logo
Singer's upcoming performance controversial

Singer's upcoming performance controversial

As of this writing, Sean Feucht — the controversial right-wing and pro-Trump evangelical Christian worship leader — is still slated to perform in Winnipeg on Aug. 20.
Originally, he was scheduled to play and preach in Central Park. But the city refused to issue him a permit after determining it was not feasible due to the large number of people (2,000) Feucht claimed would be there.
In denying him a permit, Winnipeg joined other cities across Canada that either refused him a permit or cancelled previously-issued permissions to play in public parks and other settings due to his anti-COCID lockdown, anti-Black Lives Matter and anti-LGBTTQ+ rhetoric.
Jose Luis Magana / The Associated Press files
Christian musician Sean Feucht sings during a rally at the National Mall in Washington, Oct. 25, 2020.
In those other locations, Feucht found private places to play and preach — which is his right, just as people in this country have a right to invite him to perform. He might do the same in Winnipeg, too.
While his visit has prompted a lot of media attention, this is not the first time the controversial singer has been to Canada. He sang and preached in Edmonton in 2022 and Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa in 2023. But his presence back then didn't generate much in the way of media attention.
There are a number of worrisome aspects to Feucht's visit, including how some might be tempted to lump Canadian evangelicals together with his brand of evangelical Christianity. In fact, he is quite unlike the majority of evangelical Christians in this country.
Although it's true that most Canadian evangelicals lean towards the Conservative Party, many others vote Liberal and NDP. They are not at all like their co-religionists in the U.S., where about 80 per cent of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump.
In fact, I suspect most Canadian evangelicals would be very uncomfortable with Feucht's in-your-face style. That's not how the vast majority would conduct themselves in public.
It's also worth noting that, as far I can tell, Feucht was not invited to Canada by any Canadian group. He says he was 'sent' to Canada to bring his message, although he doesn't say who sent him. He seems to have decided to come here all on his own.
Before deciding to come, it might have helped if Feucht had done some homework about Canada. If he had, he would have discovered that Canada's culture and context is not at all like the U.S. While his Fox News style views may be acceptable to many in the U.S., they are not welcome by most people here — just like Trump's talk of Canada being the 51st state is off-putting to the vast majority of Canadians.
What Feucht also gets wrong is assuming what's true for him as a Christian in the U.S. must be true all over the world. It's the worst kind of American hubris, the kind that drives the rest of us crazy.
If he had done a bit of research, Feucht would realize his not being persecuted for his faith or beliefs. It's because of how he shares them. That's not how Canadians like to talk to each other over difficult and challenging subjects.
For proof, consider that many religious groups are also opposed to abortion and have views on LGBTTQ+ that are different from the majority of Canadians. But nobody calls for their services to be cancelled or prevents them from holding public rallies, even though they might attract protestors.
And why is that? It's because unlike Feucht, most religious groups in Canada that hold positions contrary to public opinion are respectful in sharing their views (even if a few on the fringe might be shrill in trying to force those minority views on others).
So where does this leave us? First, the uproar over Feucht should remind Canadian religious groups about the importance of respectful dialogue and active listening when it comes to difficult and controversial issues. Everyone has a right to our opinions, as long as they don't venture into the area of hate, but we also have an obligation to hear each other and find ways to live together peacefully in this land.
Sundays
Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba.
Second, Feucht may believe he is coming to bring 'revival' to Canada, but the opposite will likely happen. Sure, there may be a few Christians who like what he says. But research consistently shows that one of the main reasons people leave Christianity is due to the harsh, judgemental, anti-LGBTTQ+ and pro-Trump positions taken by many evangelical Christians in the U.S. — the same ones that Feucht touts and represents.
His coming, in other words, may cause more people to decide against Christianity than to be interested in it.
But maybe Feucht's coming to Canada will end up being a gift to Christians in this country, in a backwards sort of way by causing them to reflect on the best ways to show faith to others. Is it to be loud and brash, or is it best to quietly be of service in their communities? I think most will choose the latter.
And his visit could prompt Christians in Canada to ask if Feucht doesn't represent what faith looks like to them, then what does a Canadian version of Christianity looks like? If that happens, then maybe his visit, and all the negative media attention it produced, will be worth it.
faith@freepress.mb.ca
The Free Press is committed to covering faith in Manitoba. If you appreciate that coverage, help us do more! Your contribution of $10, $25 or more will allow us to deepen our reporting about faith in the province. Thanks!
BECOME A FAITH JOURNALISM SUPPORTER
John LonghurstFaith reporter
John Longhurst has been writing for Winnipeg's faith pages since 2003. He also writes for Religion News Service in the U.S., and blogs about the media, marketing and communications at Making the News.
Read full biography
Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.
Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

EDITORIAL: Stick a fork in ‘Elbows Up'
EDITORIAL: Stick a fork in ‘Elbows Up'

Toronto Sun

timean hour ago

  • Toronto Sun

EDITORIAL: Stick a fork in ‘Elbows Up'

Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised about $1.2 billion in loan guarantees, grants and contributions for Canadian sawmills. Photo by Darren Makowichuk / DARREN MAKOWICHUK/Postmedia 'Elbows Up' hasn't been Prime Minister Mark Carney's approach to dealing with U.S. President Donald Trump on tariffs ever since he won the April election and it's time to consign the phrase to the dustbin of history. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account While Carney advocated dollar-for-dollar tariffs against the U.S. during the Liberal leadership race, he quickly jettisoned the idea on becoming prime minister. That was logical given that Canada would lose a dollar-for-dollar trade war because the U.S. economy is ten times the size of ours. A Leger/Postmedia poll released last week found public support for the 'Elbows Up' approach to trade relations with the U.S. — that the Liberals originally promoted — has plummeted. Six months ago, it was at 73%. Now it's down to 45%, close to a statistical tie with 41% who say Canadian negotiators should take a more measured approach and focus on getting a deal with Trump, even if it means some tariffs on Canadian goods remain. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. That's similar to Carney's path on the issue — posing initially as a trade warrior who would meet Trump dollar-for-dollar on the field of battle and get a deal eliminating all the Trump tariffs. That was always a double-edged sword because Canadian counter-tariffs on imported U.S. goods are paid by Canadians in higher consumer prices. Carney's position has changed significantly since then. First, his government removed counter-tariffs it had initially imposed on many imported American goods that Canadian companies needed to continue operating. He scrapped the Liberals' digital services tax within days of Trump demanding it. Then he lowered expectations, saying a deal with Trump could include some U.S. tariffs. Carney also put out the word that Canada's position was that no deal with the U.S. was better than a bad deal. What it all means is that some of the tariffs Trump has already imposed on us could become permanent, leading up to renegotiating the entire Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade that comes up for renewal next year. Trump agreed to that deal during his first term, praising it at the time as 'the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law … the best agreement we've ever made.' Crime Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Canada Sunshine Girls

US has responsibility to bring Ukraine war to end, after provoking it
US has responsibility to bring Ukraine war to end, after provoking it

Canada News.Net

timean hour ago

  • Canada News.Net

US has responsibility to bring Ukraine war to end, after provoking it

Donald Trump came into office promising to end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Now, six months later, his high stakes meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska may have put the United States and Russia on a new path toward peace, or, if this initiative fails, could trigger an even more dangerous escalation, with warhawks in Congress already pushing for another $54.6 billion in weapons for Ukraine. After emerging from the meeting, Putin correctly framed the historical moment: "This was a very hard time for bilateral relations and, let's be frank, they've fallen to the lowest point since the Cold War. I think that's not benefiting our countries and the world as a whole. Sooner or later, we have to amend the situation to move on from confrontation to dialogue." Trump said he will follow up by talking to NATO leaders and Zelenskyy, as if the U.S. is simply an innocent bystander trying to help. But in Ukraine, as in Palestine, Washington plays the "mediator" while pouring weapons, intelligence, and political cover into one side of the war. In Gaza, that has enabled genocide. In Ukraine, it could lead to nuclear war. Despite protests from Zelenskyy and European leaders, Trump was right to meet with Putin, not because they are friends, but because the United States and Russia are enemies, and because the war they are fighting to the last Ukrainian is the front line of a global conflict between the United States, Russia and China. In our book, War In Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, which we have now updated and revised to cover three years of war in Ukraine, we have detailed the U.S. role in expanding NATO up to Russia's borders, its support for the violent overthrow of Ukraine's elected government in 2014, its undermining of the Minsk II peace accord, and its rejection of a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine after only two months of war in 2022. We doubt that Donald Trump fully grasps this history. Are his simplistic statements alternately blaming Russia and Ukraine, but never the United States, just a public façade for domestic consumption, or does he really believe America's hands are clean? At their first meeting in Saudi Arabia on February 18th, senior U.S. and Russian negotiators agreed on a three-step plan: first to restore U.S.-Russian diplomatic relations; then to negotiate peace in Ukraine; and finally to work on resolving the broader, underlying breakdown in relations between the United States and Russia. Trump and Putin's decision to meet now was a recognition that they must address the deeper rift before they can achieve a stable and lasting peace in Ukraine. The stakes are high. Russia has been waging a war of attrition, concentrating on destroying Ukrainian forces and military equipment rather than on advancing quickly and seizing a lot more territory. It has still not occupied all of Donetsk province, which unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine in May 2014, and which Russia officially annexed before its invasion in February 2022. The failure of peace negotiations could lead to a more aggressive Russian war plan to seize territory much faster. Ukrainian forces are thinly spread out along much of its 700 mile front line, with as few as 100 soldiers often manning several miles of defenses. A major Russian offensive could lead to the collapse of the Ukrainian military or the fall of the Zelenskyy government. How would the U.S. and its Western allies respond to such major changes in the strategic picture? Zelenskyy's European allies talk tough, but have always rejected sending their own troops to Ukraine, apart from small numbers of special operations forces and mercenaries. Putin addressed the Europeans in his remarks after the Summit: "We expect that Kyiv and the European capitals will perceive [the negotiations] constructively, and that they won't throw a wrench in the works, will not make any attempts to use some backroom dealings to conduct provocations to torpedo the nascent progress." Meanwhile, more U.S. and NATO troops are fighting from the relative safety of the joint Ukraine-NATO war headquarters at the U.S. military base in Wiesbaden in Germany, where they work with Ukrainian forces to plan operations, coordinate intelligence and target missile and drone strikes. If the war escalates further, Wiesbaden could become a target for Russian missile strikes, just as NATO missiles already target bases in Russia. How would the United States and Germany respond to Russian missile strikes on Wiesbaden? The U.S. and NATO's official policy has always been to keep Ukraine fighting until it is in a stronger position to negotiate with Russia, as Joe Biden wrote in the New York Times in June 2022. But every time the U.S. and NATO prolong or escalate the war, they leave Ukraine in a weaker position, not a stronger one. The neutrality agreement that the U.S. and U.K. rejected in April 2022 included a Russian withdrawal from all the territory it had just occupied. But that was not good enough for Boris Johnson and Joe Biden, who instead promised a long war to weaken Russia. NATO military leaders believed that Ukraine's counter-offensive in the fall of 2022 achieved the stronger position they were looking for, and General Milley went out on a limb to say publicly that Ukraine should "seize the moment" to negotiate. But Biden and Zelenskyy rejected his advice, and Ukraine's failed offensive in 2023 squandered the moment they had failed to seize. No amount of deceptive propaganda can hide the reality that it has been downhill since then, and 69% of Ukrainians now want a negotiated peace, before their position gets even worse. So Trump went to Alaska with a weak hand, but one that will get weaker still if the war goes on. The European politicians urging Zelenskyy to cling to his maximalist demands want to look tough to their own people, but the keys to a stable and lasting peace are still Ukrainian neutrality, self determination for the people of all regions of Ukraine, and a genuine peace process that finally lays to rest the zombification of the Cold War. The whole world celebrated the end of the Cold War in 1991, but the people of the world are still waiting for the long-promised peace dividend that a generation of corrupt, war-mongering leaders have stolen from us. As negotiations progress, U.S. officials must be honest about the U.S. role in provoking this crisis. They must demonstrate that they are ready to listen to Russia's concerns, take them seriously, and negotiate in good faith to achieve a stable and lasting agreement that delivers peace and security to all parties in the Ukraine war, and in the wider Cold War it is part of. Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of a new edition of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, just published by OR Books. Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including .

GOLDBERG: Trump's 'Mission Accomplished' tariff hype is just that
GOLDBERG: Trump's 'Mission Accomplished' tariff hype is just that

Toronto Sun

timean hour ago

  • Toronto Sun

GOLDBERG: Trump's 'Mission Accomplished' tariff hype is just that

U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 15, 2025 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. President Trump is traveling to Anchorage, Alaska, for peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the war in Ukraine. Photo by Andrew Harnik / Getty Images On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, 'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.' He was standing below a giant banner that read, 'Mission Accomplished.' At the risk of understating the matter, subsequent events didn't cooperate. However, it took some time for this to be widely accepted. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account We're in a similar place when it comes to President Donald Trump's experiment with a new global trading order. 'Tariffs are making our country Strong and Rich!!!' proclaims Trump, making him not only the first Republican president in living memory to brag about raising taxes on Americans, but also the first to insist that raising taxes on Americans makes us richer. MAGA's mission-accomplished groupthink relies primarily on three arguments. The first is that Trump has successfully concluded a slew of beneficial trade deals. The truth is that some of those deals are simply 'frameworks' that will take a long time to be ironed out. But Trump got the headlines he wanted. The second argument is a kind of populism-infused sleight of hand. The 'experts' — their scare quotes, not mine — are wrong once again. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The White House social media account crows, 'In April, 'experts' called tariffs 'the biggest policy mistake in 95 years.' By July, they generated OVER $100 BILLION in revenue. Facts expose the haters: tariffs WORK. Trust in Trump.' But the high-fivers are leaving things out. The most dire predictions of economic catastrophe were based on the scheme Trump announced on April 2, a.k.a. 'Liberation Day.' Trump quickly backed off that plan ('chickened out' in Wall Street parlance ) in response to a bond and stock market implosion. Saying the experts were wrong under those circumstances is like saying experts opposed to defenestration were wrong when they successfully convinced a man not to jump out a window. The third argument, made by the White House and many others — that tariffs are working because they're raising money — is a response to a claim no one made. To my knowledge, no expert claimed tariffs wouldn't raise money. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The estimates of these revenues from Trump World are stratospheric. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expects somewhere between $700 billion and $1 trillion per year. Last month, the government collected $29 billion. Likely, this number will significantly increase as more tariffs come online and businesses run down the inventory they stockpiled earlier this year in anticipation of more tariffs to come. Normally, Republicans don't exult over massive revenues from tax hikes. But Trump's defenders get around this problem by insisting that money is 'pouring' and 'flowing' into America from someplace else. Tariff revenue is indeed pouring into the Treasury, but that money is coming out of American bank accounts, because American importers pay the tariff. Even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cannot deny this when pressed. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. So yes, tariffs are 'working' the way they're supposed to; the problem is Trump thinks tariffs work differently than they do. It's possible some foreign exporters might lower prices to maintain market share and some American businesses might absorb the costs for now to avoid sticker shock for inflation-beleaguered consumers, but what revenue is generated still comes from Americans. Ultimately, it means higher prices paid here, reduced profits for businesses here or reduced U.S. trade overall. Sometimes, when pressed, defenders of the administration will concede the true source of the revenues, but then they say the pain is necessary to force manufacturers and other businesses to build and produce in the United States. It's a backdoor industrial policy masquerading as trade policy. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. That, too, might 'work.' But all of this will take time, no matter what. And, if it works, that will have costs, too. Manufacturing in America is more expensive and that's why we manufacture so much stuff abroad in the first place. If this 'reshoring' happens, our goods will be more expensive, and less money will 'pour in' from tariffs. It's difficult to exaggerate how well-understood all of this was on the American right until very recently. But the need to grab any argument available to declare Trump's experiment a success has a lot of people not only abandoning their previous dogma but leaping to the conclusion that the dogma was wrong all along. Maybe it was, though I don't think so. The evidence so far suggests that problems are looming. The dollar is weakening. Prices continue to rise. The job market is reeling. The stock market (an unreliable metric, according to MAGA, when it plummeted after Liberation Day) is holding on, thanks to tech stocks. The truth is, we won't have real evidence for a while. It's worth remembering that Americans don't live by headlines and press releases and they don't live in the macro economy either. Declaring 'Mission Accomplished' for the macro economy won't convince people they're better off in their own micro-economies when they're not. Crime Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Sunshine Girls Toronto Blue Jays

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store