Review of Cardus webinar on Christianity and pluralism

This essay was first published in the November 2025 edition of the Centre for Inquiry Canada's monthly newsletter, Critical Links.

On September 9, Cardus (a Canadian think tank devoted to infusing faith into every aspect of society) held a webinar entitled, "Can Christians Fully Participate in 21st Century Pluralism?" I was interested in what they had to say, so I attended. 

Andrew Bennett is the Cardus Institute's Director of Faith Community Engagement. He was speaking with James Orr, Associate Professor of Philosophy of Religion at the University of Cambridge. 

Instead of starting the conversation with a definition of pluralism, Orr launched into an etymological history of the word, how it was a philosophical metaphysical and not a political term, and that politics is downstream of metaphysics. There was much name-dropping ("William James claimed that pluralism was reacting against Hegelian philosophy, but for Figgis pluralism is rooted in Augustinian pluralism"), but the erudite back and forth between Bennett and Orr shed little light on how to think of pluralism in the 21st century.

After indulging in several more diversions only tangentially related to the webinar's core question, Bennett and Orr finally came to talk about pluralism in a modern context, only to grossly mischaracterize it. According to Orr, the "risk of violence is increased by opening up the moral community at scale and at speed." Whereas earlier forms of pluralism provided a mediating buffer against the state, operating within a broadly shared conception of mutual flourishing and common good, today is very different, according to Orr. The secular liberal state as envisioned by John Rawls has no common perspective amongst the citizenry, and liberal individualism demands that people have sheer autonomy, without any obligation to others. 

I am familiar with much of Rawls' work, and this is not an argument I have heard him make. 

Eventually, Bennett and Orr asked: Is Christian participation in society limited? If so, who is doing the limiting? Is it the state? Are societal norms and taboos preventing Christians from being a part of public discourse? Perhaps Christians themselves have bought into the concept of the atomization of individuals devoid of a social fabric and withdrawn without external coercion?

Bennett noted that there is lots of participation by Christians in the public square, so perhaps this wasn't a significant issue.

I thought this was a key insight and worth pursuing - perhaps the answer to, "Can Christians Fully Participate in 21st Century Pluralism?" is a simple, "Yes." But Bennet and Orr pivoted immediately to asking whether an official presence of faith in the public square helps or hinders Christian participation in society. 

Bennett observed that an official Church risks becoming indistinguishable from the state, and that Canada has no established Church. He asked Orr, "Is the Church of England less free to engage in debates because of its status?"

Orr responded, "Yes." But rather than explain why, or how, the Church of England is constrained, Orr spoke about the impact the Covid epidemic had on people. Orr then went on a rant against the Church of England (an odd choice, in my opinion) for participating in "madcap, highly contentious, politicized schemes", such as paying a hundreds of millions of pounds in reparations when the Church has only 11 billion pounds in assets, while "parishes are closing up and down country". And yet Orr also said that he can't think of a time when the country has needed more of what the Church can offer. 

The rest of the conversation was not about whether Christians can participate in society, but how to infuse more Christianity into the world. Orr claimed that belief in God has tripled in the UK among 18-35 year olds (a surprising statistic, as every source I have found makes clear that faith in Britain is declining, with younger cohorts increasingly non-religious). He also stated that New Atheists are expressing regret, citing Ayaan Ali Hirsi Ali and Niall Ferguson as examples. (If this trend is more widespread, I have missed it.) Orr also finds the "intellectual credibility of Christianity" striking. (Again, Orr must travel in very different circles than I do.)

Orr made many unsubstantiated claims, including "Christianity feels new now", "Standard liberal policing in the public square has been dissolved on the Internet", "Liberal multiculturalism has dissolved connected communities", and "Affluenza has enabled us to forget the important things." Orr did not elaborate on any of these, so his meaning remains ambiguous.

Bennett brought the conversation's focus to Quebec. He asked Orr what the impact was of growing Muslim and Sikh populations on the public square, and how we occupy public square together as members of very different religions. Orr stated that secularists believe that secular and religion are antonyms, and that everything in the religion box is basically the same. He accused secularists of "tone deafness" by failing to understand the differences between Augustinian Christianity and Salafist Islam. He then went on to claim that "Islam is not compatible with post-Christian secular society."

The Webinar ended with an appeal for Christians to "animate the sacred". Orr is aghast that the English Prime Minister and leader of the opposition are atheists; "at least Farage is a Christian, even if not a great one." Orr noted that the young are drawn to evangelical forms of Christianity. In Orr's view, the "great challenge" is to "reverse engineer the fourth century."

Overall, I found the webinar disappointing. The little time devoted to the question at hand indicated that Christians are indeed full participants in society, but that this is insufficient in an increasingly secular world. The problem, according to Bennett and Orr, is not that Christians are somehow prevented from participating in society - it's that Christians are insufficiently Christian in the 21st century. What Bennett and Orr decry as societal decay, I consider to be social progress. May secularism and pluralism continue to progress throughout the 21st century, and beyond. 

BCHA and Canadian Secular Alliance submit their brief on Quebec's Bill 21 to the Supreme Court of Canada

The following essay was first published in the October 2025 edition of Critical Links. 
The BCHA and CSA submitted their ten-page argument against Quebec's Bill 21 in September. (CFIC came out against Bill 21 back in 2019; see here and here and here and here for previous Critical Links articles).

There are fundamentally two arguments in the submission:

1. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated and reiterated several times that Canada is a secular nation, with a duty of neutrality in matters of religion. This duty is baked into the Charter.
2. What constitutes a religious symbol is a matter of personal perspective, and the state is incapable, even in principle, of making such a determination. Therefore, any law that requires the state to distinguish between religious and non-religious symbols is legally incoherent.

Let's get into a bit more detail on each of these points.

Canada is a secular nation beyond freedom of religion

The duty of state neutrality in matters of religion is an independent constitutional principle. It doesn't follow from freedom of religion; rather the freedom of religion clause of the Charter is an expression of the state's duty of neutrality. In fact, it is a democratic imperative, and is thus an inherent part of the Charter. There have been other unwritten principles read into the Charter, and it is appropriate to make this understanding, present and implicit since the Charter was ratified, explicit. State neutrality, as a duty, cannot be subsumed within a Charter right. Therefore the state must remain secular - neutral in matters of religion - even if the Charter provision guaranteeing freedom of religion is nullified by invoking the notwithstanding clause.

The state is incapable of determining what is a religious symbol

There is ample jurisprudence stating that "religious freedom is premised on the personal volition of individual believers" and variations on that theme. Therefore the practice of religion, and the meaning of its symbols, is individual and subjective. Some laws might have the effect of restricting religious freedom (e.g., wearing hard hats on a construction site), but that might be an acceptable cost for some social good (health and safety). But legislation intentionally restricting religion puts the state into the position of determining what is and is not religious expression. Christmas is a religious holiday, but are earrings in the shape of Christmas trees a religious symbol? It might be for some, and not for others. How is the state to decide? The state must maintain its neutral stance and not have a perspective, and thus Bill 21 is incompatible with Canada as a secular state.

Why did BCHA and CSA choose these arguments?

All interveners (38 of them - likely a record!) have just five minutes each for oral arguments, and only ten pages for a written submission. Given these restrictions, it's important to choose a limited number of propositions, so that they may be argued comprehensively. These arguments are at the heart of the purposes of BCHA and CSA, and if accepted will result in a just decision (striking down Bill 21) without the messiness of considering Section 33.

What other legal arguments are there against Bill 21?

There are several other ways to argue against Bill 21. 

One is that the use of the notwithstanding clause is inappropriate in this case, so the freedom of religion clause of the Charter still applies to this law. The Canadian federal government's submission, for example, will "urge the court to set limits on how the notwithstanding clause could be invoked" to avoid having provincial legislatures "indirectly amending the Constitution".

Another is to invoke section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which says the rights and freedoms it grants are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Opponents of Bill 21 could argue that this law cannot be demonstrably justified.

Finally, there are sections of the Charter that are not covered by the notwithstanding clause. (Invoking the notwithstanding clause means certain rights guaranteed by the Charter do not apply to a particular piece of legislation, but other rights are not subject to this exemption.) Two such sections are s27 on multiculturalism, and s28 on equality between male and female persons. Given Quebec courts noted that the negative effects of the law, whatever its intentions, falls disproportionately upon Muslim women, the Court might rule Bill 21 to be unconstitutional on these grounds. Other interveners will be making this argument.

What will those who support Bill 21 say?

From a legal perspective, there are many arguments to be made in the bill's favour, . 

Quebec's duly elected government has passed this bill following the appropriate processes, and it is an overreach of the Supreme Court of Canada to intervene in Quebec's internal affairs. The Quebec government's submission will likely be along these lines.

Other arguments will focus on the freedom of religion clause of the Charter and the fact that Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause. Some interveners may argue that Bill 21 does not violate anyone's freedom of religion, so such challenges to the law have no merit. Personally, I find this argument weak and doubt it will convince any of the Supreme Court Justices. However, a related one is much stronger: even if the bill violates freedom of religion and/or freedom of expression, these sections are covered by the notwithstanding clause and thus the bill cannot be struck down on this basis. This is essentially the logic of the decisions from the Quebec courts, and the Supreme Court may decide to rule similarly.

Another approach being taken by some interveners is to agree that Canada is a secular nation, and define secularism as the "separation of church and state". Since Bill 21 applies only to government employees, who are therefore representatives of the state in public-facing roles, Bill 21 is furthering the principle of secularism and there is no Charter violation. This is the basis of why several secular organizations support Bill 21.

This will be a long, complex, and hotly contested hearing. No date has yet been set, though it will likely be at some point in early 2026. A decision probably will not be published for at least six months after that.

CFIC will keep you up to date on this important case as it unfolds.

Podcast for Inquiry S04E04: Burkas, beatings and bicycles - The life of Yasmine Mohammed

Yasmine Mohammed is a human rights activist and author of Unveiled: How the West Empowers Radical Muslims. Yasmine is one of the most prominent and vocal figures supporting persecuted freethinkers across the globe, from elevating the voices of marginalized freethinkers on her podcast, to creating a global network of allies across religious and political divides through the CLARITy Coalition.

Yasmine shares how her childhood was dramatically changed when her mother became an unofficial “second wife” to a devout Muslim man, and how Canada failed to protect her due to the bigotry of low expectations. She describes her journey from non-practicing Muslim to becoming an open atheist, and how the trauma of her childhood continued to haunt her as an adult. We also discuss how countries suffer under Islamic rule, the particular hatred of Jews that is a core element of Islam, and the origin of and problems with the term Islamophobia. 

Learn more about Yasmine and support her efforts: 

Free Hearts Free Minds

Yasmine Mohammed Podcast

Unveiled: How the West Empowers Radical Muslims

Clarity Coalition

Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, BlueSky

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: 

House of Commons recommends ending religious privilege

The following essay was originally published in the February 2025 edition of Critical Links.

If the primary purpose of your organization is "advancement of religion", and all your group does is proselytize, it is eligible for charitable status in Canada. Centre for Inquiry Canada documented that this single policy choice costs Canadians over $3.2 billion every year in its Cost of Religion in Canada reports.

Every year, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance publishes a report containing recommendations for the following year's budget. The latest report, published in December 2024, contained Recommendation 430: "Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose."

There are many reasons why this would be good public policy:

• Financial: In a time of high deficits, saving Canadians taxpayers over $3,000,000,000 annually is wise financially, and good politics.
• Philosophical: Canada is (or should be!) a secular nation, where the government is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor suppressing religious expression. Giving a multi-billion dollar subsidy to organizations that self-declare their primary purpose to be evangelizing is the government playing favourites.
• Protecting Canadian sovereignty: Canada did not decide the criteria Canada Revenue Agency's uses to determine which organizations are eligible to be recognized as charities. We inherited these rules from Britain, which made a decision over a century ago, based on the introduction to a law over 400 years old. Canada has never amended them. It's well past time for Canadians to decide what constitutes a charity in Canada.
• Accuracy: Trying to convince others to view the world as you do is certainly permissible, but it's hardly a charitable act. Such organizations should be non-profits, not charities.

To minimize disruption, the implementation could proceed in two phases: 

• Announce a deadline (say, the end of 2025) after which organizations may no longer apply to become a charity with the primary purpose of "advancement of religion".
• Give existing charities with a primary purpose of "advancement of religion" a deadline (say, the end of 2028) to either:
• Convert to a non-profit organization; or
• Declare an alternate primary purpose (advancement of education, alleviation of poverty, or other purposes beneficial to the community).

An administratively straightforward process should be created for religious charities to convert to a non-profit or designate an alternate primary purpose. 

Canada has just taken the first step on the path to becoming a more fair, just, and secular country. It's a long road from a Finance Standing Committee recommendation to implemented policy, and CFIC will continue to press for removal of "advancement of religion" as a charitable goal until this becomes a reality.

Podcast for Inquiry's amazing third year

Podcast for Inquiry's third year may be its best yet, with twenty-four regular episodes, one bonus episode, and one of my diatribes.

Episodes covered a wide range of topics. Some of my favourites from 2024 can be grouped into four categories:

Philosophy:

• Podcast for Inquiry kicked off 2024 with a thoughtful and insightful conversation with Australian philosopher Russel Blackford. We discussed the philosophical principle of Liberalism and delved into its implications for free speech and toleration. 
• If you accept that God has created you for a purpose, then what do atheists have to live for? My conversation with Dr. Ralph Lewis addresses this question directly, as we talk about his book Finding Purpose in a Godless World: Why We Care Even if the Universe Doesn’t.  
•  I speak with CFIC's Mark Maharaj about anti-natalism, the philosophical idea that choosing to have children is an unethical act.

Science:

• I have been fascinated with whether free will is real or a compelling illusion for several years. I am delighted Podcast for Inquiry dedicated two episodes to the question last year. Dr. Julien Musolino contends that free will (as commonly understood) is scientifically incoherent, but that it's not a big deal. Kevin Mitchell, on the other hand, argues that evolution gave us - not just humans, but all animals including amoebae - free will, and speculates about the ramifications for society and its institutions. 
• Tangentially related to free will was last year's final episode, about the possibility of plant intelligence with Paco Calvo. His research is ongoing; preliminary results are tantalizing but not (yet) definitive. 
• Climate change is a major, but far from the only, threat to human civilization. Professor Katherine Richardson and her team identified nine planetary boundaries which need to be respected if our planet is to remain conducive to human thriving. It remains an open question whether we will choose to do so. 
• But if we mess up Earth, we can always go elsewhere, right? Dr. Kelly Weinersmith wanted to know, so she started by reading just about everything ever published on the topic. Then she wrote A City on Mars summarizing what she learned, and talked to me about it. 

Religion and Secularism:

• In April 2021, CFIC started publishing its Cost of Religion in Canada report series. Hardly anyone read them. But when Sandra Dunham asked, "Why does Canada give $5.6 billion annually to religious charities?" on Podcast for Inquiry, secularists, atheists, and humanists across Canada took notice.  
• It's not just religious charities that benefit from government largesse. Ontario fully funds a parallel, separate school system at a cost of approximately $10 billion per year. Greg Oliver, president of the Canadian Secular Alliance, debunks many myths and discusses what can be done about public funding for Catholic schools. 
• Podcast for Inquiry had a couple guests return for encore performances in 2024. Dr. Josh Bowen revealed what the Bible has to say about slavery and genocide. And Catherine Nixey's second appearance on PfI was about her book Heresy, the many forms of early Christianity, and what humanity lost with Christianity's rise. 
• Andrew Seidel is the author of The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is un-American. The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately his arguments are more relevant now than ever. 

Critical Thinking:

• CFIC often emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, but what is it exactly? Melanie Trecek-King talks about how people can navigate complex subject areas without developing deep expertise, what constitutes good evidence, and more. 
• Relatedly, Robin Reames is trying to bring back The Ancient Art of Thinking for Yourself (the title of her book). Learn why emotions are more compelling persuaders than facts, the power of "alternative", and the centrality of fear.
• How can we know what is true, when each of us necessarily has an incomplete understanding of reality? Dr. Carolyn Biltoft has thought deeply about this question, and shares her insights. 
• Despite it being nearly impossible for humans to comprehend Absolute Truth (if such a thing even exists), there are some things we know about the universe with a very high degree of confidence. So why is science denial so prevalent in our society? Gale Sinatra explains that we all have biases and are vulnerable to fallacies that can lead to misunderstanding scientific topics. 
• Scientific illiteracy can have catastrophic consequences. Kat Mac trusted her alternative health provider, and taking the recommended herbal supplements nearly killed her. 

Podcast for Inquiry's 2025 season is already underway, with episodes about Canada's ongoing discrimination against its Indigenous population and growing up in Canada within an observant Muslim household already released. There will be many more conversations exemplifying the spirit of genuine open inquiry every two weeks as Podcast for Inquiry continues into its fourth year.

Podcast for Inquiry S03E23: Heresy: Jesus Christ and the Other Sons of God, with Catherine Nixey

Why do scholars now refer to early Christianities instead of early Christianity? How has the meaning of the word “Heresy” changed from its original definition to taking on its current connotations? Why did Christianity grow from a fringe cult with few followers and disdained by the intelligentsia and people in power to becoming the largest religion in the world today? What did humanity lose with Christianity’s rise? 

Catherine Nixey answers all these questions and more as she discusses her new book, Heresy, on Podcast for Inquiry. 

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: 

Podcast for Inquiry S3E20: Does the Bible endorse slavery and genocide? Dr. Joshua Bowen provides receipts.

In his first appearance on Podcast for Inquiry, Dr. Josh Bowen compared what we know about history from archaeology and contemporaneous literature with the stories from the Old Testament. 

In today’s episode, Dr. Bowen reveals what the Bible has to say about slavery and genocide, and goes a bit outside his comfort zone to talk about whether the Old Testament should be considered a guide to a moral and ethical life. 

Referenced during the conversation:

• Read Dr. Bowen’s latest book: Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery? (Extensively Revised and Expanded Second Edition) 
• Watch Josh rap about Gilgamesh
• Subscribe to Megan Lewis' podcast Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman  

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: 

Podcast for Inquiry S3E19: Kate Cohen believes atheists should be out and proud

Kate Cohen talks about her journey from privately knowing she was a non-believer to writing We of Little Faith: Why I Stopped Pretending to Believe (And Maybe You Should Too). She discusses how being an atheist and a commitment to honesty informed how she raised her children, and how being forthright about her lack of belief in social interactions has simplified her life. We also talk about some of the challenges associated with being an open atheist.

Kate is a Washington Post columnist and some of the articles she references in the conversation are below. 

• A Car Ride with Lena
• In America you have to opt out of religion in public life. That's backwards. 
• America doesn't need more God. It needs more atheists. 

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: 

Podcast for Inquiry S3E18: Greg Oliver asks: Why is religious discrimination official provincial educational funding policy?

Greg Oliver, founder and president of the Canadian Secular Alliance, believes that governments should not favour one faith over another, nor believers over non-believers. That three Canadian provinces continue to this day to fully fund a Separate school system for a single faith - Catholicism - is an egregious violation of secular principles that should guide our public policy. Greg explains why Catholic schools are funded, how two provinces stopped funding sectarian schools, addresses many myths about the separate school system, and what we can do about it. (Check out the new organization Alumni to Amend Section 93.)

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: 

Podcast for Inquiry S3E14: The search for truth, with Carolyn Biltoft

Carolyn Biltoft received her PhD in World History from Princeton University in 2010. Her work fuses the tools of world history, intellectual history, cultural studies and critical theory. Carolyn has thought deeply about the nature of truth, and realized that each person necessarily has an incomplete understanding, because we only experience a small aspect of reality first hand. Therefore, we need to trust the reports of others to gain a complete worldview. Misplacing our trust will compromise the accuracy of our model of reality. Carolyn delves into the implications of this insight, describes the similarities and differences between scientific and religious mindsets, and how this should impact our educational system.  

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

A YouTube version is also available (at Carolyn's request, we did not record video): 

Podcast for Inquiry S3E12: What’s the point if there’s no god? Ralph Lewis has an answer.

Dr. Ralph Lewis is an Associate Professor, practicing psychiatrist, and blogs for Psychology Today. Dr. Lewis explores the themes in his book, “Finding Purpose in a Godless World: Why We Care Even if the Universe Doesn’t”, including addressing some key questions:

• Does the universe have a purpose?
• Why are we humans so prone to believe that the universe is inherently purposeful?
• If the universe has no purpose, does that mean human lives are meaningless and don’t matter?
• How do we make moral judgments if we have no external or  objective foundation for them?

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: 

Cost of Religion in Canada at Toronto Oasis

I was the guest speaker at the March 17, 2024 meeting of Toronto Oasis. I opened my remarks with two startling claims: that I have psychic powers, and that Canada subsidizes religious institutions by over $5.6 billion every year. 

I proceeded to explain how the latter number was derived, based on rigourous research by the Centre for Inquiry Canada, but remained mum about my purported clairvoyant abilities. 

My presentation runs from 1:05 to about 25:20, followed by an extensive Q&A session with members of Toronto Oasis. 

Toronto Oasis is a secular community that meets online every Sunday morning for community discussions on engaging and sometimes controversial topics.

Enjoy!

The God Gig is Easy!

Keith Semple has started a podcast, where he talks about being a Northern Irish Humanist living in the United States. I was his guest and talk give a Canadian perspective on politics and secularism, as well as my own journey to secular Humanism. It was a fun conversation, and I hope you enjoy it too.

My favourite quotation from Keith: "Leslie, I think you have a career in simply making bumper stickers for secular people."

It's available via The Semple Truth wherever you listen to podcasts, on Keith's Semple Truth website, or you can watch it below:

Let me know what you think.

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 S03E07: Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life In A Doomsday Cult with Perry Bulwer

Perry Bulwer (Facebook) speaks about his part-memoir, part-exposé book, Misguided: My Jesus Freak Life in a Doomsday Cult. Perry describes what first attracted him to the cult, and why he stayed in it for nearly 20 years. Perry recounts the lasting damage from his time in the Children of God, to himself and especially to those born into it. 

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: 

Podcast for Inquiry S03E04: Maryam Namazie and The Paris Appeal

Maryam Namazie (@MaryamNamazie) is the spokesperson for One Law for All and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. In December 2023, the CEMB released The Paris Appeal, calling for Laics of all countries to unite. Maryam explains the purpose and content of The Paris Appeal, and along the way gets into the difference between laïcité and secularism, and reveals the religious court system in England that denies many women the rights they ought to enjoy. Maryam also talks about World Hijab Day, what the hijab means, and concludes with a passionate analysis of Québec’s religious symbols law.

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: 

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: 

Podcast for Inquiry S03E02: The life of a refugee in exile: “Omer” shares his story

“Omer” (a pseudonym) was born and raised in Pakistan, but his life was threatened when he expressed doubts about the inerrancy of Islam. He survived a manhunt by the Pakistani government, and now lives as a refugee in Nepal. Omer is the first Pakistani atheist to reach 100,000 subscribers on his YouTube channel. He has been accepted by Canada as a permanent resident, but exit permit issues mean Omer cannot leave Nepal for an indeterminate period. You may contribute to supporting Omer (who is not allowed to work in Nepal) by making a donation to CFIC. 

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. 

Calgary Police Service provides Honour Guard to Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast

I wrote the following article for the December edition of Critical Links, the monthly newsletter from the Centre for Inquiry Canada. 

Calgary Police Service provides Honour Guard to Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast

You might recall "Bob", the Calgary Police Service Sergeant who has had his complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission officially recognized (see articles from the June and August Critical Links). While we wait for his case to be heard, CFIC learned from Global News that "On Oct. 19, members of the [Calgary Police Service] honour guard escorted keynote speaker Nigel Hannaford to his seat at the Calgary Leaders Prayer Breakfast, as part of the opening ceremonies." There are several things problematic about this decision by the CPS:

• According to Global News, last month was the 55th year of the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast. There has been no demonstrated safety or security need for a police presence at any previous event.
• The purpose of the CPS Honour Guard is to represent the service. Some events, such as the Stampede parade and Remembrance Day, always have an Honour Guard. Other events are at the discretion of the Honour Guard Executive and the Chief. That the leadership of the Calgary Police Service gave its implicit endorsement to an organization that "affirms our faith in God through prayer, testimony, scripture reading, and fellowship" lends credence to Bob's claim that the CPS favours Christianity over other faiths. The police service must remain neutral in such matters of religion, as the Supreme Court ruled in the Saguenay case in 2015 (listen to or watch the Podcast for Inquiry episode on this topic) and affirmed in the Trinity Western University decision in 2018 (read my analysis of the TWU ruling). While the CLPB has every right to endorse Biblical teachings and exhort government to follow Christian precepts, CPS providing an Honour Guard to the CLPB is a violation of state neutrality and should not recur. 
• The content of this year's keynote address, by Nigel Hannaford, contains much that must make many active Calgary Police Service officers uncomfortable (at best):
•  Hannaford rails against many Canadian laws. He describes Medical Assistance in Dying as "Doctors killing people", in violation of the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Murder". He pities the "Christian doctors [who] find themselves up against the government" about abortion. He even takes aim at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lamenting that "The Bible-based morality that you grew up with, that once informed Canadian law, was quietly but explicitly rejected in 1982 [when the Charter was adopted]." CPS officers are sworn to uphold the law. Why would it endorse someone who is asking his audience to reject it?
• He claims that there is "No proof that Christians murdered indigenous children" in residential schools. While there is much to be learned about the extent of abuse, there are thousands of documented deaths at residential schools (see the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission). And while he does call for "these sites to be examined," referring to unmarked graves, notably absent was a call for the release of records from the Catholic Church, which continues to refuse to allow access to its voluminous documentation relating to Canada's residential schools. First Nations members of the Calgary Police Service (among others) doubtless would not approve of Hannaford's remarks.
• Hannaford calls for Canada to become (or return to) a theocracy. He says, "Once, Canada's laws reflected a Biblical understanding of truth. [...] Then Canada adopted the Charter. Their [nine Supreme Court justices] job now is to interpret the law with the Canadian consensus, not the Bible." Later, Hannaford regrets that "We are now finding that Canadian law is often, and increasingly, at variance with our Bible-based worldview." Again, while individual Calgary officers are welcome to attend such an address as private citizens on their own time, why did the CPS endorse the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast, and by extension its keynote speaker's call for Bible-based law in Canada? 

The decision to provide an honour guard to Nigel Hannaford at the Calgary Leadership Prayer Breakfast shows tremendous disrespect to the diverse community CPS is tasked with protecting, as well as offending a sizable proportion of its own members.

Bob's human rights complaint against the Calgary Police service because of its "Christian-default" practices continues to wind its way through the system. If you know an Alberta lawyer with human rights experience, please contact Leslie Rosenblood, CFIC Secular Chair.