Roger Varley has been in the news business almost 40 years with The Canadian Press/Broadcast News, Uxbnridge Times-Journal, Richmond Hill Liberal and Uxbridge Cosmos. Co-winner with two others of CCNA national feature writing award. In Scout movement over 30 years, almost 25 as a leader. Took Uxbridge youths to World Jamboree in Holland. Involved in community theatre for 20 years as actor, director, playwright, stage manager etc. Born in England, came to Canada at 16, lived most of life north and east of Toronto with a five-year period in B.C.
When speaking our isn't speaking up
When speaking out
isn't speaking up
I rarely revisit past columns and almost never comment on responses by readers. That's because such exercises often tempt responders to also revisit the topic and that usually leads into a ping-pong scenario.
This, however, is one of those rare times.
I had three responses to my last column regarding what I consider to be the tacit acceptance - or the deafening silence, as I put it - of the Christian community following Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' move to restrict chaplaincy in Canadian prisons to Christian ministers. (As an aside, I am also surprised by the lack of fervour by other religions.) I had two e-mail responses and one Letter to the Editor which appeared in The Cosmos last week.
The two e-mails pointed out that the Presbyterian Church and the United Church had both posted critical responses to Mr. Toews' decision on their websites. I would suggest that such action only bolsters my argument. If these churches believe Mr. Toews has made the wrong decision, why would they not make their responses loud and clear by taking their concerns to the mainstream media instead of tucking them away on websites that are likely to attract only members of their denominations? The original story was reported by the CBC, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, the Toronto Star and various other major news sources. It was to these same major media outlets that I turned in the days that followed Toews’ announcement, looking for responses from organized religion. The only story I found was one that reported on an East Coast imam's criticism. It wasn't until Oct. 24, just a week ago, that 17 of the 71 full-time prison chaplains signed a letter to the federal government - made available to the news media - asking that it reconsider the decision.
The United Church Moderator, according to their website, sent a letter to Mr. Toews objecting to the move. Did the United Church think Mr. Toews was going to call the media to let them know about the letter? Did the United Church think the media was going to check all church web pages to see if they had responded? By objecting to the move in such a way, the United Church may have been speaking out, but they weren't speaking up. They were whispering. The same goes for the Presbyterian Church.
Let me turn, now, to the letter which appeared in last week's Cosmos. The writer tells me I am wrong in several respects.
Firstly, he says a quick Internet search would show the responses I couldn't find and he quotes from one of them. However, he does not identify the author of his quoted response, nor does he say where he found it. So, as the letter writer suggested, I did a quick Internet search and found that the quote actually comes from a blog by someone called John Stackhouse. Not exactly what I'd call a major news source!
He then says I'm wrong in giving vent to my "hostility" in referring to religious beliefs as fairy tales. I have no hostility towards religion: in fact, I have probably interviewed most of the ministers now serving in Uxbridge in my Cup of Coffee features. Because I think religions are based on fairy tales doesn't make me wrong: it just means I have a different view of the world.
The letter writer then throws in the red herring of abortion, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of my column, but since he brought it up, suffice to say I believe abortion is a health issue, not a moral issue, and if a woman and her doctor decide an abortion is needed, it should be funded just as any other medical procedure is funded.
And, finally, he says I am wrong in saying the government is promoting one religion over others. If the government is willing to pay only Christian chaplains to minister to the prison population, what other possible conclusion can any reasonable person come up with?
It seems to me, the letter writer protests too much. Tell me, am I wrong?
