Another Damning Critique Of John Baird's Office of Religious Freedom to Cut the Otherwise Deafening Silence

Prime Minister Harper gingerly shaking hands with Joe

Ratzinger. (source: CIC)

So I keep harping on and on - much to the annoyance probably of any non-Canadian readers I have - about this new Office of Religious Freedom that even Daniel Dennett has taken notice of and spoken against. (He keeps tabs on the situation up here).

But his post has zero comments - has anyone read it?  Is the site I'm pointing to a repost of somewhere else where he said all this stuff?  It really is a big deal.  Okay - why isn't it a big deal? Oh apathetic Canada... woe to you!

This time Dennis Gruending is sounding an alarm bell on his blog - which will be (mostly) utterly ignored:

Link: John Baird's Office of Religious Freedom.

Apparently, America - the supposedly secular nation - came up with the whole idea way back in 1998.  Well, so much for the First Amendment.  Oh well!

In fact, the plan is modeled on the Office of International Religious Freedom which was created by the Clinton administration in the United States in 1998. A common criticism is that the American office was focused almost entirely on the persecution of Christians abroad, and that it was used to create space for American evangelical Christians to proselytize in other countries. Madeline Albright, then the secretary of state, was opposed saying that the office in focusing only on religious persecution created a “hierarchy of human rights” — privileging persecution based upon religion over other that of race or gender, for example.

Albright's statement more is more or less identical to Dennett's argument against the office.

The government implicitly elevates religious freedom: If you have a special office for one [human-rights issue] and not for the others, that does raise a question. Why not for all? Why not have an office that promotes human rights in general? Why should you single out religion if you are not already willing to defend the rights of, say, women, or gays and lesbians, and so forth?

It would also appear that being a persecuted Christian would also help your chances of being supported by this new office.

Baird said that the concerns of the Office will not be limited to Christians but that, “Far too often, those targeted are Christians. Christians, in particular, face persecution in countries in every part of the world.” He cited Iran and Egypt as examples. Yet in singling out Christians as the world’s main exemplars of persecution, Baird and other government ministers seem prepared to use the issue and the Office as a political vehicle to reinforce ties with their political constituency.

But have no worries... it's not like the government are a load of creeping Fundamentalist Christian theocrats or anything...  Okay, I have serious questions about whether such an office could possibly be unbiased.

But have no fear, Harper's government (tm) set up a gathering of religious representatives to make sure this new office couldn't possibly be biased.  Read about it on Gruending's post.

Basically, they've got a Catholic priest, self-described as a friend of Baird and frequent guest at Conservative-sponsored events; the CEO of B'nai Brith Canada, a Jewish organization with close ties to the Conservatives and Christian right and two evangelical Christians involved with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

There were no Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs or Buddhists.  As far as I know no representatives of Native religions were invited either - a highly marginalized group both currently and historically (understatement!).

Oh and of course, no Humanists and Atheists - that just goes without saying.

Amnesty International - not invited.

Is it a hierarchy of human rights with Christians firmly planted at the top?  Yes, I think it is.

Do read more:   John Baird's Office of Religious Freedom.