This isn't really about all religious organizations nor about evangelicals in particular. If that was the intent then the authors of the recommendation don't understand charities and charity law, nor do those so fired up about it.
The specific proposal is to remove charitable status for those charities which “advance religion.” This is primarily churches, synagogues, mosques etc who have buildings for religious worship, religious instruction, pastoral and missionary work. So this would affect the gamut of Catholic, United, evangelical and the variety of Jewish, Muslim and beyond more formal worship related charities.
Many (most?) religious organizations which run food banks, do street work, do international development work, housing, shelter etc, would likely be charities under the other charitable purposes such as relief of poverty, advancement of education, or other purposes beneficial to community. While it is true that some churches/synagogues etc also run these programs, they don’t have to under the church incorporation. It is important to be clear what is at stake to know what to argue about and who to engage. https://www.canada.ca/.../establ.../charitable-purposes.html
The Notwithstanding Clause will be used by Poilievre at the behest of his pro life caucus members. And then by the pro gun gang. And then by the two-sexes crowd. And so on.
It is an abuse of state power to allow idelogical/ faith organizations to be tax exempt. Ending their exception from property taxes alone could fund essential housing,. Income tax could raise up the poor or pay down national debt depending on your politics. Taxing the poor to subsidize crristofacism is where today's conservatives are. This must end.
“Canadian evangelicals are not as across-the-board conservative as their American counterparts, and many are open to more centrist and even leftist positions on social justice, international development, and the environment”
I can’t help feel that this is a little disingenuous. Evangelicals may be open to broader views on these issues, but it doesn’t matter because none of these issues define their movement or their voting preferences. There’s no evangelical community out there saying “never mind anything else, this election we’re casting our votes based on environmental policies”.
On the issues that define their community they are completely incompatible with every party except the Conservatives ( and further right fringe parties). On both a practical and ideological level there’s no reason anyone else should be engaging with them, electorally speaking.
“On both a practical and ideological level there’s no reason anyone else should be engaging with them, electorally speaking.”
Just to be clear, you are proposing that political parties ignore engaging with the interests of 7% of the population? And growing, particularly among new Canadians…?
This seems like a perfect recipe for radicalizing large numbers of Canadians who currently identify strongly with their country and their communities. What do you expect the result of this to be?
I’m saying that if a portion of the population is fundamentally opposed to a core plank of your party, and that policy is not up for debate, that there is no point chasing their votes
Evangelicals, as a movement, will not vote for any pro-choice party. Period. If they’re not going to vote for a party, why would a party chase their vote?
It’s no different from saying that the Bloc shouldn’t bother putting any effort into convincing anglophone nationalists to vote for them. It’s so obvious most people wouldn’t even consider it a possibility
The NDP shouldn’t chase the vote of hard-core libertarians. There’s no way of gaining that vote without ceasing to be the NDP
The logic of your position is difficult to argue with. Parties can make any policy position a "core plank" and whatever those core planks are will inevitably exclude those who don't subscribe to them. However, I think there is a clear question of what the costs might be of making broad positions core planks that specifically exclude large numbers of people with religious commitments. To do so is a defensible position. The question for me - and the question you didn't address - is whether this is wise.
Canadian political parties used to carefully avoid adopting core planks that excluded people with identifiable religious commitments. This wasn't because there weren't lots of people who would have liked to make these exclusions or because there weren't political advantages to doing so. However, it was understood that to do so unnecessarily was inherently divisive and that the Canadian state was vulnerable to conditions of division.
Looking specifically at the issue of abortion, all major Canadian parties have been pro-choice since at least the 1980's. At the same time, these parties didn't see any inconsistency in reaching out to pro-life religious groups for their support and caucusing with individuals who held pro-life positions.
This changed roughly a decade ago. To me, this has clearly come at a cost. I'm curious though if you see this as a cost or if you see the marginalization of pro-life positions in Canadian public life as largely positive?
This isn't really about all religious organizations nor about evangelicals in particular. If that was the intent then the authors of the recommendation don't understand charities and charity law, nor do those so fired up about it.
The specific proposal is to remove charitable status for those charities which “advance religion.” This is primarily churches, synagogues, mosques etc who have buildings for religious worship, religious instruction, pastoral and missionary work. So this would affect the gamut of Catholic, United, evangelical and the variety of Jewish, Muslim and beyond more formal worship related charities.
Many (most?) religious organizations which run food banks, do street work, do international development work, housing, shelter etc, would likely be charities under the other charitable purposes such as relief of poverty, advancement of education, or other purposes beneficial to community. While it is true that some churches/synagogues etc also run these programs, they don’t have to under the church incorporation. It is important to be clear what is at stake to know what to argue about and who to engage. https://www.canada.ca/.../establ.../charitable-purposes.html
The Notwithstanding Clause will be used by Poilievre at the behest of his pro life caucus members. And then by the pro gun gang. And then by the two-sexes crowd. And so on.
It is an abuse of state power to allow idelogical/ faith organizations to be tax exempt. Ending their exception from property taxes alone could fund essential housing,. Income tax could raise up the poor or pay down national debt depending on your politics. Taxing the poor to subsidize crristofacism is where today's conservatives are. This must end.
“Canadian evangelicals are not as across-the-board conservative as their American counterparts, and many are open to more centrist and even leftist positions on social justice, international development, and the environment”
I can’t help feel that this is a little disingenuous. Evangelicals may be open to broader views on these issues, but it doesn’t matter because none of these issues define their movement or their voting preferences. There’s no evangelical community out there saying “never mind anything else, this election we’re casting our votes based on environmental policies”.
On the issues that define their community they are completely incompatible with every party except the Conservatives ( and further right fringe parties). On both a practical and ideological level there’s no reason anyone else should be engaging with them, electorally speaking.
“On both a practical and ideological level there’s no reason anyone else should be engaging with them, electorally speaking.”
Just to be clear, you are proposing that political parties ignore engaging with the interests of 7% of the population? And growing, particularly among new Canadians…?
This seems like a perfect recipe for radicalizing large numbers of Canadians who currently identify strongly with their country and their communities. What do you expect the result of this to be?
Not at all. Engagement is great. Welfare for fantists is harming the county.
I’m saying that if a portion of the population is fundamentally opposed to a core plank of your party, and that policy is not up for debate, that there is no point chasing their votes
Evangelicals, as a movement, will not vote for any pro-choice party. Period. If they’re not going to vote for a party, why would a party chase their vote?
It’s no different from saying that the Bloc shouldn’t bother putting any effort into convincing anglophone nationalists to vote for them. It’s so obvious most people wouldn’t even consider it a possibility
The NDP shouldn’t chase the vote of hard-core libertarians. There’s no way of gaining that vote without ceasing to be the NDP
The logic of your position is difficult to argue with. Parties can make any policy position a "core plank" and whatever those core planks are will inevitably exclude those who don't subscribe to them. However, I think there is a clear question of what the costs might be of making broad positions core planks that specifically exclude large numbers of people with religious commitments. To do so is a defensible position. The question for me - and the question you didn't address - is whether this is wise.
Canadian political parties used to carefully avoid adopting core planks that excluded people with identifiable religious commitments. This wasn't because there weren't lots of people who would have liked to make these exclusions or because there weren't political advantages to doing so. However, it was understood that to do so unnecessarily was inherently divisive and that the Canadian state was vulnerable to conditions of division.
Looking specifically at the issue of abortion, all major Canadian parties have been pro-choice since at least the 1980's. At the same time, these parties didn't see any inconsistency in reaching out to pro-life religious groups for their support and caucusing with individuals who held pro-life positions.
This changed roughly a decade ago. To me, this has clearly come at a cost. I'm curious though if you see this as a cost or if you see the marginalization of pro-life positions in Canadian public life as largely positive?
This is the REAL Sleeper Issue: tax relief and military support for a genocidal apartheid state committing a "plausible genocide"! https://www.foreignpolicy.ca/israeli-charities