No Land for God

What do you call a leadership group with no intellectual, educational or expertise requisites that hire highly educated people schooled in specialized disciplines and then tell them what to do and how to do it?

You may be able to think of a few names but one of them you would not likely consider is government.

I have often heard it said that two conversational taboos are politics and religion and if you do discuss one it is not to be combined with the other. From what little I know the separation of church and state that is supposedly in the American Constitution has in fact been misunderstood and misquoted, and the mutation has even leaked into Canadian ideology. My intention isn’t to argue whether or not the constitution has been misrepresented but to say that if government, which is supposed to be representative of the people, thinks there is supposed to be a separation, then why is it that churches are warned against being political but politicians think nothing of passing legislation that encroaches upon religion? A December 2008 Gallup poll discovered that 80% of people in 84 different countries, including Canada and the USA, thinks their lives have meaning and purpose and religion is important and makes a difference. Why would elected representatives of a clearly religious people pass laws restricting religious institutions and seem to be removing God from our culture?

Yesterday I attended a civic open house designed to explain new pending Ontario government legislation that will essentially force municipalities to exclude places of worship from designated industrial lands. From what I was told, the legislation has been downloaded to the municipalities and hired municipal experts are essentially forced to say “NO” to any religious group and other social group proposing to purchase and move into an industrial area regardless of whether or not the planning experts believe the institution would have a positive community effect. Is there something that our Ontario government has against community-oriented groups including churches that wish to occupy space that may in fact otherwise sit vacant for years?

We could debate whether this decision is based on archaic industrial age thinking or contemporary knowledge-based thinking but I will leave that to the experts who are already scratching their heads about that. What interested me was that during the question period following the presentation of the new legislation, it became clear that a move was afoot to keep places of worship out of areas that are available at prices they can afford. Since municipalities no longer set aside designated areas for places of worship, as they once did, that means missional churches would have to pay premium prices for residential and commercial property and be limited in their ability to build facilities suitable for the community work they do. When asked if it was the intention of the government to exclude places of worship from our communities, our hosts assured us that theoretically that was not the case, but after considering the obvious implications of the legislation, they had to admit that it appeared the legislation would likely functionally do exactly that.

I have respect for the men and women who hold public office and I pray for them on a regular basis. However it seems to me that according to research we are still a people who consider faith and religion important and as such it seems to me that our elected representatives would do well to uphold the values we espouse when proposing legislation that will undoubtedly undermine that upon which our country was founded and remains dear to the hearts of its citizens. When we sing “O Canada” our plea is for God to keep our land but I am wondering if we are heading for a time when there may be no more land for God.