In the News: Fundamentalist America–A Happy Place

Fundamentalist America is a happy place.

At least according to a piece in today’s New York Times by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute.  Brooks argues that the stereotype of the angry, frustrated conservative–Adorno’s warped “authoritarian personality”–doesn’t match American reality.

In fact, Brooks’ review of survey data concludes that the happiest Americans of all are those who identify themselves as extreme conservatives.  Why so?  Brooks ventures a guess:

One possibility is that extremists have the whole world figured out, and sorted into good guys and bad guys. They have the security of knowing what’s wrong, and whom to fight. They are the happy warriors.

But conservatives in general tend to be happier than liberals, Brooks notes.  There may be simple, obvious explanations.  For instance, stable marriages and religious faith tend to add to general happiness, statistically speaking.  And conservatives tend to be more married and more religious than their liberal counterparts.

So, all my fellow outsiders in Fundamentalist America, the next time you need to go to your happy place, try a trip to Fundamentalist America!

In the News: Fanaticism, Freedom, and Building Code Violations

It has all the elements of a Left Behind novel: Government thugs storm into a Bible meeting.  They threaten to arrest the pastor and fine his congregants for praying together.  They appeal for community support by accusing Bible-believing Christians of “fanaticism” and “intolerance.”

And that’s the way the story is being told in some of Fundamentalist America’s news outlets, such as Glenn Beck’s Blaze.  It is the tale told by the Bible pastor himself and his wife in recent YouTube videos.

Of course, neighbors and city officials in Phoenix tell a different story.

In any event, this story is worth the attention of all of us who are struggling to understand Fundamentalist America.

In short, as Ray Stern and Sarah Fenske have been following the story in the Phoenix New Times, Michael Salman is battling his neighbors over his desire to build a church in his backyard.  Several years ago, he built a shed-like structure and began hosting smallish worship services there.  He has been in a battle with the city ever since about code violations and his right to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly.

As Alan Weinstein, the director of the Law & Public Policy Program at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law in Cleveland, commented in 2008,

“Say I just bought a 63-inch TV, and every Sunday at 11 a.m., I have 20 people over my house to worship at the church of the NFL,” Weinstein says. “There are probably football fans who do that every Sunday. And if they don’t stop that, they can’t stop a Bible study that’s meeting once a week, either.”

The city has insisted all along  that the issue is not about religion but about building and fire codes.  The neighbors, too, complain about Salman’s building plans.  They say his proposed church would be too close to a property line.  They say it would change the character of the quiet neighborhood of large homes and large lots.  But they also agree that Salman’s kind of religious zealotry left a bad taste in their mouths.  As Sarah Fenske reported in 2008,

When, at a neighborhood association meeting, one neighbor told Salman he didn’t like the plan, Andrea and Mike Julius watched Salman grow visibly angry. . . .

“It was clear at that point what we were dealing with,” Andrea Julius says. “I don’t want to say someone who seemed possessed, but not a cool-headed person.”

Tom Woods remembers thinking the same thing. When neighbors complained about how his project would affect their property values, Woods says, Salman was dismissive.

“He gave us a lecture on the fact that all of us were going to make money on our property, and if we were true Christians, we ought to be willing to sacrifice a little bit,” Woods recalls. “You can imagine, a few guys in the audience were all over him for that.

“That meeting is where the real animosity started. He made no effort at being conciliatory or cooperative. That really united the neighbors against him,” Woods says. “He was his own worst enemy.”

And Salman’s personal story and theology are somewhat different from what his neighbors might have hoped for.  In his youth, he was a drug-using, gun-toting member of a Phoenix street gang.  He served jail time for shooting up a rival’s house, nearly killing the rival’s mother.  In jail, he experienced a religious conversion.  Upon release, he dedicated his life to his new Bible ministry.  He embraced some beliefs decidedly outside the mainstream, such as the human-government-defying Embassy of God movement.  He also posted a series of sermons on YouTube, including this one in which Salman calls evolution “nothing but hogwash.”

But does that mean he shouldn’t be allowed to have a church in his backyard?  He doesn’t think so.

Does the fact that he wants to build a church mean that he can ignore building codes?  The city of Phoenix and his neighbors don’t think so.

Perhaps the most telling twist in this continuing story is that when Salman recently tried to turn himself in for some jail time, Phoenix authorities refused to arrest him.  As Ray Stern reported in the Phoenix New Times, when Salman reported to jail to serve a pending 60-day sentence, jail officials turned him away.

Salman had an easy explanation: “God granted me an injunction.”  Though Phoenix officials wouldn’t comment, the fear of bad publicity likely had more influence on their decision than the fear of God.

In the News: To Wed or To Bed? Blankenhorn and the Gay-Marriage Debates

What is a family?  What is sex?  What role should government and church play in defining these issues?

For the last generation, these questions have become trench mortars in America’s continuing culture wars.  Recently, a leading anti-gay-marriage voice switched sides.  Writing in the op-ed pages of the New York Times, David Blankenhorn declared, “I have no stomach for what we often too glibly call ‘culture wars.'”  Yet Blankenhorn has played his role as culture warrior.  Most famously, as leader of the Institute for American Values and author of 2007’s The Future of Marriage, Blankenhorn testified in favor of California’s 2010 Proposition 8.  This measure, like similar measures in states across the nation, defined marriage as a bond between one man and one woman.

Why did Blankenhorn change his position?  In sum, as he explains in his op-ed piece, he had hoped a defense of traditional marriage would protect the rights of children.  Instead, the cultural wind has shifted.  The issue has become one of equity and fairness for homosexuals.  As such, Blankenhorn hopes to move the discussion about gay marriage toward one that focuses on the rights of children and the responsibilities of parenting.

Defenders of traditional marriage have not taken Blankenhorn’s defection lightly.  At Public Discourse, Maggie Gallagher articulates her reasons for disagreeing with Blankenhorn’s change of heart.  Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage and a former colleague of Blankenhorn, insists that Blankenhorn goes too far in abandoning first principles about marriage.  “Marriage,” Gallagher argues,

“is the union of male and female, the way society tries to give a child the gift of his own mother and father in one family union. Gay marriage is part of the process of deinstitutionalizing marriage, removing it from a tight matrix of social norms designed to get this good for children; it is part of a larger process of reformulating marriage as a product of choice oriented toward the private goods of the people who choose it.”

At First Things, Matthew Schmitz takes Blankenhorn to task for ignoring the larger implications of the marriage debates.  Not only must gay marriage itself be fought against, Schmitz argues, but the fight must be kept up in order to maintain the rights of religious believers across the board.  After all, Schmitz insists, “As soon as we stop contending for the natural truth of marriage in the public square, certain people will try to strip us of the right to proclaim it anywhere.”

Similarly, Douglas Farrow accuses Blankenhorn of simply having lost his nerve.  “Regrettably,” Farrow notes,

“David has sought relief in a position that provides none. No one of sound mind supposes that same-sex marriage is being sought in order to bring sexual discipline to the homosexual culture (or the culture at large), or to enhance the institution of marriage and parenting. Whether it makes our stomachs churn or not, we must face the truth about the struggle that is under way and understand (as I have argued elsewhere) that no peace is to be had by capitulation.”

In all these debates, the culture-war divide in our understandings about marriage and sexuality becomes vividly clear.  As Blankenhorn notes in his op-ed piece, for many gay marriage supporters, the issue is simply one of human rights, of civil rights.  From this perspective, opponents of gay marriage look like nothing other than bigots and reactionaries, viciously clinging to outdated traditions in order to shore up untenable cultural vestiges.  For opponents of gay marriage, marriage is the bedrock of proper society.  Discussions about changing the nature of the marriage institution are harmful in themselves.  Furthermore, any erosion of traditional marriage will serve as the camel’s nose, spearheading the eventual abandonment of all sexual mores and traditional social bonds.  For historically minded conservatives, these frights are not mere fantasies.  Rather, the dissolution of traditional family and sexual norms has been the first step in the crumbling of every human civilization.  The fight against gay marriage, from this perspective, is nothing less than a fight for moral value itself.

With such a stark cultural divide, a public reversal from a leader such as Blankenhorn is truly remarkable.  He may say he has lost his stomach for culture-war battles, but I’m guessing Blankenhorn’s change of position will make him even more of a symbolic figure of great importance in these continuing marriage controversies.

Evolution in American Schools: The View from the UK

—Thanks to EB.

What Scottish people look like.

Our Man in Scotland informs us of a recent news item in Scotsman.com.  It seems some Christian-press textbooks have suggested that the Loch Ness Monster can help disprove evolution.  If the earth is really only roughly six to eight thousand years old, the creationist line goes, humans and dinosaurs must have coexisted at some point.  Relics like the Loch Ness Monster show that such coexistence continues into the present.BTW, the article cites as an authoritative reference frequent ILYBYGTH commentator Jonny Scaramanga.  In addition, the article implies that such notions are included in curricular materials produced by two leading Christian school publishers, Accelerated Christian Education and Bob Jones University Press.  I can’t confirm that these textbooks really contain such materials.  However, it is true that the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs has long been a key idea for many creationist intellectuals.

For instance, The Creation Museum of Ken Ham’s Answers In Genesis actively promotes the notion that human history is replete with evidence of human/dinosaur coexistence.  I visited the museum a while back and was struck by the emphasis on the ubiquity of the dragon motif in a variety of human cultures.  This served as proof, AIG contends, that humans throughout history have lived alongside dinosaurs.

Further back in twentieth-century history, the debate over the authenticity of the Paluxy River tracks   covered similar ground.  Creationists interpreted these fossilized footprints in Texas as evidence that humans and dinosaurs had coexisted.

Not surprisingly, mainstream scientists disagreed.  For mainstream scientists, the notion that humans and dinosaurs coexisted is simply impossible.  Even a rough understanding of the evolutionary “bush” of life shows that millennia separated the age of dinosaurs from that of humans.  But, of course, taking a Biblical worldview, it is just as obvious that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.  If God created the world, humans, plants and animals after their kind in Eden, then there must be some crossover between dinosaurs and humans.

With this understanding, it would be shocking for creationists to teach students anything BUT a hope that Nessie proves to be a plesiosaur.  If true, Nessie would bolster creationists’ claims for a young earth.

The SBC and Fundamentalist America

The Southern Baptist Convention is changing.  All of us who hope to understand Fundamentalist America should be watching very carefully.

We know it is a mistake to equate the SBC with conservative Protestantism, but as America’s largest Protestant denomination, one that has been firmly under conservative control since the 1980s, watching the goings-on among SBC members can tell us a lot.

Historians know that today’s political conservatism is a fairly recent phenomenon.  As Baylor‘s prolific Barry Hankins has described in Uneasy in Babylon, before the 1980s the SBC was dominated by relatively moderate leaders.  It was only in that decade that the SBC became the conservative powerhouse that it remains today.

More recently, SBC leaders agreed that churches could adopt the name “Great Commission” Baptists.  The goal was to distance the SBC from its reputation as an outpost of regional obscurantism.

The Reverend Fred Luter, SBC President

Similarly, as Ingrid Norton noted in a recent piece in Religion & Politics, the SBC elected its first African American president, the Reverend Fred Luter.

What does this mean for Fundamentalist America?  As we’ve argued elsewhere, it implies that the close historic links between racism and cultural conservatism may be breaking down.  It seems to make sense to more and more residents of Fundamentalist America to unite across the color line.  After all, with so many deeply traditionalist Americans from ethnic minorities, the ability to unite around cultural issues would mean a huge boost for the power of traditionalism.

All in the Family: The Westboro Baptist Church

–Thanks to EH

“God Hates Fags.”  That is the line that has attracted so much attention for Fred Phelps and his cultish Westboro Baptist Church.  This is the tiny family-based church from Topeka, Kansas that pickets the funerals of American servicemen and -women.  They insist that such casualties are God’s just punishment for America’s sinful ways.

ILYBYGTH’s attention was drawn to a fascinating interview with Nate Phelps, one of the pastor’s sons.  Nate grew estranged from the family church and has taken to public criticism.  Nate Phelps tells an horrific tale of cruelty and terror justified by dogmatic if erratic Biblicism.

We here at ILYBYGTH have only joked about Phelps’ brand of extreme fundamentalism.  We know it’s not funny, but we also feel that Phelps is not representative of Fundamentalist America.  Rather, as my new hero “Ivan Fyodorovich” perceptively commented during an online discussion about Nate Phelps’ story,

There’s some weird codependent relationship between Phelps and progressives.  I’m here a couple hours away from Topeka in Kansas City, where my sister and her family are heavily involved in an enormous evangelical community (which played prominent role in that revival Perry appeared at in Houston last year) that is activist in the same culturally conservative causes as as WBC is — opposition to gay marriage, anti-abortion, theocratic civil governance, and all part of End Time preperation — and she had never heard of Fred Phelps when I mentioned him a few years ago.  Because WBC is a non-entity in this larger world that is much more active, much more powerful and influential than WBC ever will be.
And yet those of us opposed to this worldview spend so much time on Phelps and so little time on the millions like my sister’s ministry.  The reason for that is that her ministry absolutely doesn’t want the sort of press that Phelps gets.  They are more influential without the press than they would be with it.  But Phelps wants this kind of press, though, because it’s not about being influential in achieving his worldview, it’s about the fact that he’s an evil fuck with a cult who loves the limelight.
The views that we despise in Phelps are views we rightly despise elsewhere.  And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t oppose him, really.  He’s noxious.  But he’s not really the face of the enemy.  In a way, he’s the face the enemy wants us to have of them.  We’re not helping our cause when we place some much importance and attention on Phelps.

In our opinion, Ivan Fyodorovich hits the nail on the head here.  Phelps’ WBC is part of Fundamentalist America.  Fair enough.  But for many outsiders, especially for many anti-fundamentalists, Phelps’ brand of Bible-based noxiousity ends up standing in for the real complexity of Fundamentalist America.  It does not lead to real understanding if we outsiders simply assume that Phelps’ pathology can be taken as a demonstration of the meaning of conservative Protestantism.  Please don’t misunderstand: I’m not trying to justify or dismiss Phelps’ angry sect.  We need to understand Phelps as one of the frightening possibilities of fundamentalism in America.  But we must not fall into the outsiders’ trap of assuming that Phelps is representative of anything except himself.

A much better place to begin would be with Ivan F.’s moving description of his family relationships that helps demonstrate a clearer picture of life in Fundamentalist America.

In the News: Can God Bless America at a Public School?

The storyline seems familiar enough to those who follow culture-war issues: a school principal bans the singing of “God Bless the USA” at a public-school kindergarten celebration.  A coalition of patriotic, religious, and traditionalist Americans protest this secularist monstrosity.  Conservative politicians show up to make election-year hay, and activist groups on all sides mobilize their fundraising apparatchiks to publicize the horrors of life in modern America.  Conservatives bellow that secularism has gone too far when kindergartners are abused in this way.  Liberals howl that American fascists have mobilized to overthrow the Constitutional wall of separation between church and state.  Whoever wins or loses the specific dispute, the two sides both walk away more confident than ever in their mission.

But in a recent controversy at Brooklyn’s Public School 90, this shopworn tale has included some unique twists.  The story from Brooklyn serves to demonstrate just how complicated Fundamentalist America can be.

Here’s the latest: the New York Times reported recently that Congressman Bob Turner led a rally in favor of “God Bless the USA.”  In the words of reporter Ginia Bellafante, Turner’s move was nothing more than a cheap campaign stunt.  Bellafante said Turner’s opportunism “inspires a wish for high-grade exfoliants to scrub away all the contact grease and grime.”

The school had been in the news since Principal Greta Hawkins banned “God Bless the USA” from the kindergarten graduation, briefly replacing it with a Justin Bieber hit, before also canceling the Bieber selection.

On some conservative blogs, we read that Hawkins is “A LIBERAL…….LIBERAL=TRAITOR.”  According to Andrew Jones of  the progressive Raw Story, Fox News reporter Laura Ingraham called Hawkins a member of the “angry left.”

For Turner, a retired media executive, Catholic, and mildly conservative Republican, this may have seemed like a no-brainer.  Who can lose a campaign for “God Bless the USA?”

But the story has more wrinkles than a breeze-ruffled flag.  First of all, Hawkins, an African American, has been the subject of horrific racist attacks since her decision to ban the song.  The New York Daily News reported she received letters calling her “a filthy, dirty, ugly subhuman gorilla.”  One of these letters included the vile threat, “Let’s hope that AIDS will do what sickle cell anemia failed to do, exterminate your whole simian race.”

And there’s more.  Hawkins claimed to have banned the song because its lyrics were meant for adults, not children.  A flashy New York Post article quoted some teachers as saying Hawkins objected to the song’s monocultural offensiveness.  But Hawkins is no Che-loving, Bible-hating secular humanist.  To the contrary, she is a Jehovah’s Witness, a denomination famously averse to patriotic demonstrations.  Anyone with a doorbell is aware that Jehovah’s Witnesses are an intensely Biblical denomination.  According to a Pew Forum study (see pages 44-45), The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society–as the group is formally known–is also a majority minority denomination.

Hawkins did not call this a religious-freedom case.  Rather, she claimed to want a more appropriate and culturally sensitive ceremony.  And Congressman Turner did not call this a religious fight.  He only wanted to take a stand for traditional American values and patriotism.

There’s another twist as well: among the kaleidoscope of conservative religion in America, there is a long tradition of enmity between evangelical Protestants and Jehovah’s Witnesses.  In the 1920s, the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University) published a series of books denouncing Jehovah’s Witnesses (along with Christian Science, Seventh-day Adventism, Spiritualism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and ‘New Thought’) as one of the most dangerous “Cults and False Religions.”  (King’s Business, August 1920, page 807.)  And, though this tone may have moved to the fringes of conservative evangelical Protestant thought, it is easy to find evangelicals who continue to blast Jehovah’s Witnesses for embracing a false faith.

With all these wrinkles, the story of God Blessing the USA at Brooklyn’s Public School 90 demonstrates the complicated nature of life in Fundamentalist America.  We see a Bible-believing public school administrator enduring vicious verbal attacks for her decision to ban a popular patriotic song.  We see politicians rushing to burnish their patriotic credentials, joining in an attack that has included depressingly horrific racist slurs.  We see groups of conservative, Bible-based religious people attacking one another more viciously than they attack the secularizing, atheistic, evolutionistic demons of modern American culture.

Whatever the pundits and politicians might say, this seems like nothing so much as a reminder that life in Fundamentalist America is not as simple as it may appear.  The trenches in these kinds of culture-war battles do not run straight.

In the News: Dinosaur Billboards and the Creation Museum

ABC News reported recently that Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum has launched a new nationwide billboard advertising campaign.

The billboards feature retro-style dinosaurs, and appeared recently in cities such as Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston.  Some critics have wondered why the ads focus on dinosaurs instead of God, or whether this equates to a ‘Flintstones’ theology, but Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis pooh-poohed such folks.  Ham pointed out on his AIG blog that atheists have long used billboards to promote their point of view.

In the News: Here She Is….Miss Fundamentalist America…

After six months on the job, Miss America 2012 has planted a flag for Fundamentalist America.  Announcing her outreach program to serve children of incarcerated parents, Miss America Laura Kaeppeler explained,

“I believe my life was pre-written and predestined by a higher power before I was born. … What happened in my past is part of that, and (being) Miss America is part of that.”

Kaeppeler was raised Roman Catholic, but has since become a member and leader of the Northside Bible Church in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  As the Religion News Service reports, one woman who has long mentored students with incarcerated parents responded, “My first reaction when I heard Miss America would be speaking was, ‘Really? They’re still doing that?'”

Apparently so.

And conservative Christian women seem to have an edge.  Teresa Scanlan, Miss America 2011, also seems to have been a committed evangelical.  As she wrote in her blog at the start of the 2011 MA competition,

During Miss Nebraska week in North Platte, I began a journal in which I recorded not only the events of each day, but also a passage of Scripture and my thoughts and prayers. At the end of the week, on June 5th, 2010, just hours before the final competition, I was reading 2 Timothy and chose chapter 2, verse 15 as particularly applicable to me. It reads: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.” As I thought about that verse and how it applied to me, I wrote the following prayer:
Dear God, please help me to be a diligent servant not only today but from here on out. Give me the strength and wisdom to accurately handle your word of truth and the diligence and perseverance necessary to be a worker who is not ashamed. I wish to be a shining light for you, a glowing example of who you are, and a grain of salt in a tasteless world. Whether or not this is achieved through a position, crown, title, or job, please place me exactly where you need me to be an effective ambassador for you. I am clay in your hands, your humble servant, willing to do whatever you wish for me in your perfect plan. I love you so much and thank you for blessing me so tremendously and bestowing such outstanding opportunity on me. My greatest wish is to exemplify your love through my words and actions in order to bring others to you.
Your Loving Daughter, Teresa
 That night I won the title of Miss Nebraska. From that, I know that this is exactly where God wants me to be, and He has a plan for each and every day of my life, not only this year, but every year. That was my prayer then; it has been my prayer these six months; it will be my prayer these next weeks at Miss America; and it will continue to be my prayer for the rest of my life. If I win the title of Miss America, I will know it is His will. If I do not win, and continue the next six months as Miss Nebraska, I will know it is His will. How incredibly calming it is to know that my life is in His hands!

No matter what happens, my prayer continues to be simply that I will fulfill His purpose in everything that I do. If you had not previously known my reasons and purpose behind why I do what I do, I hope you now understand what I believe my calling to be. Why am I competing in the Miss America competition over the next ten days? Because God has placed me in this position to show His love. Please pray that I might be able to accomplish this, and as always, please feel free to share your thoughts and comments as to how I might better achieve these things.

Well, I will not be posting until I return from Vegas, but stay tuned for all the details when I get back! Once again, thank you for your incredible support and encouragement; I wouldn’t be here without you!
To God Be The Glory,
Teresa
 
I don’t know much about the world of high-stakes beauty pageants.  Perhaps this embrace of biblical religion is simply another expected part of the princess package.  Or, perhaps, there is simply considerable overlap between those folks who place a high value on this traditionalist form of uber-femininity and traditionalist Christianity.  
After a little digging, we find that the tradition of Miss America and conservative Protestantism has even deeper roots.  Long-time host of Pat Robertson’s 700 Club Terry Meeuwsen won the crown in 1973.   Fox News’ Culture Warrior Gretchen Carlson took the crown in 1989.  I’m guessing there have been more winners from the world of Fundamentalist America who did not go on to such high-profile public careers.  Maybe it is time to change the name.  It might be a better fit to call it Miss Fundamentalist America. 

In the News: Jesus Shirts and ‘Hate Speech’

When does freedom of speech become offensive?  This week Elmer Thiessen at First Things offered some thoughtful commentary on a recent school squabble in Nova Scotia. 

In short, a high-school student, William Swinimer, wore a t-shirt for several days to his Nova Scotia high school.  The shirt proclaimed “Life is Wasted Without Jesus.”  School officials asked Swinimer to desist, since his shirt offended some of his classmates.  Swinimer refused.  The school suspended him. 

This is an issue that has been aired repeatedly south of the border as well, most famously with the US Supreme Court’s 1969 decision Tinker v. Des Moines.

As Thiessen notes, school officials agreed that students have a right to free speech.  But in this case, district administrators concluded that Swinimer’s shirt “unreasonably criticized” the beliefs of non-Christian students.  In other words, it was not the proclamation of Jesus’ awesomeness that was offensive, but rather the implication that anyone who doesn’t find Him awesome is wasting his or her life. 

Most interesting, Thiessen considers the commentary of Canadian journalist Emma Teitel.  Teitel came to this conclusion about the t-shirt controversy: “There is a great difference between cherishing a belief and wielding it like a weapon.”   

This case highlights one of the trickiest themes of life in Fundamentalist America.  Conservatives, like William Swinimer, often frame their public activism in the language of civil rights.  In this case, Swinimer insisted on his freedom of speech.  He claimed to be standing up against an anti-Christian, anti-Canadian regime.  Non-Fundamentalists and anti-Fundamentalists, however, usually feel that these claims are made in bad faith, no pun intended.  It is seen as something akin to the creepy National Association for the Advancement of White People.  In this understanding, claiming equal rights for a group that has been historically dominant is only a ruse, meant to squelch the long-stolen rights of authentic minority groups.  This seems to have been the conclusion of the school administrators.  Swinimer’s shirt, in their opinion, did more than express his religious beliefs.  It denigrated all other beliefs, including ones that had a distressing history of persecution in Canadian public life.