As a Canadian, I’m curious as to the actual intent of this.  We too are supposed to have a separation of Church and State, yet our current government seems to have a right-wing religious agenda.  I would be a little less sceptical of this if it were called the “Office for the Prevention of Religious Indoctrination”.

In the article it talks about a similar post in the U.S.  I recall recently Rick Perry wanting to have a day of prayer in Texas.  Did the U.S. Office of Religious Freedom step in and say “Hold it, you cannot force your views on others”, or was it ok because this was a Chrisitan based initiative?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Actually as I recall, one of the groups sponsoring the Perry event actually supports the idea that the US First Amendment only applies to Christians.  Purportedly, it was “non-denominational” but in reality it was pretty evangelical.  It was sort of controversial, but not for enough people for it to make any difference.

I hadn’t realized we had someone for religious freedom, though now seeing that it is buried in the State Department, I understand why I didn’t know about it.  I’ve often thought such a post would be a good idea, as long as it supported religious freedom everywhere and not just that country’s co-religionists in other places.  The article makes reference to Coptic Christians.  While they are certainly discriminated against, so are plenty of other religious groups in other places.  To speak out only against discrimination in support of your co-religionists is to dismiss the idea of religious freedom as a general concept, and thereby undermine the rhetoric that is used. 

“Societies that protect religious freedom are more likely to protect all other fundamental freedoms,” Mr. Baird said.

This strikes me as something that is probably true.  As nice as it would be for religion to just go away generally, it is not going to any time soon, so it is probably best to support liberal pluralism in the meantime.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I agree with the previous comment.  As a Canadian and an Atheist, I think we have to watch Harper very closely.  See the recent book by Marci McDonald.  Here’s a quote from amazon.ca:
The Armageddon Factor by [Marci McDonald] shows how the religious right’s influence on the Harper government has led to hugely important but little-known changes in everything from foreign policy and the makeup of the courts to funding for scientific research and social welfare programs like daycare. And the book also shows that the religious influence is here to stay, regardless of which party ends up in government.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Thanks Helen, I will be picking that one up post-haste.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Helen -

Yes, religious influence is here to stay as ling as the word “God” appears in the pre-amble of our Constitution.

To my knowledge, only Québec has objected strongly to the pre-amble firstly because the mention of God is ambiguous in view of the multiculturalism which now characterizes our nation and secondly, because it does prevent a real separation of church and state, and as such is an immense obstacle in the path of the secularization of Canada. 

Also, Sara12 has quoted Baird as saying:

“Societies that protect religious freedom are more likely to protect all other fundamental freedoms.”

Countries that would not need our ambassador for religious freedom Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Uganda, Ghana, Zimbabwe, etc.

Need I say more?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

With a hightened interest on protecting religious rights one may postulate that Canada could look at adopting some form of blasphemy laws.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

We’re against religious freedom now?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.