyer specializing in charity law, writes, "Ultimately the courts are not planning on changing the status quo “In the absence of legislative reform”." This is likely a correct prediction. In my opinion, removing "Advancement of Religion" as a criterion sufficient to gain charitable status is preferable to including atheism within the definition of religious belief and practice.

Non-theistic addiction recovery programs now offered for BC Health workers

In the July 2019 edition of Critical Links, we told you about Byron Wood, an atheist nurse and alcoholic. He wanted to attend a rehabilitation program that was non-theistic in nature. His union did not provide one, and when he did not complete the Alcoholics Anonymous program because he refused to turn his life "over the care of God",  he was fired. (Half of AA's 12 steps directly refer to God or a greater Power.)

Though popular, AA and similar programs do not work for everyone. How effective they actually are is a matter of considerable dispute, with AA claiming "up to 75 percent of its members maintain abstinence," while addiction specialists "cite numbers closer to 8% to 12% for sobriety by [AA] members after the first year." Gabrielle Glaser in the Atlantic writes, "In 2006, the Cochrane Collaboration, a health-care research group, reviewed studies going back to the 1960s and found that “no experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or [12-step] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems.”" A 2012 report by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University stated, “The vast majority of people in need of addiction treatment do not receive anything that approximates evidence-based care.”

For many addicts, other treatment methods - including medication, counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy, and deep-brain stimulation - have proven to be superior to the more well known 12-step programs.

Mr. Wood launched a complaint with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal in 2015, with support from the Centre for Inquiry Canada and the BC Humanist Association (among others). He reached a settlement with Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) in early December 2019. Though the details of the settlement are confidential, Wood writes, "I'm really happy about the outcome — it means that VCH employees are not required to attend 12-step rehab centres, 12-step meetings, or participate in any 12-step activities if they object for religious reasons. It's what I've been fighting for, for the last six years."

As a result, the 14,000 employees of Vancouver Coastal Health will no longer have to attend AA "if that approach to treatment conflicts with their religious or non-religious beliefs."

The agreement is a settlement between Mr. Wood and VCH, not a ruling by the BC Human Rights Tribunal. As result, its terms are not binding on other organizations. However, CFIC hopes that other employers realize the intrinsic theistic nature of 12-step programs, accept the principle that attending any religious gathering should never be a requirement for employment, and provide an option for secular addiction rehabilitation services to their employees.

CFIC salutes the courage and stamina Mr. Wood has shown in his fight to have secular approaches to sobriety recognized by his former employer. Mr. Wood is applying to have his nursing license reinstated, and CFIC wishes him good luck in his future endeavours.

Do not give your money to these people

They are everywhere this time of year - at the entrances of supermarkets, in the hallways of malls, by the exits of beer and liquor stores.

They use a number of gimmicks to attract your attention, are usually polite, and all want the same thing - your money. 

I am talking about the Salvation Army, and I want to encourage you not to let the bell-ringers convince you to make a contribution to their organization.

Last year I learned that the Salvation Army is a despicably homophobic organization. The Canadian chapter "believes marriage is the covenanting together of one man and one woman for life in a union to the exclusion of all others." It has similarly unenlightened views about gays and lesbians (but does not condone violence). Different chapters (countries) have different policies, some of which state that being gay is a sin before God and must be corrected.

Despite its generally successful efforts to portray themselves as an inclusive organization serving anyone in need, in practice it is ecumenical - serving folks of all religious backgrounds, as long as they are Christian (or willing to consider becoming so). I have heard that some branches offer food, coffee, and extra breaks to employees who attend daily prayer groups.

 "The Salvation Army exists to share the love of Jesus Christ." The Canadian chapter's mission statement reveals that the primary purpose of your money and gifts is to proselytize the Good Word. I was shocked to discover this about the Salvation Army, given its ubiquity; perhaps others will be surprised as well.  

I will not contribute anything to the Salvation Army, regardless of their other good works. They operate under false pretences, using the goodwill of others as a club to evangelize, and consider the words written on a piece of parchment millennia ago by desert nomads to be more important than the well-being of their fellow contemporary human beings. I encourage everyone instead make a donation to organizations that are genuinely charitable. Given the multiple disaster areas around the world, from the wreckage left by extreme weather events to the horrific human consequences of war, I recommend Médecins Sans Frontière (Doctors Without Borders).

Securlarism is not nearly enough

I had the honour of being a speaker at the Eschaton 2012 conference, organized by the Centre for Inquiry Ottawa. I submitted the topic of my address before it was written: The Importance of Secular Governance for Canada. But (as often happens with me during the creative process) the speech I wrote was considerably different than the one I had in mind before I put fingers to keyboard. I believe the new title is a more accurate reflection of the content.

Below is the speech I prepared; my actual words did not deviate greatly from the text. 

Secularism Is Not Nearly Enough

What is secularism? Answering that question in the richness it deserves could fill all the time allotted for this session and then some. The Canadian Secular Alliance defines it as a political principle: government neutrality in matters of religion. In other words, government should neither support nor suppress religious expression among its citizenry.

As you might expect from a policy advisor to the Canadian Secular Alliance, I agree wholeheartedly with this contention. Today I will talk about the importance of secularism, highlight a specific Canadian policy that should be discontinued, and then broaden my focus to encompass a much wider view of the world. In the next fifteen minutes, I will discuss Canadian law, international efforts that would impact all of us, and finally I hope to convince you that secularism is a necessary, but nowhere near sufficient, principle for a just and stable society.

To start with, let's openly acknowledge that, overall, Canada does very well on the secular front, and furthermore, is generally moving in the right direction.

From removing restrictions on interfaith and interracial marriage to liberalising divorce laws; from the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as the Constitution of Canada, thereby enshrining freedom of conscience, to formally recognizing gay marriage as equal in all respects to heterosexual unions; over time, we are moving more and more to a society informed by secular values. This needs to be recognized, and should celebrated.

But we must also acknowledge that we do not yet live in a truly secular country. But in most cases, the exceptions, though still substantial, are rooted in tradition. Such is the case with prayers opening municipal councils; this is still common practice across the country. The discriminatory publicly funded school systems in Ontario are grounded in obsolete clauses in the province's constitution. We must always remember that while freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, freedom from offense is not.

Another historical artifact, albeit one with major consequences for Canadian society, has to do with our charity law. According to the Canada Revenue Agency, an organization must pursue at least one of the following four goals to be granted the designation of a charity:

• The relief of poverty
• The advancement of education
• Other purposes to benefit the community that courts deem charitable
• The advancement of religion

The first three items on the list are in accordance with a general understanding of the term "charitable activities". Whether and how the last criterion benefits society is far from clear.

A bit of history: In 1891, the British House of Lords ruled on what constitutes a charity in a dispute between the tax authorities and the Moravian Church. They developed a common law test, based on the preamble of the 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses (also known as The Statute of Elizabeth). This ruling is the basis for the Canadian government's determination of which organizations are deemed to be charitable in nature. Perhaps it is time for Canada to reconsider whether a decision made in the nineteenth century, itself based on the introduction of a law more than four hundred years old, is the best foundation for taxation practises in 2012.

Yet some traditions die hard. In a letter received by the Canadian Secular Alliance on July 27, 2012, Jim Flaherty, federal Minister of Finance, stated that "charitable status for the advancement of religion is based on the presumption that religion provides people with a moral and ethical framework for living and plays an important role in building social capital and social cohesion."

I, for one, would challenge that presumption. In my experience, there is a high correlation between deeply held religious belief on the one hand and opposing the rights of women, the rights of homosexuals, the right to free speech, and the right of freedom of conscience on the other. Furthermore, this phenomenon is not limited to Canada - I submit that strong religious sentiment can have a significant detrimental effect on any society, as recent decades in Ireland, India and Israel demonstrate, to pick among countries starting with a single letter. (It is important to acknowledge, however, that the faithful do not have a monopoly on misogynist and censorious views that lead to social strife.)

But we are not talking about fine philosophical distinctions or abstract positions with little practical impact on Canadian society. Mr. Flaherty’s unchallenged assumption significantly distorts fiscal policy across Canada.

The Canadian Secular Alliance obtained from the Canada Revenue Agency a detailed list of charitable tax deductions made in 2007. All charities must declare what percentage of their efforts is devoted to the four categories of recognized charitable activities. According to their submissions to the Canadian Revenue Agency, over 26,000 Canadian registered charities did nothing beyond promoting the advancement of religion. This is nearly one-third of all charitable organizations in Canada! Not one of them declared that they spent any time, effort, or money feeding the hungry or clothing the naked. In total, they received nearly 14 billion dollars in donations in 2007, and the Canadian government granted them tax credits of almost 1.2 billion dollars.

That is over one billion dollars every year of government subsidies for religious proselytising. That is roughly thirty dollars for every Canadian citizen. Either these funds are completely wasted, or they are having a significant impact on Canadian society - though perhaps not for the better. In either case, might these funds be redirected to serve more productive goals?

Clearly, despite the progress Canada has made, secularists still have work to do to apply secular principles to Canadian governance, and to ensure Canadians do not lose the freedoms we currently enjoy that stem from secular policies.

But we cannot for a moment believe that our efforts should stop at our borders. Let us move from Canadian regulations to the realm of international law, and attempts to codify freedom from offense as a global norm. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has been agitating in the international community for over a decade to ban speech offensive to Muslims.

Of course, the question is not whether there should ever be restrictions on expression. No country provides for completely unlimited free speech. Even the United States, with its famous First Amendment, has several significant limitations on expression - the canonical example being that it is illegal to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre.

Most people support the principle of placing limits on unfettered speech. Some widely accepted examples include limited and well-crafted laws regarding slander and libel, truth in advertising, and uttering death threats.

Given that reasonable limits exist on speech, the question is: Do mocking religious figures or making other blasphemous utterances fall outside the bounds of acceptable expression?

No.

The attempts of the OIC to classify satire as hate speech, and related efforts, have impacts on Canadians just as much as arguments within our own parliament. We cannot be blind to them.

Similarly, secularism itself is not a default position for democratic nations. Though it has not been used in decades, Canada still has a blasphemy law on the books, punishable by up to two years imprisonment. In 2009, Ireland passed a law that makes "Publication or utterance of blasphemous matter" an offense subject to a maximum fine of €25,000. The Arab Spring is replacing several autocratic regimes with democratically elected illiberal Islamist governments. There are many and complex factors behind the fact that dictators were generally more secular than their elected replacements - but the point is if we truly respect freedom of conscience as a fundamental human right, there is much work to be done in the world.

Certainly one's ire should be raised when religious dogma is upheld in the face of contrary evidence, or when governmental policy is used to buttress the faithful of one creed at the expense of those belonging to other groups.

But religion is far from the only example of ideology trumping facts. And many of the most pressing issues facing our world today have nothing to do with religious zealotry or a violation of secular principles.

Though some religious folk may welcome the rapture and thus dismiss climate change, humans are cooking the planet with our ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, almost entirely for secular reasons: an all too familiar litany of fear, economics, political expediency, and human short-sightedness.

The 2008 financial meltdown had everything to do with greed and fraud. Wall Street made huge profits not by increasing efficiencies, but by maximizing economies of externalities. A greater commitment to secular principles, if possible, would have done nothing to avert or reduce the impact of the real estate and financial crash.

The economic crises facing the EU and soon Japan have nothing to do with undue religious influence in the halls of political power.

Our current agriculture and animal husbandry practices are almost perfectly designed to evolve a superbug that could wipe out a significant portion of humanity entirely for the most secular of reasons.

Since the first human evolved, plant and animal species have been going extinct at an unprecedented rate.

We have polluted huge swathes of the earth's land and water to such an extent that significant areas our planet's surface are inhospitable to any form of life.

Little (if any) of this damage was done with religious motivations at its core. None was committed violating any secular principle.

So although secularism is important - and more than that, I believe it to be essential - it is also not enough. Not nearly enough, not by a long shot. Many of the key crises we face today as a species, as a global society, have nothing or at most little to do with religion. Secular governance is nowhere near enough to produce peaceful, stable, sustainable societies.

We should not waver for a moment in our commitment to secular governance. But we should also not forget for a second that there is much else that needs our attention as well.

We must resist ALL dogmas, whether they be religious, economic, political, philosophical, or scientific. All areas of human endeavour are open to scrutiny, question, and refinement.

Furthermore, no single approach works across all domains.

Science would fail miserably if its findings were subject to a majority vote.

Peer review would be a horribly inefficient way to run a corporation.

Unregulated capitalism has proven to be a dismal failure if environmental protection and sustainability is a desired outcome.

Yet in their appropriate domains nothing we have tried as a species to date has surpassed democracy, free markets, and peer review.

Consider this: maybe there is something better that we simply haven't tried yet. At a minimum, we need to be open to the possibility, or else this - what we see today, here, now - is as good as it gets. Even more, as good as it can get. And I, for one, emphatically do not believe this to be true.

Let our legacy be that we bequeath upon our collective descendants a better, more just, more sustainable world than the one we inherited from our ancestors.

Thank you.

Should non-charitable activities be granted charitable tax exemptions?

This is a piece I wrote for the National Post. It was accepted for publication, then spiked (presumably because the editor did not agree with the conclusion).

Enjoy.

Should non-charitable activities be granted charitable tax exemptions?

Revenue Canada recognized over $1 billion in charitable tax credits during 2007 for activities that had nothing to do with housing the homeless, feeding the hungry, or clothing the naked. In fact, according to a survey conducted by Ipsos Reid in September 2010, nearly two-thirds of Canadians believe these billion dollars support ventures that "promote intolerance, exacerbate ethnic divisions and impede social progress."

What endeavour is abhorred by so many Canadians yet receives so much money from the public purse?

Religion.

In Canada, an organization must pursue at least one of the following four aims to be granted the designation of a charity:

• The relief of poverty
• The advancement of education
• Other purposes to benefit the community that courts deem charitable
• The advancement of religion

The first three items on the list are in accordance with a general understanding of the term "charitable activities". Whether and how the last would benefit society is far from clear.

Most of the $1,000,000,000 is used for "preaching to the choir," reinforcing the message of the church (or temple or mosque) to those that are already members. How do such activities improve the community as a whole? Some of these funds (at a minimum, $60 million) were claimed by organizations proselytising - actively seeking to convert people to Christianity - and nothing else. How does this benefit the public at large? Would the same societal gains be realized by convincing people to be devotees of Ganesh or Allah?

In 1891, the British House of Lords ruled on what constitutes a charity in a dispute between the tax authorities and the Moravian Church. They developed a common law test, based on the preamble of the 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses (also known as The Statute of Elizabeth). This ruling is the basis for the Canadian government's determination of which organizations are deemed to be charitable in nature. Perhaps it is time for Canada to reconsider whether a decision made in the nineteenth century, itself based on the introduction of a law more than four hundred years old, is the best foundation for taxation practises in 2011.

Though religious feelings have inspired generosity in some followers, the good works of international charities such as Médecins Sans Frontières demonstrate altruism is not found solely within the domain of believers. Conversely, many mainstream religions harbour tremendous antipathy to women, homosexuals, and/or members of other faith communities (and those that belong to none). There is also ample evidence that strong religious sentiment can have a significant detrimental effect on society (as recent decades in Ireland, India and Israel demonstrate, to pick among countries starting with a single letter).

At best, the advancement of religion, in and of itself, would have a neutral net effect on society. In other words, Canada is spending a billion dollars every year for absolutely nothing.

Of course, charitable status is well deserved for groups that run food banks or operate homeless shelters, including those that are faith based. But when barely one in three Canadians believes "religion provides the common values and ethical foundations that diverse societies need to thrive in the 21st century," activities that are strictly sectarian or evangelical in nature should not receive government subsidies. Why should Canada provide financial support to many groups that actively work against the principles of equality and justice spelled out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?