SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • De Las Casas: First of all a faulty premise cripples this discussion. It trips over nothing and falls into unreality...
  • Raymond Takashi Swenson: One makes arguments to persuade. Arguments based on a common religious belief are going to...
  • Kevin: Here are the truths from which we can not escape. SSM involves a pledge. It’s a pledge of committed...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: Tom Gilson to Nikolai Volk: “Wrong. Obviously wrong. Blazingly, glaringly, wrong....
  • Bret Lythgoe: I think that it’s fair to say that we have people on both sides of the SSM “debate”,...
  • Nikolai Volk: Okay, this could help clarify things. Suppose we did what I want the state to do, and not regulate...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Friday, May 21, 2010, 12:55 PM

    The Charter of Rights and Freedoms claims to guarantee all Canadians certain fundamental freedoms, including “freedom of conscience and religion” and “freedom of association.” However, following American precedent this country’s courts have tended to interpret religious freedom rather narrowly, viz., as the right of individual citizens to worship freely. Whether communities are recognized to possess religious freedom is unclear in contemporary jurisprudence, given the dominating influence of liberalism.

    Take the recent case of Heintz v. Christian Horizons. Christian Horizons is a more than 40-year-old organization dedicated to the care of mentally handicapped persons. Like many confessional organizations, it has a faith and lifestyle statement which employees are required to sign. Ten years ago an employee was dismissed for not living up to this statement. She filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in her favour two years ago, holding that a Christian ministry could not impose such requirements on its own employees if it served the larger community rather than its own members. On appeal, however, the Ontario Divisional Court in Toronto upheld the right of Christian Horizons to adopt such a statement. Or did it?

    The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada immediately claimed victory for charities across the country. Others were not so sure: Faith-based charity ruling too murky, experts say.  Even the EFC’s general legal counsel Don Hutchinson, writing in yesterday’s National Post, was less than favourably impressed by the ruling: Heintz v Christian Horizons: Solomon would not approve. So is religious freedom in Canada secure? Despite the Charter guarantees that appear to say yes, court interpretations leave the matter open.

    While we are on the subject of religious freedom, I will take the opportunity to call American readers’ attention once more to the important work being done by my friend Stanley Carlson-Thies and the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance in Washington, DC, which “works to safeguard the religious identity and faith-shaped standards and services of faith-based organizations, enabling them to make their distinctive and best contributions to the common good.” Given the high stakes involved, it deserves the moral, financial and prayer support of the larger Christian community. Right now we could use such an effort in the True North Strong and Free.

    Comments are closed.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact