Important background information here.
We are now assured by the Prime Minister’s own words and his employment minister that what the attestation means is not as it appears (offending sentences in bold italics):
“Both the job and the organization’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”
There are at least three red flags here:
First: Anyone who has ever signed a contract knows that what is written has priority what is said verbally. If I have misread this statement to mean, “our church must believe, as part of our core mandate, that abortion is acceptable” (as well as the other abominations–you sort that out), so have all the other religious charities in Canada who hold to traditional understandings of human life and marriage.
But our leaders are telling us it is only the charity’s activities that matter. But this isn’t what is stated in the attestation. To sign it is to sign an abomination The core mandate of any Christian church is to be pro-life, whether or not they are actively engaged in outwardly visible activities. Being Biblically faithful is the air that Christians breathe, and there is no way the activities of the church can be separated from its beliefs.
So just as I wouldn’t sign any contract that differed so materially from what the other party says it means, no one should trust this government to keep their word. In another year when there is another issue, do we want this signed attestation brought out to show our approval in 2018 of these things? Once faith is sold, it is very hard to redeem it.
Second: The government’s attack on legal, registered charities must not go unanswered. These are not terrorist groups and are not operating illegally, nor are they advocating for law-breaking. To the contrary, they are advocating for changing the law to protect the unborn.
Besides being a dangerous move to trust the government on this issue, to accept the grant while it is denied to others on this basis is a breach of faith with those who are on the frontlines of pro-life activities. If we are pro-life, we must stand with those who are more active than we are.
Third: This government, as is the habit of governments, is expanding its perceived ownership of life-and-death issues. This is just not a pro-life problem but shows the government’s desire to politicize everything in life, and reduce the sphere of faith to one’s own person and in one’s church. I once heard an officer of the charities branch of the Canadian Revenue Agency speaking to a crowd of charity officers actually use pro-life activism as something the agency does not disapprove of.
It is likely that the Prime Minister would like to secularize all of society (as much of it was, while Christians slept), and to do so he would have to eliminate charitable status for all but atheist organizations. I do believe this is his end-game, and he has a lot of cheerleaders.
The Prime Minister’s approach reflects the idea that a tax break is a grant. This can only be true when the state is all, and all is the state’s.