There are more things that unite us than divide us. That is, if you are a raging Christian fundamentalist and the Taliban:
Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene
Wednesday, August 18, 2021
Saturday, October 7, 2017
Reaching Across The Divide
Jeff Sessions' Religious Freedom order to undercut #LGBT rights allowed me to remind The Real Housewives of ISIS how much we have in common! pic.twitter.com/GRxZox1hxT
— Mrs. Betty Bowers (@BettyBowers) October 6, 2017
Thursday, June 11, 2015
The Luddites of Education
Once, many years ago, one of my students had chosen Robertson Davies' Fifth Business for independent reading. Early in the novel, a Baptist minister's wife is struck in the head by a large stone encased in a snowball, an incident that starts a cascade of events with profound effects on the fortunes of the protagonist. During a parent-teacher interview, the mother of a student who had chosen the novel, herself the wife of a Baptist minister, objected bitterly to her daughter reading the novel because of its alleged disrespect toward religion (solely evidenced by the snowball incident), assertively opining that such material had no place in schools. I told her that as a parent, she had the right to object to her daughter reading the book, but that NO ONE had the right to ban others from reading any given book.
A second incident during a telephone conversation with a Muslim parent, many years later, went along exactly the same lines; in this case, the man was objecting to his daughter reading Flowers for Algernon, also chosen by the student for independent reading. He objected to a scene entailing some brief and quite circumspect sexual content, and went on to say such material should not be available to students. Again, I told him exactly what I told the Baptist minister's wife.
So how is this relevant to the world of politics? Here in Ontario, a microcosm of the larger pluralistic Canada within which we all live, there has been much heated contention by a small group of right-wing Christian fundamentalists and those from other conservative religious backgrounds, many of whom are immigrants, over the revamped sex-ed curriculum slated to go into effect in the fall.
In this morning's Star, Martin Regg Cohn observes that the same dynamic is at work that I experienced in the two above incidents, noting that parents already have the right to remove their children from class when material they object to is being taught:
Apparently that’s no longer enough. Now, the protest movement wants to prevent everyone else’s children from hearing the updated Health and Physical Education Curriculum — an update strongly supported by teachers in the public and separate school systems, and broadly supported by parents who want the best for their children.
To be clear, the protesters are not only demanding a right that they already have — an exemption from the curriculum — but are insisting that everyone else hew to their world views of sexuality, pedagogy and ideology. They want to water down a curriculum prepared by experts after years of deliberation and consultation in order to accommodate their own interpretation of sex education in 2015.Cohn points out that such intractable and intolerant thinking could provoke a backlash against our practice of reasonable accommodation, and it is a risk being made worse by the usual suspects: the political right-wing desperate to curry favour among social conservatives:
In other words, “My child, my choice” translates to: “Your child, no choice.”
At the most recent protest, the darling of the anti-sex-ed movement, MPP and recent PC leadership candidate Monte McNaughton once again took the microphone to proclaim his fidelity to the cause. Significantly, he brought “greetings” from Patrick Brown, the new leader he helped elect at last month’s Tory convention.Although we reside in the 21st century, it would seem that the thinking of far too many people resides yet in a much earlier time, when ignorance thrived and education was looked upon with suspicion and disdain. It is time we all grew up.
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Continuing With A Theme
Somehow, however, many forms of Christianity get a free pass when it comes to their own acts of terror and promotion of hatred. I offer in evidence two clips of the Pastor Stephen L. Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. In the first clip, the man of God calls for the death of Barrack Obama. Some might interpret it as a terrorist threat:
Similarly, this god-fearing man tells us that death is the only fate worthy of Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner as he offers up this moving prayer for the celebrity transgendered former athlete:
“I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to Hell. Are you serious? Look, I have nothing but hate — when I see a man dressed up as a woman, who has mutilated his body to become a woman, and say ‘Hey, look at me everybody. Look at me kids!’ I mean, the kids in America today — 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10 years old are seeing this freak and having their minds perverted and ruined permanently. Listen to me, I hate him with a perfect hatred. I have no love — NO LOVE — for this Bruce freak. I hope he dies today. I hope he dies and goes to Hell. He’s disgusting, he’s filthy, he’s reprobate. I would pray all these prayers in Psalm 69. I would pray all this in Psalm 69 and 129 toward him.”
“You evil, filthy animal that’s destroying the morals of our country,” Anderson said as his rant continued. “DIE!”
VIEWER CAUTION: I suggest you only watch a small part of the second video, unless you have an unusually high tolerance for lunatic hate speech.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
A Warning For Our American Cousins
I pray that it is not too late for the the land of the free and home of the brave:
Click here if you would like to read about other augeries portending doom.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
Mandatory Church Attendance?
Monday, March 9, 2015
But Can He Heal Himself?
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Could It Be A Virus?
Stupidity, it has been said, is contagious, and one has to wonder whether a particularly virulent virus is running through the Conservative tent these days. First there was Ontario Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls suggesting that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, as he doesn't believe in it. Now comes word of similar sentiments on the part of one of his federal cousins, B.C. Conservative MP James Lunney.
Coming to the defense of his fellow fundamentalist, Lunney tweeted:
"[Just] stop calling #evolution fact!" tweeted Lunney, who said he had no problem calling it a "theory."A man clearly comfortable in his own skin and not afraid to parade his profound ignorance, Lunney made this statement to the House in 2009:
"Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis," he said then.Like many of his benighted ilk, Lunney is also deeply suspicious of claims made about climate change:
"The evolutionist may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionist may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a Creator."
Last year he tweeted "Science settled? Think again!" and posted a link to an article by a University of Guelph economist who is one of the signatories of a declaration disputing climate change.But wait! As they say, there's more!
As reported last year in The Huffington Post, Linney signed An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming:
"We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history."The declaration went on to say,
We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits."Oh, and one more thing. Lunney's disdain for science extends to vaccines with this discredited notion:
In a 2004 speech in the House of Commons, Lunney cited figures he said showed a tenfold increase in the incidence of autism and said Canada should explore a link to vaccines.It is said that people get the government they deserve. Somehow, I can't help but think that the residents of Nanaimo—Alberni deserve much, much better than what this man has to offer.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Too Good Not too Share
H/t The Toronto Star
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Why Has Accepting Scientific Fact Become A Matter Of Choice?
-Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership
As the quotation above suggests, the schism between scientific fact and religious belief is, in fact, one that shouldn't exist. Yet, given the kinds of absolutist thinking that permeate the world today, demagogues and zealots suggest the two are mutually exclusive, an invalid proposition if one's belief in transcendent truth manages to rise above seeing the narratives of the world's religions as literal truths.
It is always unseemly when people parade and exult in their intellectual limitations, often presenting them as virtues. For example, in Ontario, people like Progressive Conservative MPP Rick Nicholls has suggested that evolution should not be taught in schools, as he doesn't believe in it.
Sadly, such benighted positions, masquerading as informed opinion, do a disservice both to science and religion, not to mention public discourse in general. And it seems to be spreading, despite the fact that we live in an age unprecedented in its access to knowledge. Consider the almost religious fervour with which people disavow climate change, despite these facts:
The debate over climate change is over. The U.N.‘s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report, written by 800 scientists from 80 countries, that summarized the findings of more than 30,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers and concluded: “Human influence on the climate system is clear; the more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts; and we have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future.”Like the facts that make evolution irrefutable, the facts of climate change are treated by some as optional, a matter of belief, based on all kinds of specious reasoning, including religious ones such as asserting that God is in control of the planet. Perhaps people take living in a supposedly democratic age as license to suggest that any view is valid. Perhaps the right wing, emboldened by their ability to stir up emotion and hysteria, and enjoying so much influence in North America, feel that they have the politicians cowed. Perhaps the truly rational see little profit in getting down to their level to dispute with them. Perhaps it is because the uninformed and unsophisticated comprise such a large part of our population and show no interest in learning how to think critically, dismissing those who do as elitist leftists and alarmists.
I really have no answers here, but to countenance ignorance in any form, in my view, is to abdicate our responsibilities as both human beings and as citizens, and these are obligations we cannot afford to shirk.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Dr. 'Chaps' Strikes Again
Always on the lookout for the ploys of the wily one seeking souls for his sulfurous kingdom, Dr. Chaps (a.k.a. Gordon Klingenschmitt) warns us about one of his diabolical stratagems:
Monday, January 5, 2015
Pastor Pat On 'The Blessings Of Discipline'
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Friday, May 30, 2014
Everything Is So Simple
Perhaps the good pastor should bone up on his Bible, given that his 'proof' resides in things he claims were said by Jesus in Matthew, Chapter 25, that just aren't there. Even if you go to the previous chapter, 24, the closest Jesus gets to mentioning calamity is when he says, There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
But then, I guess this wouldn't be the first time that Hagee's ilk have taken liberties in their unwholesome zeal for The Apocalypse.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Getting Their Tunics In A Twist
However, those mired in an earlier time are not so happy. You can click here to see why they have gotten their tunics in a twist, but I'll offer you just a hint from this excerpt:
Jennifer LeClaire, news editor at Charisma, an evangelical online magazine, wasn't amused: "Nabisco's brand is no longer wholesome," she wrote in a piece titled "Gay-Affirming Nabisco Is Shoving More Than Oreos Down Our Throats."
LeClaire pointed out that members of the conservative American Family Association's One Million Moms group were "up in arms": "The American Family Association-linked group insists Nabisco should be ashamed of itself for the cracker commercial that attempts to 'normalize sin.'"
"One Million Moms stands up for Biblical truth which is very clear in Romans 1:26-27 about this particular type of sexual perversion," the group stated. "Honey Maid is also using the hashtag #thisiswholesome. There is concern about the way this ad is pushing the LGBT agenda, but an even greater concern is the way that they are changing the meaning of the word 'wholesome.' This is truly sad. If this is what Honey Maid thinks is wholesome, then my family will no longer purchase Honey Maid or Nabisco products."
And below is how Honey Maid responded to those residing in that earlier time of absolutism and intolerance in the name of an apparently very angry and very limited deity:
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Separate But Not Equal
Creationists who believe God created the entire universe in six days about 6,000 years ago have been aghast at the reboot of Carl Sagan’s legendary “Cosmos” series. Some creationists have demanded their views receive equal airtime on the show…
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The Idiot Cull
The Middlesboro, Kentucky preacher who starred in a reality show about snake-handling died Saturday night after being bitten by a snake. The Middlesboro Police Department said that at around 8 p.m., they responded to a possible snake bite at the Full…
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Saturday, January 11, 2014
How Does The Progressive World Respond To This?
I sometimes wonder about whether the term progressive calls up some kind of a stereotype. When people think of progressives, do they have a picture which I would consider reasonably accurate - people who believe in the ardent pursuit of justice, fairness and equity in society, and the breaking down of barriers to those goals? Or do they think of progressives as those who have an automatic, almost Pavlovian reaction against anything that hints even remotely at judgement or the imposition of limitations?
While I regard myself as a progressive in the first sense, the second one leaves me absolutely cold, hinting, as it does, at a kind of uncritical group-think whose tyranny means disagreements from within render one ineligible for membership.
Years ago during my teaching career, I had in one of my classes a lad from the Middle East. While he was generally a congenial enough boy, his cultural conditioning made him think of girls as inferior. This was made clear to me one day when I had a group of students, mainly girls, milling around my desk waiting to ask me questions; the lad interposed himself in front of them, fully expecting that his need for an answer would take precedence over the young ladies. I had to explain to him that in Canada, we wait in line if others are before us, a lesson that I think he found difficult to assimilate when those ahead of him were of the feminine gender.
Which brings me to my case in point. By now you likely will have heard about the situation at York University in Toronto, where an online student asked to be excused from group work with women for religious reasons:
Sociology professor Paul Grayson wanted to deny the student’s request for the online course, but first asked the faculty dean and university’s human rights centre, who said he should grant the request.
In the end — after fellow professors in the department agreed such a move would marginalize females — Grayson denied the request. The student relented and completed the required work with the women in his group.
Even though the situation resolved itself, despite the fecklessness of the institution's 'leaders', the fact that it caused such contention and controversy forces me to ask the question of what constitutes reasonable accommodation in our multi-cultural society. Indeed, should a situation as described above even be an issue in a secular institution such as a university, where openness and inquiry and exposure to new ideas and ways of thinking are its raison d'être?
To explore this further, I would encourage you to read Rosie DiManno's piece in today's Star. Entitled York University cowardly, compliant and blind to common sense, here is but a brief excerpt:
The Star headline got it wrong: “York University student’s request not to work with women poses dilemma.”
There is no dilemma here and only one proper response: No.
No to segregating males and females.
No to religious accommodation of any type at Canadian campuses.
No to the absurdity of human rights departments that turn themselves into black holes of ethical relativism.
No to academic officials who twist themselves into pretzels of gutlessness, rather than take an honorable scholastic and moral stance.
Let me know what you think.