Michael Coren has a piece in the Saturday Sun today. He also touches upon the point that I made earlier this week, that state Atheism is going to beat the charity out of our society as long as the government attempts to squeeze every vestige of Christian presence and no other group in our new, fancy multicult society steps up to the plate to do the jobs that aren’t as profitable or glamorous. He even offers an example of what those who relied on Christian Horizon’s services can expect in the coming years:
In California the Salvation Army was forced to close down several inner city missions because officials refused to sign a document approving of homosexuality. The destitute suffered terribly as a consequence. In Britain the Roman Catholic church similarly was obliged to shut the doors of its adoption agency.
Aside from also speaking about our government-imposed unhealthy relationship between employees and employers, Coren got me thinking by phrasing the incident that sparked this whole thing in the way he did:
One employee announced to colleagues that she was a lesbian and began discussing her sexuality. Eventually she was let go. She complained to the Human Rights Commission, which fined Christian Horizons and demanded the change. Demanded, in fact, that they not be Christian.
I hadn’t considered it until reading Coren’s column, but what if we flipped this around and an employee started sharing their Christian faith with colleagues? I doubt it would end up before a HRC. And even if we buy into the secularist axiom that homosexuals are born wired to be homophilic (one that, like all such axioms on fetal tissue, the origins of life and the universe, and climate change conveniently lacks that indisputable proof that axioms usually come with), can the state successfully argue that a believing Christian isn’t just as equally inseparable from their faith and what it makes him or her? Think of the parallels: some people in churches leave to join other religions, and some homosexuals realize they just aren’t homosexuals any longer; both groups claim that their respective affiliations colour everything they do; and both groups have their affiliations protected under the current legal community’s consensus.
It’s an interesting situation: one where a group tasked with going out into all the world to spread their Good News has their constitutionally recognized right to do so repressed, while another had beneficial rights literally penciled into the highest document of the land is allowed to ignore the acronym every employee should know: NSFW (Not Safe For Work). It wasn’t the lesbian woman’s decision to become a lesbian that got her fired, it was her insistence on preaching the news to the rest of her co-workers that did. Curious that, when any Christian who pulled a similar stunt would be out by 3pm, box of belongings in hand. To use Coren’s wording, a sane nation would actually follow it’s own laws and both groups would be able to share away but that would also presume that groups like HRCs would be under the law too, now wouldn’t it?
Charles Anthony wrote:
Christian Horizons should stop seeking business form the Ontario government.
I certainly think Christian Horizons should have every right to discriminate (among both their clients and their employees) in any way they want. However, the vast majority of their business is from the tax-payers. Sorry but they have no right to claim moral superiority in the delivery of their services.
Thus spake Michael Coren: “Quite simply, without Christian groups and Christian people the social welfare network of Canada would collapse. This is not hyperbole.”
I think it is a ridiculous statement and only part of the entire picture.
Posted on 03-May-08 at 10:29 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Charles, why does CH have to limit who it seeks as customers? I can understand your argument from the perspective of the government limiting who it contracts out to, but it’s not “buyer beware”, not “seller beware”.
Posted on 03-May-08 at 10:48 am | Permalink
Joanne (TB) wrote:
Interesting comparison, Matthew.
I wonder what Christian Horizons will do next. My guess is that they’ll eventually drop their ties with the Ontario government, and simply serve only those within their own faith community.
Posted on 03-May-08 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
Reid wrote:
The problem, as I see it, is that this charity, and many others, employ people. Therefore they have adhere to the employment standards of the day. If I owned a convenience store I couldn’t fire someone for being gay. Likewise, if I’m a charity but hire certain staff I can’t fire them for being gay. Woud we think it acceptable for a charity like, say, Habitat for Humanity to ignore workplace safety on their builds because they’re a charity? What’s the difference between safety standards or employment standards?
If this organization wants to impose it’s moral standards on the people who work for it perhaps they should consider getting people to volunteer instead of hiring them. But you know and I know that they have to hire people because there just aren’t enough people willing to work for free.
I think Michael Coren is completely wrong on this issue.
Posted on 03-May-08 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
Real Conservative wrote:
Coren is correct and surprising that a guy with a Jewish mother would say this. Thanks again for tackling a subject everyone else overlooks.
Posted on 03-May-08 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
But Reid, look at the comments above and in my previous post; they’re just a sample, but they demonstrate that people aren’t arguing as you are (and as with Charles Anthony’s post, I can see where you are coming from); instead, they’re arguing that as long as a single tax dollar makes its way into the equation, state morality has to takeover.
If we were to reframe the debate into the one you responded to, I think we’d be a little more honest with ourselves about this case. Still, we do allow for exceptions to the employment standards for openly religious groups because it conflicts with religious rights (churches, hospitals, and until, recently, charities have all been run by Catholic/Protestant and Muslim organizations, among others under this provision). As a libertarian, I’d then have to ask what business the government has in telling companies/organizations how they should go about hiring; if an employer is abusive or discriminatory, they will develop a reputation and the free market of labourers/business partners will either clean their clock until they shape up or, alternatively, tolerate their practices since it’s really not the end of the world after all, like these HRCs make them out to be!
Joanne, thanks for your input, I always value it as well as reading your own posts (I’ve been paying particular attention to the excellent Brenda Martin coverage you have been treating us to!)
Posted on 03-May-08 at 3:23 pm | Permalink
Reid wrote:
I too am a libertarian. However, libertarianism is about minimal government intrusion, not zero government intrusion.
In the case of protecting workers I think this is one area where the government should have some intervention. I do not believe it’s ok for any organization to discriminate for any reason with respect to employees. The employer being a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim organization is irrelavent. If you’re an employee you’re protected by labour standards; period.
Volunteers are another matter. If this organization wants to set a moral code it should have all volunteers. Simple.
The issue of government funding is seperate from what I was arguing. Neither issue negates the other. I just wanted to give my arguement as to why Coren was wrong. And I do agree that if the government funds this group they also have a right to impose standards on how they operate.
Posted on 03-May-08 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Reid,
What makes you libertarian? Why is “minimal government intrusion” good? What makes government minimal (as opposed to maximal) anyway? Can government intrusion be measured?
I believe you should have the freedom to refuse employment/volunteering or cutomer service to anybody you want for whatever reason. [Outside of an individual person’s preference, the distinction between between “volunteering” and “employment” is only administrative.]
Matthew,
I think that Christian Horizons should not take contracts from the Ontario government so that they can take the moral high road and independently practice what they preach.
Real Conservative,
I believe your comments about Michael Coren’s ancestry are obnoxiously foul and you are deliberately trolling with the intent to depict “conservatives” as racists.
Furthermore, it is not fair to call them a charity if their funding comes from tax-payers who have no choice over where their money goes.
Posted on 05-May-08 at 7:01 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
CA: What are they preaching that would not allow them to take a government contract back in the 1980s? Again, I press that it’s “buyer beware” and CH was a seller of services.
Reid: I understand your libertarian leanings and respect your thoughtful opinions on this matter. I think that the best way to present this, given that we have many values in common, is to suggest that old libertarian axiom that if government needs to be involved, it must because the free market cannot do the activity as well as the government can. In this case, I argue that the onus of proof for having the government involved in private employment practices must fall on those who see this is necessary (and I also admit, to the rest of our readers that, yes, this is challenging the status quo!). While cases involving homosexuals tends to bring out high emotions, if we shift the example to something similar yet different enough to depolarize the debate, it might shed a new light on the matter; in this case, what if a local construction firm stated that it only wanted to hire people over 220 pounds, a weight which obviously few women would be able to achieve healthily given their physically smaller statures on average. A good argument could be made that this was sexist, and yet the business has an obvious advantage in only hiring people who can literally pull their weight for the firm. Should the government be infringing on this firm’s competitiveness for political correctness reasons? Or is there another advantage that I am missing?
Next, I simply ask why volunteerism is different from a financial venture?
Finally, why does the government get special privileges as a buyer that other buyers wouldn’t by imposing on the seller after the contract is signed under which terms it might operate? I want to be clear here that I am not talking about the government as legislators, but the government as a public entity btw. While I agree that the government should be responsive to voters’ wishes, a private firm is not; it is responsible to investors and, indirectly, customers. If CH is willing to risk losing business with the government — and I think we all know CH would be as a matter of principle — is it not their right to take that risk as a free enterprise?
Posted on 05-May-08 at 7:14 pm | Permalink
roman religions wrote:
[…] charity out of our society as long as the government attempts to squeeze every vestige of Christianhttp://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/05/03/christian-horizons-corens-thoughts/MP Writes: Different faiths, but they’re all constituents The New Straits TimesTHERE was nothing […]
Posted on 15-May-08 at 4:46 am | Permalink
ThePolitic.com » Catholics help girl get abortion wrote:
[…] Catholics fire Catholic employees for un-Catholic actions, it is an outrage. However, when the state fires Catholics for un-Catholic actions, it is fine and […]
Posted on 19-Jun-08 at 5:12 am | Permalink