Given the importance that funding for religious schools is playing in the Ontario election, we decided to look at the correlation between religion and our 18 SEPT PROJECTIONS for Ontario’s ridings.¹ The results have very clear patterns and help explain the parties respective positions on religious school funding, and offer insights into where this issue may help or hurt certain parties. The summary is below:

To see a complete list of ridings sorted by Catholic, Protestant, Other or None, click one of the following links.

Sort Ridings by (click one):
CATHOLIC | PROTESTANT | OTHER | NONE

COMMENTARY

Overall
Overall, 47% of ridings (50 of 106) are mostly Protestant, 38% of ridings (40 of 106) are mostly Catholic, 13 ridings are mostly Other (a combination of all non-Protestant and non-Catholic religions)¹ and 3 are mostly secular (i.e. no religious affiliation).

Mostly Catholic Ridings
Almost 3/4 of Catholic ridings (29 of 40) are currently projecting to the Liberals, while 7 are projecting to the NDP and just 4 to the PCs. This shows that ridings that are mostly Catholic vote heavily for the Liberals.

Mostly Protestant Ridings
A virtually reverse happens in Protestant ridings, with the PCs projected to win almost 2/3 of Protestant ridings (32 of 50), while 30% (15 of 50) are projecting to the Liberals and just 3 to the NDP. This shows that ridings that are mostly Protestant tend to vote Progressive Conservative.

Mostly Other Ridings
Over 3/4 of ridings (10 of 13) that are predominantly non-Protestant or non-Catholic are projected to vote Liberal. The remaining 3 ridings are projected to vote PC. The NDP has little support in these ridings. This shows that ridings that are mostly other religions tend to vote Liberal.

Mostly Secular Ridings (i.e. no religious affiliation)
The NDP is projected to win 2 of these 3 ridings, while the Liberals are projected to win the other. The PCs have little support in these ridings. This shows that secular ridings tend to vote NDP or Liberal.

Liberals
Over half of the ridings (29 of 55) projected to the Liberals are predominantly Catholic ridings. About 1/4 (15 of 55) are Protestant. Almost 20% (10 of 55) are other religions and 1 riding is secular. It is clear that the Liberals are counting on mostly Catholic ridings and ridings of other faiths.

Progressive Conservatives
Over 80% (32 of 39) of ridings projected to the PCs are predominantly Protestant. Just 10% (4 of 39) of those projected to the PCs are mostly Catholic and just 8% (3 of 39) are predominantly non-Catholic or non-Protestant — in both cases most of these ridings are only barely Catholic or Other. None are secular. It is clear that the Progressive Conservatives are counting on mostly Protestant ridings.

NDP
Almost 60% of ridings (7 of 12) projected to the NDP are predominantly Catholic. Two ridings are secular and 3 are mostly Protestant (note however that two of these three — London-Fanshawe and Beaches-East York — are only barely more Protestant). It is clear that the NDP is counting of mostly Catholic ridings and a couple secular ridings.

So How will Religious School Funding Impact the Vote?

I see 3 ways that the religious school funding issue could impact the vote:

1. Help PCs/Hurt Liberals: in close ridings that have high non-Catholic and non-Protestant populations due to support for extending religious funding to other faiths (i.e. shift from Liberal to PC). Examples of these ridings are:

BRAMALEA-GORE-MALTON
BRAMPTON-SPRINGDALE
MISSISSAUGA EAST-COOKSVILLE
DON VALLEY WEST
MISSISSAUGA-BRAMPTON SOUTH
MISSISSAUGA EAST-COOKSVILLE
MISSISSAUGA-ERINDALE
MISSISSAUGA-STREETSVILLE
RICHMOND HILL
THORNHILL
WILLOWDALE

2. Hurt PCs/Help Liberals: in close ridings that have high Protestant populations, which, along with secular voters, are most opposed to extending religious school funding (i.e. shift from PC to Liberal). Examples of these ridings are:

AJAX-PICKERING
ANCASTER-DUNDAS-FLAMB.-WEST.
HURON-BRUCE
KITCHENER-CENTRE
LAMBTON-KENT-MIDDLESEX
NIAGARA FALLS
NORTHUMBERLAND-QUINTE WEST
OAKVILLE
PETERBOROUGH
PRINCE EDWARD-HASTINGS
SARNIA-LAMBTON

3. Hurt the NDP/Help Greens (which helps Liberals): in close ridings that have high secular populations, since the Greens support a single secular system and NDP (along with Green) supporters are most likely to support a secular system (i.e. shift from NDP to Green). Note: Liberals are as likely to oppose extending funding to other religious schools as NDPers, but are less likely to support merging separate and public school boards. Examples of these ridings are:

OTTAWA CENTRE
PARKDALE-HIGH PARK
LONDON NORTH CENTRE
LONDON-FANSHAWE

There are, of course, other potential impacts, such as NDP supporters voting strategically to support the Liberals to prevent the Tories from winning (and thus implementing their plan to extend funding to all religious schools), but these probably have a relatively smaller impact than those listed above.

Conclusion
The overall impact is depends on how important the religious funding issue is to people. The PC policy to extend religious funding to all faiths may help them win a few close ridings (from the Liberals), typically in the 905 region, that have high populations of non-Catholic and non-Protestant faiths, if this issue is important enough to those voters. However, the PCs may also lose a few close ridings (to the Liberals), elsewhere in Ontario, that have high populations of Protestant voters, who are opposed to the policy, either because PCs voters vote Liberal or choose to stay home because of the religious funding issue. The Greens may be able to siphon off a small percentage of NDP votes in ridings with large secular populations, which might give the Liberals some help in a couple close battles with the NDP.

Notes
We did not discuss the Greens, since we are currently not projecting any seats to the Greens.
¹ The Census only provides data for federal ridings, so we had to use the 10 federal Northern ridings instead of the 11 provincial Northern ridings. All Southern Ontario provincial ridings correspond to the federal ridings.
² Of course, combining all non-Catholic and non-Protestant religions is artificial, but as the purpose here is to assess the impact of extending funding to all other religions, combining these allows us to see where this policy might have the most support. Other includes Christian Orthodox, all other Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Eastern religions and all other religions.

(more…)

(more…)

(more…)

(more…)

It’s that time of year again — you know, when people of all faiths get uppity over religious holidays, symbols and traditions. For example, earlier this week, a Toronto judge (Marion Cohen) ordered a Christmas tree removed from the Ontario Court of Justice because “it might alienate people of other religions.”

This isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last such incident. It falls on the heels of the recent removal of Christmas trees from the Seattle-Tacoma airport for similar reasons (the trees have since gone back up). In the U.S., Conservatives have come to call this “a war on Christmas”, which over-blows the situation in an attempt to rally support against “the progressive, secular left” (watch Bill O’Reilly for full details), but it does capture the sense of bewilderment people feel when a pluralistic society chooses to deny everyone’s faith rather than celebrate all equally.

I agree with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, who rightfully said that in a diverse society, we should learn about each other’s customs and traditions, rather than ask everyone to abandon them. McGuinty said:

“At Queen’s Park we celebrated Diwali a few weeks ago, as well at Queen’s Park we celebrated Eid. Next week I believe I’m participating in a lighting of the menorah celebration. What we’re saying is, let’s share in those opportunities, let’s better understand those celebrations.”

So, instead of banning Christmas trees, why not also celebrate Hanukkah, Eid, and Diwali (among others), in addition to Christmas, thus respecting the traditions of all Ontarians?

So George W. Bush decided to use his first veto in 5-1/2 years to kill a bill that would ease restrictions on the use of stem cells for scientific research. Apparently when God and Science clash in America, God wins. I’m sure the Christian Right feels quite strongly about it, and have convinced their troops that it is tantamount to killing babies. But, if we all held that position, shouldn’t we also ban contraceptives too? Where does it stop? Basically, what the White House is saying is that the medical community is immoral and cannot be trusted to enforce ethical practice.

Most distressing, this is a failure of democracy. A Republican-controlled House and Senate passed the bill. According to Harris Interactive, in 2001, 61% of American said stem cell research should be allowed and 21% say said it shouldn’t, a 3-to-1 margin. By 2004, 73% approved, 11% didn’t, a 6-to-1 margin. And while religion impacts the numbers, Harris concludes that “clear majorities of all religious groups we analyzed favor stem cell research”.

So why did the President veto the bill? Because, with his approval rating at dismal levels, George W. Bush needed to rally his base. And so the American scientific research community loses. No worries - the rest of the world will make the advances, and America will catch up when the Presidency isn’t hijacked by the extreme right.

Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies. L.A Times (not sure if you need to register, but it’s free if so).

Scary stuff. The gist is that a Georgia Tech student Ruth Malhotra says her “Catholic Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality” and is suing the school to overturn its tolerance policies. She claims it infringes on her right to religious expression.

I find such intolerance personally offensive and I think it’s perfectly within the rights of Georgia Tech, or any other public or private university, to create an environment that maximizes respect of difference (whether it be sexual preference, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class, etc).

I just fail to understand how someone being gay has any direct impact on someone else. Respect for difference is the social struggle of this century. That it offends someone’s else’s ideology is insufficient grounds for legal action. Until we reach the point where we can respect the opinions of others with whom we disagree — the basis of civility — we will continue to see these displays of intolerance. Intolerance is not a right.

edit: the quote should read Christian, not Catholic.

The Riots in France Illustrate How Social and Economic Difference is the Greatest Challenge of Our Time
By Gregory D. Morrow

There is a growing sense in some Conservative circles that the riots in France serve as a warning of the dangers of Canadian multiculturalism. According to their logic, the riots in France are caused by Muslims – that is, because of social difference. Their motivation? To reduce immigration and promote assimilation over multiculturalism. While most Conservatives don’t wish to turn Canada into a white- and Christian-only club, there is a marginal group that would love nothing better than to use the chaos in France as a case to overturn Canada’s multiculturalism policies. I think this is not only wrong in fact but wrong in logic.

Given the fluidity with which capital and labour flow across borders these days, it is clear that the single greatest challenge of our time is social and economic difference. By social difference, I mean the litany of political, racial, cultural, and religious factors that give rise to differences of opinion. By economic difference, I mean the vast disparity between standards of living. Let’s be clear: differences of opinion are not only inevitable, but also required for democracies to function. Where we run into problems is in explaining differences that we don’t like in terms of race, religion and culture. Yet, such factors are not necessary for us to have differences of opinion. Look at white Christian Torontonians and white Christian Westerners. Despite shared racial, cultural and religious backgrounds, these two groups have deep resentment towards one another. Race, religion and culture aren’t used as explanations because they are non-factors. Yet, whenever differences arise between groups with racial, religious or cultural differences, insecure people play those cards as explanations for problems.

So, while it may be tempting to believe that the riots in France are “caused” by “them Muslims” (with emphasis on the “them”), as some hard-core Conservatives would have you believe, the reality is much simpler and has less to do with religion than with economics and government policy (and French society generally). Some argue that multiculturalism in the source of the problem in France. I would argue precisely the opposite. There is a difference between having a society of many different cultures, and a society where many different cultures are valued. France belongs in the former. Canada (at least since the mid-1970s) belongs in the latter. Let’s be honest: if a white Catholic American moved to France, he or she would find it difficult to be accepted. The French are not easily accepting of those with different languages and values. So, it is no surprise that black Muslims from Northern Africa don’t feel they are treated as equals. France does not promote multiculturalism and the disrespect afforded to its new citizens is one of the chief causes of the riots. Listen to what the rioters are saying – you will hear that mistreatment is the chief cause of malcontent. Their concerns are not for religious freedom, they are for respecting basic human dignity.

Another chief symptom is economic. Unemployment is running at greater than 10% in France - more than double that of the U.S. and 1.5 times that of Canada. Yet, in the poor ‘banlieu’ where the riots have erupted, unemployment is about 40%. That is a staggering statistic. If you have 40% unemployment in any region in any country and it won’t take much to set people off. Under those circumstances, people of any race, religion or culture will feel left behind by society. Like with Hurricane Katrina, the riots in France have exposed the cold, hard fact of poverty beneath the shiny surface of progress. There is rising poverty in the United States. There is rising poverty in France. And yes, there is rising poverty in Canada. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen. The modern state is in the impossible position of needing economic growth to fund its own initiatives. To do so, it needs to work with industry to promote wealth creation. But to do so also means shifting a heavier burden on the least productive members of society. Real wages (when adjusted for inflation) have fallen since the 1970s and while individual taxes are held constant, corporate taxes continue to fall. In the past, government entitlements and social programs have been generally very successful in placating the masses, but in times of crisis, such as Katrina or the French riots, these vast differences in opportunity across nations are exposed. As these social safety nets crumble, it should come as no surprise if the masses rise up. This should serve as a warning to any policy-maker.

At best, it is nostalgic to want to return to a simpler time when people of difference backgrounds didn’t co-mingle. At worst, it promotes a global apartheid, where wealth and opportunity is segregated by region - where the world is divided into little boxes by religion, race and culture. The best chance for peace and prosperity is to ensure that poverty is not concentrated and that social differences are welcomed with open arms. Concentrated poverty, regardless of race, religion or culture, provides fertile grounds to raise the crops of violence. So, too, is disrespect. Canada’s multiculturalism policy discourages the use of race, religion or culture to explain social differences and social problems. Such a policy should be defended with the utmost rigour. But, as the French riots demonstrate in such tragic proportions, a great imbalance of wealth and opportunity will always fuel the fires of discontent. It is in this lesson, that Canadians should be ever mindful as our own social safety net withers around us.

Given the recent news that the NDP is considering ‘Faith and Social Justice Caucus‘, I thought I would dig up a piece I wrong a few months ago - it was largely written for an American audience, but it references the NDP and can apply equally in Canada…

April 27, 2005

Where is the Christian Left?
By Gregory D. Morrow

In the wake of the gathering of Evangelical leaders (and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist) on Sunday – calling for the appointment of social conservatives to the Supreme Court – I can’t help but ask: where is the Christian Left? As one parishioner of the Living Hope Church in Laurel, MD said: “Democrats in this country are seeking vetoes for people of faith.” Focus of the Family leader Dr. James Dobson went on to link the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision to Nazi death camps, claiming that decision has resulted in the murder of 44 million people – the “biggest holocaust in world history.” Such rhetoric contributes to a targeted campaign to erroneously label Democrats as anti-religion and Republicans as pro-religion (Recall the images from the 2004 campaign of Republican flyers on car windshields in Virginia church parking lots that claimed Democrats would ban the Bible). I think this is wrong in principle (because it turns Americans upon one another) and wrong in fact (79% of Democrats attend Church, according to George Barna, one of the leading religious pollsters). The Christian Left has a long history and needs to re-emerge as a voice for the Left in this country.

The Christian Left has been so absent over the past thirty years in America that “Christian” is now automatically assumed to be inseparable from “Right” (i.e. the Christian Right). Why has the Christian Left dropped from our collective consciousness? One factor might be attributed to McCarthyism. Beginning in the 1950s, the Christian Right successfully labeled their Left counterpart as “socialist”, on account of the Christian Left’s faith in social values. In an era of the second “Red Scare”, espousing social values was akin to “communist”, even though they are quite different. Socialism is, of course, an economic system (a way of distributing goods and services) while communism is a political system (one which is anti-democratic). By equating socialism and communism, the Christian Left was also equated to anti-democratic practices.

Part of this campaign, carried out in part by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), successfully labeled members of the Christian Left (with their social values) as un-American – a practice that today is being extended to a good portion of the Left, including many of those opposed to the Iraq War. If conservatives can label Democrats as secularists, and demonstrate how secularism is un-American, then it follows that Democrats are not ‘real’ Americans. This tactic was used effectively by Karl Rove in 2004.

This hijacking of faith by the Right constitutes a threat not only to the functioning of a democratic institutions (by discrediting the only opposition Party on the grounds they are anti-religion), but also the functioning of religious institutions (by equating religion with conservatives, thus driving the Christian Left from the Church).

This assault on the Christian Left is made even more possible by the complete absence of a ‘social democratic’ party in the United States – perhaps the only industrialized country lacking this important section of the political spectrum. In most developed Western countries, social democratic parties are associated with the Christian Left.

For example, Canada’s social democratic party, the NDP (the New Democratic Party), has traditionally been associated with the United Church of Canada. Moreover, the NDP is a credible social democratic party with a substantial base, having formed governments or official oppositions in 60% of Canadian Provinces or Territories. The ‘father’ of the NDP was a Baptist Minister (Tommy Douglas), who joining forces with another Party (CCF), itself founded by a Methodist Minister (J.S. Woodsworth). Today, one of its most prominent members (Bill Blaikie – the longest serving MP in Parliament) is a United Church of Canada minister. Thus, spanning across different Christian sects, the Christian Left in Canada has allied itself with a major political party.

What is interesting is that in Canada, the Christian Left has translated social (even religious) values into public policy. So despite Canada supposedly being a more ‘secular’ country than the U.S. (a lower percentage of people attend church), its public policies reflect the religious beliefs of the Christian Left. Thus, important principles of Christianity (“The community of believers were of one heart and one mind. None of them ever claimed anything as his own; rather, everything was held in common.” - Acts 4:32) are translated into public policy as universal public healthcare and universal public education, two pillars of the Canadian socio-economic system. Ironically, the over-hyped debate in the U.S. about the ‘separation between religion and government’ is not particularly pronounced in Canada. Debates about funding faith-based organizations are not present – the Canadian government has long funded faith-based organizations of all religious beliefs. Thus, I would argue that Canadian social values (and social programs) are built upon fundamental social values of the Christian Left.

By contrast, in the United States there is a deeply-rooted suspicion with social values, that is, with ideals about the common good (and the government’s role in ensuring the common good). What’s more is that conservatives have managed to equate capitalism with the religious Right and socialism with the secular Left. Obviously, one of the fundamental premises of capitalism is the action of individuals in a marketplace. Thus, by claiming ownership of capitalism (and labeling the Left as socialist), the Right has also staked claim to individualism (hard work, pursuit of happiness, etc) and individual freedoms, with the Left implicitly (if not explicitly) supposedly running counter to these basic American tenets. In so doing, conservatives have managed to make the link that conservatives = religion = capitalism = individual rights = democratic practices, while establishing the opposite association for the Left, that liberals = secular = socialism = anti-individual = anti-democratic practices. Thus ‘liberal’ has become a pejorative label that most Americans on the Left eschew.

This targeted campaign to discredit the Christian Left specifically (and the Left more generally) as socialist, anti-capitalist, anti-individual, and anti-democratic caused many on the Left to abandon faith as a central part of their platform, which has, over the past thirty years resulted in the gradual transformation of the South (with the highest percentage of people of faith) from Democrat territory to Republican territory. In its place, the Left has successfully used secular means – namely, legal proceedings involving Constitutional Rights – to achieve its social values. Given the ‘Biblical’ status (ironically) of the Constitution, progressive change has been achieved by so-called ‘activist’ judges who interpret Constitutional Rights differently than the Christian Right would like. This, of course, brings us back to the present day attack on the judiciary by House Majority leader Tom Delay and Senate Majority leader Bill Frist.

Political pundits like Bill O’Reilly would like to sell the current state of affairs in America as a ‘culture war’ between the “progressive secularists” and “traditionalists” like himself. By fusing ‘progressive’ with ‘secular’, O’Reilly fails to understand the history of the Progressive movement, which very much grew out of the Christian Left. This is especially true in Canada, where the “Progressive Era” as it is known in the U.S, was more commonly referred to as the “Social Gospel”. Thus, it is entirely possible to be ‘progressive’ (i.e. ensuring the common good) and be religious. O’Reilly’s misinformed campaign to link ‘progressive’ and ‘secular’ is entirely consistent with the conservative labeling machine over the past three decades.

By labeling the Left as ‘secular’, conservatives align Democrats with “big government” and thus hoping to tap into American mistrust of Federal power. Of course, the U.S. political system was established to effectively limit the role of government, particularly the Federal government (“Freedom is freedom from government”). This is reflected in the allocation of rights: in the U.S., all matters were deemed States rights unless otherwise specifically designated a Federal right. An interesting counter-point is Canada where all rights are Federal unless specifically designated a Provincial matter. In Canada, the Federal government was envisioned as strong and the provinces as weak, while in the U.S., the States were intended to be strong with a weak Federal government. Ironically, the two countries have “flip-flopped”: the Federal government in Canada is relatively ‘weak’ (despite what many Canadians might think) and the Provinces are strong (healthcare and education are delivered by the provinces) while the Federal government in the U.S. exacts much more influence on the daily lives of Americans than do States. So, despite the historical roots, the irony is that Canada has a weak Federal government yet has a stronger social system, while the strong U.S. Federal government (i.e. “bigger government”) has not ensured a strong social system.

Given Canada’s experience of delivering values of the Christian Left through the Province level, rather than explicitly at the Federal level, perhaps the most effective strategy for the Christian Left in the U.S. (and the Left more generally) is to simply let the conservatives have the Federal government and instead build a strong base at State levels. As the conservatives weaken the Federal role (i.e. weaken their own influence), liberals at State levels would become more important in delivering social programs. By all means, slash the Federal budget down to a few national departments and cut taxes to a minimum – and raise State taxes in order to deliver progressive social programs at the State level. Ironically, the Federal conservatives would have to trample over the States to overturn progressive legislation – and they would do so at their own peril. I am sure their own conservative base, let along the electorate as a whole – will not stand for running roughshod over States rights. But in order to build a strong base at the State level, Democrats must engage with communities at the local level and make a renewed commitment to include the Christian Left as part of its core principles.

Both the Left and Right are complicit in the present crisis: through a concerted effort to discredit their Christian counterparts, the Christian Right has co-opted religion for the Republican Party, leading the Democratic Party to abandon the Christian Left in favor of pursuing its political aims through a secular judiciary.

So, as we watch on the sidelines as conservatives lay claim to religion, to American values, to capitalism, to democracy and freedom, tossing their counterparts to the margins of American life, I ask again: where is the Christian Left? We need the Christian Left in this country to awake from its thirty-year hibernation and make its case to the people. And they need to do it from the ground up.

***

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. This is the judgment. Life’s most persistent and urgent question is, What are you doing for others?” – Martin Luther King Jr.