Those crazy Christians are taking over Ottawa!

In a new book, the Harper government is portrayed as a plaything of wild-eyed end-timers

by Paul Wells on Friday, May 14, 2010 9:00am - 354 Comments
Those crazy Christians are taking over Ottawa

CP PHOTO/Tom Hanson

In 2008, 2½ years into Stephen Harper’s term as Prime Minister, the abortion advocate Henry Morgentaler was awarded the Order of Canada. This bit of history pops up at the bottom of page 167 of Marci McDonald’s book The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada. And by the second paragraph of page 168 it’s forgotten, never to be mentioned again, because in the bizarre Canada McDonald spends the rest of her book describing, the extension of official honour to the likes of Morgentaler cannot possibly have happened.

McDonald is a former Washington and Paris bureau chief for this magazine. In 2006 she wrote a long article for The Walrus (that clause contains a redundant adjective). In it, she took an obvious and interesting fact—the Harper government pays a lot of attention to the concerns of evangelical Christians—and turned it into a risible fantasy: the Harper government is a plaything of wild-eyed end-timers who would transform Canada into a soul-saving factory in anticipation of the Rapture.

The Armageddon Factor is the book-length version of that article. Four years on, there’s a lot more evidence of evangelicals’ influence—and of its limits—within the Harper coalition. Was it too much to hope McDonald would tone down the excesses of her analysis and try harder to take her subject’s proper measure? Yes, apparently, it was.

“What drives [the] growing Christian nationalist movement is its adherents’ conviction that the end times foretold in the book of Revelation are at hand,” she writes. “Braced for an impending apocalypse, they feel impelled to ensure that Canada assumes a unique, scripturally ordained role in the final days before the Second Coming—and little else. That preoccupation with final-days preparations may help explain why nearly a thousand young evangelicals could gather in Vancouver’s Stanley Park, passionately calling for an end to abortion and premarital sex while ignoring the perils of global warming.”

After a while, you get used to reading paragraphs like that from McDonald. It’s a blend of screaming hysteria (“scripturally ordained role in the final days”) linked to something that probably actually happened (evangeli­cals in Stanley Park) over an exquisitely equivocal footbridge of maybe-words. Ambient madness “may help explain” calls for an end to abortion. So could, oh I don’t know, opposition to abortion. As for the loony kids’ insistence on “ignoring the perils of global warming,” it’s even worse than that. The Stanley Park protesters also failed to say a word about slavery, apartheid, Kenny G or the infield-fly rule. Don’t you get it? They’re evil.

But how influential are evangelicals? Here McDonald bobs and weaves a bit. She admits her so-called Christian nationalists are only “one faction,” before declaring it has “gained influence out of all proportion to its numerical heft.” From there it’s only a short step along the maybe-word footbridge to warning that the end-timers are about to take over. “The degree to which they succeed in prevailing over policy may depend”—ding ding ding—“on whether Canadians wake up to the realization that slowly, covertly, the political process is being co-opted by an extremist vision of Christianity—one ultimately shaped by what I call ‘the Armageddon factor.’ ”

I will spare you a detailed explanation of this Armageddon factor, except to note that the numbers 7 and 28 appear on the book’s cover and that, when McDonald finally explains their significance, it will turn your brain to oatmeal. I’ll note only that McDonald offers numerous sketches of devout and earnest evangelicals whose influence she continues, after four years of research, to have trouble demonstrating. All the favourites from her Walrus article are back. The guy who landed an invite, on the day of Harper’s first Throne Speech, to “a prestigious luncheon in the parliamentary dining room convened by Sen. Anne Cools.” The guy who became a big-time Hill insider during “six years as an executive assistant to former Reform/Alliance MP Reed Elley.” Here’s a bona fide Ottawa insider tip: Anne Cools and Reed Elley aren’t clout. It’s odd to read a book about power and religion in Harper’s Ottawa that mentions Stockwell Day more than 30 times, Jason Kenney only seven times and Guy Giorno twice while reserving a chapter for some guy who opened a creationism museum in southern Alberta.

But McDonald is out to fit data to conclusions, not the other way around. She calls Harper’s tendency to end speeches with “God bless Canada” an “aberration,” and explicitly contrasts such gaudy godliness with the styles of Pierre Trudeau and Lester Pearson. Really? Trudeau’s 1982 Constitution Act recognizes “the supremacy of God” in its first line. When the Maple Leaf flag first flew in 1965, Pearson said the day would be remembered “if our nation, by God’s grace, endures a thousand years.” Which nation? “A land of decent God-fearing people,” Pearson said, before concluding, “God bless Canada!”

People who believe in God and vote their beliefs often work hard. That makes them a potent ingredient in any political coalition anywhere. They win some and lose some. Always have, always will. These days they win more than they used to. They still lose a lot. A keen eye for the real weight of things will come in handy, if someone ever tells their story.

Bookmark and Share
  • Ariadne

    I am not a religious person, but I could not understand why people of faith are demonized and considered uneligible to run for office. As long as their policies are geared towards everybody and not only on some special interest groups, then there should be no problem. I would rather have the government get out of the business of funding any special interest group and concentrate on governing. Let special interest groups find funding themselves and allocate those funding on things that matters like education and health. I am a woman but question why many of those who owns up to representing women( or feminists) are on the bitchy side. Can we have more feminist representatives that behave more like women instead of what we are mostly having right now?

    • Holly Stick

      If you are non-religious, why aren't you complaining about the religious being a special interest group? So do you agree with making churches pay taxes?

      Are you suggesting women should be submissive? Sounds like fundamentalist religion to me.

    • Habitant

      ''As long as their policies are geared towards everybody'' you say…

      How is insisting on anti-abortion laws ''for everybody''? Many women have sought this procedure for intensely personal and important reasons. Many others are supportive of that choice (the polls seem to indicate a near even split on that topic). Such laws would not be geared towards ''everybody''.

      How is denying gays the right to marry or the right to adopt a policy for ''everybody''? Many gays, some that I know, have re-energized my views on marriage, a view tainted by many fellow straight people I have known (but alas, I am still flat out against marriage, for all). I have also known some gay people to be excellent parents (i have known both, fathers and mothers who are gay). How is excluding them from these joys of life for ''everybody''?

      Aye, i am an ''atheist'', an ''antitheist'', whatever… And, i would not want my children spending their days at a Christan Youth Centre (sometimes, parents ought to be pro-active in protecting their children from abuse)… How is directing my hard earned tax dollar towards a multi-million dollar Youth for Christ Centre a policy for ''everybody''?
      (on the YFC Centre – I'll give, if I get in return… If I decide to raise children in Manitoba, you best make damn sure they have access to complete education in french, as it would be their constitutional right and, according to the wishes of all their ancestors (dating as far back as pre-Confederation).

      Unfortunately, seldom are the policies promoted by Christian neo-conservative politicians policies for ''everybody''.

  • BJB

    Hope it's not sour grapes, Paul. Marci's been ahead of the pack on this theo-con business for some time. Harper makes no secret of the importance of the religiously-inclined to Tory electioneering. He's less candid about the extent to which religious beliefs influence government policy. Outside of your reporting and Marci's, the issue has hardly been explored. More light needs to be shed on the Harper government's relationship with the religious right and its impact. Is Harper's support for Israel, for example, less about winning Jewish voters than Christian ones enraptured in prophesies of Armageddon?

  • M Newton

    A democracy means that we must vote for the candidate that best represents our views. If that is a Christian then he gains power in this country. I find it difficult to understand the uninformed antagonism towards people of faith. In my own youth I once felt that people of faith weren,t too bright. I know differently now. many mensa typesand successful people hold their religious beliefs very strongly. I myself am agnostic but people like Marci are very shallow thinkers if the presume they know better than others based on misinformation.

  • bugzy

    Hey wilson! what makes you an expert on all topics regardless of what they are besides being a brown nosed Con puppet?

    You like to hand out insults so expect some back.

    • barry

      ooooh, good one. you showed him, mister!

  • s0459054

    Spot on. I'm an agnostic secularist, but I remember feeling quite embarrassed at that article when it was published (though its absurdity made it engaging enough to endure its length; I actually read the whole thing).

  • Garry G

    Why is it that the right to kill babies is always so important to "progressives"? And is it progress to reward criminality. What exactly are we progressing towards? In a society where criminality, laziness, sloth & immorality are rewarded or advocated for by the political elite class and its institutions.

  • gondwana

    i'll believe whatever i want and i don't need you telling me otherwise, just who do you think you are? i don't give a dam if your the gayest person alive, it makes no difference to me and I don't care. but you sir, have turned into the very thing that you seem to hate so much, an intolerent homo-bully! constantly yelling about how gay you are and how persecuted you are, give it a rest! did it ever occur to you that the vast majority of people don't care about you or gay people in general, and mabey you get a backlash because you keep yelling in peoples faces and telling them how bigoted they are. if we granted you a little medal "queer of the year", would that shut you up?

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/macdonaldbank1 MACDONALDBANK1

      After being a speech-writer for The Rt. Honourable Brian Mulroney when he was Opposition Leader and thereafter standing up our rights … I take that as a compliment!

    • C Owen

      Good on you, gondwana – possibly speaking for many fed-up Canadians, who keep tolerating this nonsense!

  • C_eh_N_eh_D_eh

    macdonaldbank1,

    What kind of game are you playing? You are the poster grantdude1 who posted the same crap in the Vancouver Sun. I recognize what you said about being " I am a son of a…."

  • Frank, Toronto

    Does it occur to many posters here or indeed to Marci McDonald that the democratic traditions of Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., all came into being and developped while these societies were overwhelmingly Christian? Is there some kind of atheist alternative somewhere that achieved better? The 20th century gave us one living hell after another that was developped by atheistic Communists who believed they were highly advanced and had much better ideas that their fellow citizens. This includes, National Socialist Adolph Hitler who actively encouraged German citizens to abandon Christianity for pre-Christian Nordic Myth. Communists (eventually) disapproved of Hitler but he was no right-winger, he was a man of the left just like all the major 20th century monsters. But the "Christian Right" is a threat to democracy is it? Leftists are, were and always will be the main threat to freedom and democracy and it's important for Canadians to be ever-vigilant of their activities and not be afraid to challenge their propaganda.

  • Frank, Toronto

    The main threat to democracy in Canada and in the West, generally is the crazed violence-loving Left. They are the ones who don't respect democracy and feel entitled to use murder and mayhem to disrupt the work of duly-elected governments, witness the recent riots in Greece, the riots that are staged at every G20 meeting, etc. The airheads who wear Che Guevera t-shirts should be treated with the same contempt as those who might wear Hitler t-shirts. The fact that leftists routinely glorify the memory of a thug who used mass murder to help create a totalitarian state says a lot about who the real threat to democracy is. Why doesn't Marci McDonald write a book about that? Too complicated?

    • Holly Stick

      When's the last time you saw anyone wearing a Che Guevera T-shirt? Thirty years ago?

      Shame on you for all your lies and wild accusations.

    • The Real Jan

      And they accuse MacDonald of bring hysterical? Get a grip, Frank.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Memi_S Memi_S

    God save us from the phenomenon of rising influence of the evangelical ideology in Canadian politics. It was devout belief that Politics in Canada were divorced from Religion. We should have an official secularism policy as we do a Multiculturalism policy in this country. It is of absolute and utmost concern of each and every thinking and voting Canadian to find out the source of a party's power as it is that powerful interest group (Christian fundies) that are pulling the levers of power so close to Mr. Harper. But please explain to me if you can, why should we go on to spend over $25 billion of our taxes on a foreign war to bring equality to womenfolk there and rescue them from the brutal neanderthal Taliban, when, in fact, we've witnessed the Taliban on our Hill recently. They're here already….why fight them?

    Thinking Canadian voters (not an oxymoron) should be rushing out to buy Marci McDonald's perceptively timely new book. It's truly a shame that Canada is becoming closely aligned to the Bushian policies of the past. We've always been a fair people–the land of Tommy Douglas, good ole Dief (the CIA forced him to scrap Avrow with misrepresentations), Pearson Nobel Peace Prize winner, Trudeau, Joe Clark, Stephen Lews….Harper belongs south of the border. Trying to transplant these fundamentalist policies up here will NOT work! God Bless Marci!

    Thank you for a most informative and fair comment….

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Who ever said she isn't a talented writer? That's not what I mean by "hack" . She uses her writing skills to mask the deficiencies in her argument. She fits data to predetermined conclusions, she crafts shabby distortions in order to make boring things seem terrifying, and her "studies" of current events seem riddled with gross overstatement and comical hysteria. If she's not actually a hack, she's sure doing a good job faking it.

    (Pst. Hacks win prizes, too)

    • Dot

      You have a very selective memory, or one that seems to blow with the prevailing wind wind. While you currently enjoy Coyne's smackdown of Pauline Marois, if present circumstances provide any precedent, she will withdraw, and in turn smackdown someone else in a similar manner. It's called projection.

      Remember writing this?

      Coyne wins this round, knocking Wells off his feet with a right hook and a blast of reality.
      http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/22/hard-right-har…

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        You have a very selective memory, or one that seems to blow with the prevailing wind wind.

        Fer cryin' out loud, Dot. By "blow with the prevailing wind wind", you seem to be accusing me of being inconsistent. Why don't you spell out, clearly and succinctly, how what I wrote then is inconsistent with what I'm writing now.

        • Dot

          It should be fairly obvious shouldn't it, CR? You were critical of Wells then, supporting what AC said about his work on Harpers hard right turn, and now you have flipped, completely supportive of him as he basically does the same thing to MM as AC did to him.

          Whatever currently best supports your partisan bias. Compare that with my stance. I have been completely consistent with my scepticism and criticism of Wells' hypothesis since I started paying attention to this R&D stuff. Yeah, I fall into the camp that thinks he has grapes up his nose.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Actually, I was being perfectly consistent. With Wells's "Hard Right Turn" piece, I believed that Wells was overstating the influence of social conservatives on government policy, and reading too much into the significance of a few "baubles" (as Coyne put it) intended to placate this segment of Harper's base.

            In this case, I agree with Wells's critique of McDonald for her "risible fantasy" that "the Harper government is a plaything of wild-eyed end-timers who would transform Canada into a soul-saving factory in anticipation of the Rapture."

            Where's the inconsistency? Both times, I'm being critical of arguments that I believe overstate the influence of the religious right within the current government.

          • Dot

            MM is doing exactly the same thing as Wells (and some may argue she did it first in Walrus), it's simply a matter of degree. You can't label one a "third rate hack" and the other a "respectable journalist" ESPECIALLY when you are measuring them on exactly the same subject.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            it's simply a matter of degree

            Well, that's just it. It's my subjective opinion that Wells is at least twenty times the journalist that McDonald is. The difference is that Wells, unlike McDonald, doesn't rely on distortions, gobsmacking hyperbole, and cheap rhetorical tricks to arrive at his conclusions. Also, Wells is willing to reexamine his evidence and assumptions, as he seems to have done (at least partly) since the HRT piece.

          • Dot

            "Yeesh."

  • Mtl Born

    Tell the truth Paul. Did you sleep with her, she scorned you and now you hate her?

    You know, I read lots of articles like this one back in the late 80s. Ie the so-called intelligent class dismissed the rise of the fundamentalist Christian as ever playing a significant role in American politics. Boy were they wrong.

    I have not read this book, but I did read her article in Walrus. You miss the point Mr. Wells. The bible thumpers are patient and persistent. Like their American counterparts who took their time gaining strongholds by convincing school teachers that they should be voting against unions and pension plans because of morality issues. (What's the Matter with Kansas) Canadians too are now being broken down into single issue constituencies.

    Jews are voting for Harper because of his "stance on Israel." (Based upon his Fundamentalist Christian ideologies!) The fact that all his other policies go against what Jews have always stood for appears to be irrelevant.

    You were obviously annoyed by this book, but dismissing her theories and observations about what is happening in this country is somewhere between arrogant and naive.

    I for one have been watching Harper since day 1 and feel like I am living in a Deja-vu of my college years. I think Marci MacDonald is saying what more journalists need to be saying. But like "the intelligencia" of America in the 80s and 90s you can't see beyond your noses and tiny spheres of influence.
    Wake up Wells.

  • Frank, Toronto

    This book is proof that the lunatic Canadian left will stop at nothing to try to destroy anyone that gets in the way of their Socialist agenda. One day it's Evangelical Christians being demonized in this book, the next day, it's Jews being demonized at "Israeli Apartheid Week" at many universities, businesss people of any kind are always devils for wanting to keep some of their money and not being "social activist" parasites like Jack Layton. It's time to start hitting back at the Canadian left and not be afraid to demolish their icons. I'm glad that more and more people know about Tommy Douglas' university thesis in favour of eugenics. It's too bad that not enough people realize how much the NDP did during the cold war to try to take Canada out of NATO and NORAD which made them essentially collaborators with the Soviet dictatorship of that era. It's time they were challenged on why they insist on economic policies that they know perfectly well actually increase unemployment and thus poverty. Even many Conservatives give them a pass as being well-meaning but misguided. They are from from well-meaning.

  • No NDP

    She's nuts. Christian churches are folding their doors right, left and centre. And the rapture nonsense is a concept entertained only by a few ultra-conservative Christians. This lady is spewing pure weapons grade ballonium, and is using her pulpit to politically correct anyone who may have a different opinion than jack boot pro abortion feminists.

  • Marushka

    Those who believe that Armageddon is near at hand are extremely dangerous because they have no reason to worry about the real problems of climate change, air and water pollution, overpopulation, extinction of plant and animal species, etc. … they're just wating for/wanting the world to end.
    These people are very well organized and continously flood the governments here and in the US with letter writing campaigns, which are taken seriously by government officials. This is why the US has fallen prey to the fundamentalist Christians for the past 30 years.
    Unfortunately, non-believers and non-fundamentalists of all religions don't organize to do letter writing campaigns.
    How do I know this? I forced myself to watch Christian televangelist programming. I was astounded that people watched this stuff, sent in money, and believed the nonsense preached. I didn't realize they were important.
    Unfortunately, they are important, and the followers of these Armageddon-obsessed cults sway governments far beyond their actual numbers.
    Is Steven Harper truly an end-times believer? If so, Canada and the rest of the planet are in very deep doo-doo.
    The theo-crazies will take over the earth.

  • RB Glennie

    *There is no scientific evidence to prove any of the cross related bogus elements of christianity. Civilization goes back 2,000,000 years *

    Response, I doubt any Xian ever suggested that the death and resurrection of Joshua is scientifically proven.

    It is, in any case, entirely hilarious (and fitting) that the scientifically ignorant should refer to `science' when making fools of themselves.

    to wit -

    Civilization – life based in towns and cties – is several thousand years old, not "2 million"
    The human race is only about 250,000 years old.
    The emperor Constantine did not `fabricate' Xianity. It existed hundreds of years earlier. How could his predecessors actively persecute them if Constantine `fabricated' it?

    Get some education pal, you are sorely lacking any

    • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/macdonaldbank1 MACDONALDBANK1

      There were lots of preachers pre Emperor Constantine … just like the present pope who adds stations of the cross … and will oneday be hailed by idiots as a saint. Constantine was a wiz at marketing aka Walt Disney. Only problem Mickey Mouse isn't as hateful as that piece of shit pope.

      I suggest you become more aware of civilization in Africa which dates back 1 million years and before that.

      Religion has become a filthy word.

  • Igby

    "But how influential are evangelicals?"

    You tell me — Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Stephen Harper, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Oprah Winfrey, Preston Manning, Jesse Jackson, Oral Roberts, et al.

    Preaching to the choir, which is what happens in Canada, no longer needs to be a relentless assault of faith. It just needs a stirring once in a while to keep the faithful frothing in belief.

  • billwjames

    Harper's evangelical right-wing Christian hordes are storming parliament.

    If successful they well roll Canada back to the dark ages of the 50s.

    Bring back the horrible stigma attached to pregnancy out of wed-lock, hide the girl, send her out of town or walk her into a motel butcher shop.

    Its time to pay attention folks

  • Ariadne

    Rights for Lesbians and Gays should be supported and encouraged, however, parades and such should be privately funded. If we fund them, then why not say- other special interest groups as well. It might not cost us that much money looking at one group funding, but multiply it with how many groups – could be way substantial. Right now with the economic crisis and Canada's responsiblites inside and outside the country, we are looking at a deep hole, which tax payers and our economy could not handle. The way Ignatieff says it that we are a rich country and that we should pay for this and that, is so erroneous. Our tax payers are so over burdened that our personal debt burden and obligation is higher than most countries. This has nothing at all to do with religion but the necessity of economics. So many wishes, but minimal resources to go around.

  • Paul

    My father fought, and had his leg blown off in Holland, he never said much about the war.
    But he did say this: There were no atheists in fox holes. He was a catholic,lived as a catholic and died as one.
    the greatest thing he ever did for me was to teach me the OUR FATHER.
    Just say one Our father for your father.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/macdonaldbank1 macdonaldbank1

      Oh please; don't assume that others must have that bogus cult — dictate … how our lives are led!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SunshineCoaster SunshineCoaster

    Paul Wells sees some flaws in Marci McDonald's work, but has not discussed a single issue she raises in any detail. She is on the right track. Elected officials or those seeking such office are routinely given a pass for their religious beliefs and their membership in religious organizations that promote very regressive values. Paul Wells and other journalists like him provide cover for these officials by not challenging religious beliefs. For example Stephen Harper and many in his cabinet have membership in an organization that considers homosexuality the most abhorent of sins, even though Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives these people the same rights as any citizen. One only has to attend one of their meetings to determine that they act on this belief in their daily lives in very disciminatory manner. This organization has many other similarly radical principles that would discourage a majority of Canadians from voting for their members if journalists put some effort into making the public aware of these principles. I challenge Paul Wells to write an article for The Walrus or any other publication examining in detail the beliefs of the political tag team of Manning, Day and Harper and their colleagues.

  • waitamin

    "apocalyptic incrementalism". Is that supposed to be a new scary philosophical term? I say let these silly religionists talk all they want. The more they are heard, the less credible they become, simply because human beings are becoming more ilntelligent. The more informed people become, the less likely they are to be taken in by this garbage of biblical evangelism.

  • ken

    Just watch Rev Impe Ministries or a few others of the Christian Televangelist Right on Vision TV and you will not be so smug about this. They are toxic and anything but Christian… they are an active presence in our culture and should be watched carefully and never trusted. Macdonald is alerting us to a Tea-Party mentality morally equivalent to the KKK.

    • Ariadne

      There are always toxic in any society and religion, leftist, rightist and others, no one group is spared. It does not mean that the action of few will disqualify everybody in that society. Otherwise no one will be eligible at all for everybody will disqualified.

  • Phil

    What lack of tolerance! Everything we do criticise in other cultures is just what we see in this discussion. Did the Christian and Jewish fundamentals make any good contributions to the Canada, US and UK foundations? Be honest… why 4/5 of the world would move to theese countries if they could? Is it because the welfare? Or the institutions? Or the freedom? Would we take only the "good parts" and simply turn the back to their foundations?Look around…Be honest… why so much hate? Look at the posts… Hate, hate, hate…

From Macleans