Are they faithful or faithless based political religious freedoms?

From James Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas to Billy Aberhart and Ernest Manning and of course former Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, whose personal motto to "help those that cannot help themselves" and dedication to applying virtues from the Christian Social Gospel faith into building the foundational blocks of the Canadian Social Welfare state, we Canadians have a strong ethical, spiritual and religious sense of what is right and what is wrong deep within the national psyche of the Dominion. But today we see the shifting tide change politically from the conscientious to the careless in the ever merging area of state politics and religious freedom, involving the government into the exclusive sphere of activity of another entity, thus its sovereign authority, creating a symbiotic association that may evolve some entity that becomes entirely different. Instead of taking care of its own freedoms, rights and responsibilities that I am sure it still has much of and has done little about, the Government of Canada has decided to create an Office of Religious Freedom to protect those faithful abroad, while questionably not doing the same for those here, leaving those on the homefront faithless in so many ways.

The question is are we living in the days of faithful or faithless based political religious freedoms, ones that can be tinkered with and played around with in the backrooms, prosthetized and constructed by the private elite circle for consumption by the public mass society?

Not too sure it has come to all that, but as this new branch office of the Department of Foreign Affairs has been given a mandate by Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end the widespread and increasing violations of religious freedom, through principle and conviction, encourage the protection of religious minorities around the world so all can practise their faith without fear of violence and repression, one could see how this mandate seems to be stepping on the many toes of religious organizations who too have their own freedoms, rights and responsibilities to serve and protect in their own legal and proper way. While the fact remains that politics as a collective is secular, principles of the individual politician are religious, thus whichever religion one values is usually the kind of morals and norms that win the day, whether by transmission of act, speech, thought or vote in the House, no matter how much words of diversity, inclusion, and tolerance are soon after followed by actions of divisiveness, fear and hate become the norm. We must always be careful and wary in how we merge the philosophies of state politics with the theologies of religious freedom, making sure there is enough space to give each other the room to develop their own exclusive sphere of activity, to exercise its sovereign authority upon the collective matters within, to maintain our individual freedoms, rights and responsibilities without.