Canada’s Religious Right
September 26, 2005 · By Tom Cerber
Lorne Gunter in today’s National Post documents the failings of the religious right in Canada.
He argues that the religious right is good at making noise but it really needs a Ralph Reed who can work the backrooms and create a political movement.
Gunter’s argument is correct as far as it goes, but I think it misses an essential point. One of the reasons why religious conservatives don’t obtain wider support is that they fail to connect their socially and morally conservative message with the principle of liberty. While it’s true that they’re like preachers in the whorehouse, trying to preach moderation to an immoderate and hedonistic society. At the same time, they also need to do a much better job demonstrating that the immoderate and hedonistic policies that the other side supports undermines liberty. Too often they allow themselves to be portrayed as the enemies of liberty, when in fact the best arguments for social and moral conservatism sustain liberty understood as the “ordered liberty” of the responsible individual. Canadian social conservatives have never been good at making this argument, partly for reasons I indicated yesterday. But, unlike their American cousins, they lack a national commitment to individual responsibility, with the attendant virtues of the responsible individual, that would sustain their message.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: imperial subjects lack a public realm, a res publica, to enable them to practice conservative virtues.
Great connection. I would agree that there is no one pushing the idea of individual liberty in Canada and that the religious right in Canada does seem (to me) to be against liberty.
The question is why is this so?
I think the problem isn’t just with religious or social conservatives. The problem on the right is that if you support liberty, you must also support responsibility and self-government. You need to support the ways that civil society, as opposed to the state, sustains itself and the ways that individuals organize themselves. Liberals know that Canadians expect the state to do that. Moreover, civil society requires a sense of patriotism, an emotional bond to the common good. I would argue Canada lacks a sense of patriotism and common good precisely because we expect the state to unite us. Put more bluntly: you can’t have patriotism without a patria; Canada is not a country, but merely an administrative entity. Stephen Harper’s troubles in Ontario and Quebec are the result of him thinking it’s a country.
Or could it be that many of the ideas expressed by the religious right conflict fundamentally with the views of the center and left (prayer in schools, creationism vs. evolution, etc.)? Even if the religious right was successful in argueing their views under the rubric of liberty, I think that, on a whole, their message would be dismissed by the majority of Canadians given their “radical” views. Stephen Harper has tried to model his strategy after the movement in the states; however, he fails to understand that less Canadians share those same views and values (i.e. there is still not a constant legal battle in Canada to teach creationism in science classes as a viable alternative to evolution). Like it or not, these types of associations hurt the religious right movement in Canada, and members of the Conservative Party who are associated with these ideals. The religious right do not own the monopoly on the “common good”. In fact, one would argue that their agenda excludes more people than it includes, and how common is that? Not very.
Lyndon: Please specify who among the religious right holds views on creationism? Who is advocating prayer in schools? Moreover, how is the secularist removal of anything to do with religion, including even mention it, more “rational”?
While it always hurts movements to be associated with “radical” elements, one shouldn’t be blind to the ways that the friends of liberalism, especially among the media, *want* conservatives, and moderate religious conservatives, to be associated with the fringe. For instance, when the media seeks a religious conservative, it seeks someone like Tom McVety instead of someone thoughtful and publicly engaged like Douglas Farrow of McGill or Bruce Clemenger of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada? Have you ever considered their arguments? Do you know what they say about the topics you list as well as their criticisms of liberal secularists?
Once you’ve read them, you can get back to me.
A simple google search on the religious right gives one the impression I left in my first posting.
http://www.pipforschools.com
http://www.godhatesfags.com
http://www.gtbe.org
http://www.aypf.org/forumbriefs/1994/fb072994.htm
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org
Sorry Tom, I would rather read something interesting and try to solve real problems, like child poverty, access to postsecondary education for low-income Canadians, creating a more progressive tax system, and improving environmental policies than worry about the ramblings of the religious right. Our agendas are too different, and our definition of the “common good” are too far apart.
I suppose anyone can find whatever they’re looking for on Google to confirm your own views. However, any undergraduate can tell you that Google just dumps information and provides no guidance on the quality of information you’re getting.
The challenge is to engage with more intelligent voices from across the ideological divide, which I invited you to do by suggesting Farrow and Clemenger. I don’t know why you refuse to do that, and instead find caricatures of the religious right to support your own prejudices. Despite your list of political issues, your agenda can’t be that different from mine since you’re a frequent contributor to the message board.
Yes, google searchs may be the layman’s answer to questions placed before him. And, yes, it does not provide context or an evaluation of the acuracy or validity of the content. However, when we are talking about Canadian perceptions, we are not talking about academics Peter McCormic or Douglas Farrow. The average Canadian will not turn to these thinkers when making political decisions, and I am afraid, it is because of websites such as those mentioned above that the religious right has such a bad rap with many of us.
As an undergrad I did study Plato, Boethius, Augustine, and Burke. Sure, they were interesting and gave me context for the questions being asked in class. Do I find their arguments more relevant than, say, Noam Chompsky, Richard Dawkins, or John Ralston Saul? Does it matter? Name dropping to prove a point only works in academia.
I frequently contribute to add an alternative voice to the Politic and foster debate. I am a fiscal conservative, for sure, but my contributions should be in no way an endorcement of the views posted here. In fact, most of the time I disagree pretty much everything posted here. Wouldn’t it be nice if I were also allowed to post interesting articles? Or am I too much of a social “liberal” to be given that chance.
There certainly wouldn’t be silly little postings about naming condoms, presidential pee pee jokes, or tyrades about polygamists from my computer. Plus, I would write under the name my mother gave me the day I was born so that there is some acountability for what I posted.
So what do you think? Now that the gauntlet has been dropped, will Greg take me up on my offer?
That’s too bad that your education in those thinkers only taught you to drop names. A more rigorous liberal education would have enabled you to bring their thoughts to bear on contemporary concerns.
And my point about us sharing an agenda had nothing to do with whether or not we agree with one another.
Lyndon: If Tom asked you to provide links, why did you only give him American ones? in that, your comments were to show Canada as different from America. I find much of American conservatism shrill, for example, I’ve never understood the fascination with Rush Limbaugh. It would seem a more suitable argument to have read the real representatives of Canadian social conservatism as Tom suggested, rather than argue the straw man.
DJeffrey: Your comment reminds me of something Charles Kesler said recently, lamenting what he sees as the decline of intelligence among conservatives:
“This decline is visible in conservatism at large, too. It is one thing (a blessing, I can tell you) to grow up reading and watching Bill Buckley; another to grow up reading and watching Bill O’Reilly.”