By Leslie Rosenblood
All Canadian charities must declare their primary purpose when they register with the Canada Revenue Agency; approximately 40 percent of Canadian charities exist for the “advancement of religion.”
The Church of Atheism of Central Canada applied for charitable status under the “advancement of religion” category. Its request was denied by the CRA, and this decision was upheld by the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal. It is possible this will go to the Supreme Court, but that remains to be seen.
The core of the decision is: “Fundamental characteristics of religion include that the followers have a faith in a higher power such as God, entity, or Supreme Being; that followers worship this higher power; and that the religion consists of a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship.” The Church of Atheism of Central Canada lacks belief in a deity, and therefore cannot revere a Supreme Being, and does not have a system of worship, according to the Court. (That Buddhism is eligible for charitable status while also lacking belief in a God failed to persuade the Court that the Church of Atheism should also be considered a religion for charitable purposes.)
The Court also stated that charitable registration is a privilege, not a right, so no Charter considerations come into play.
Mark Blumberg, a lawyer specializing in charity law, writes , “Ultimately the courts are not planning on changing the status quo ‘ In the absence of legislative reform.’” This is likely a correct prediction. In my opinion, removing “Advancement of Religion” as a criterion sufficient to gain charitable status is preferable to including atheism within the definition of religious belief and practice.
This article appears in the January 2020 version of Critical Links.
This write-up is completely misguided. You’ve either missed the whole point of the Court’s decision, or you’ve failed to communicate it properly.
The CBC article actually explains the decision correctly (though curtly). This write-up is misquoting it. The part quoted as “the core of the decision” is NOT the core of the decision. It is, in fact, something Rivoalen quotes as the TRADITIONAL way of determining a religion… before tossing it aside in the very next paragraph, and going on to do a more modern, more inclusive test. (That is explained in the second section of the CBC article.)
You suggest that that the appeal was denied because of the lack of belief in a “supreme being”, and that pointing out that not every religion has a supreme being “failed to persuade the Court”. That’s completely false. Quite to the contrary, the Court *WAS* persuaded that you don’t need a supreme being to have a religion. Rivoalen said the Minister was *wrong* to say that a supreme being is necessary.
So why did the appeal fail? Simply because the Church of Atheism’s Christopher Bernier was spouting bullshit. He basically put on a clown show for the CRA and the Court, babbling nonsense about how his religion’s doctrine is “mainstream science” and that the “Ten Commandments of Energy are sacred texts because they were created by a wise human being who consists of pure, invisible Energy and has acknowledged Energy’s existence”. He obviously didn’t take his own religion seriously (or maybe he does, but in that case, he’s just a nutter), so why would anyone expect the CRA or the Court to?
If you want a more thorough explanation of the decision, and why it was ACTUALLY bad for nonbelievers (not because Bernier lost, because, again, he was just putting on a clown show, but because he may have actually hurt the chances of FUTURE cases), Ian Bushfield of the British Columbia Humanist Association wrote a comprehensive piece in Canadian Atheist (https://www.canadianatheist.com/2019/12/a-person-who-represents-themself-has-a-fool-for-a-client/).