The Dark Side Of Evangelicalism

While I periodically enjoy making sport of what I sometimes refer to as crazy old evangelicals (a distinction I make out of respect to the sincere and well-intentioned ones) and fundamentalists who espouse views that are an egregious insult to people's intelligence, I am by and large a person who is of the opinion that everyone has a right to their own beliefs, as long as they don't try to inflict them on others. I have my own spiritual convictions, but I don't see it as my role to proselytize.

But people cross the line when they insist that their views should form the blueprint for the way people conduct themselves. Evangelical pastor Scott Lively of Massachusetts is one such person who has crossed that line.

As reported in The Raw Story, Lively is facing charges of crimes against humanity, accused of violating international law by inciting the persecution of LGBT individuals in Uganda.

Lively attended an anti-gay conference entitled “Seminar on Exposing the Homosexual Agenda” in 2009 in which he accused gays and lesbians of having genocidal tendencies. His lecture lead [sic] to the introduction of the bill, the lawsuit claimed.

Lively denies having any role in the hateful legislation, and says the lawsuit “boils down to nothing more than an attempt to define my Biblical views against homosexuality as a crime.”

If you have the stomach for it, you can read more about Lively's self-pitying justifications for his religious ardour on his blog.

Unless you are of unusually robust constitution, I suggest you read it sparingly.

Here There Be Dragons

I take it that metaphors are too subtle a concept for the fundamentalist mind:

I Guess This Explains Everything

Like many others, I have been deeply troubled by the Edward Snowden's revelations about domestic spying conducted by the NSA. Watch the following video if you would like to know the true source of the problem.



By the way, Gordon Klingenschmitt, as you will see if you click on the link, has had an interesting career.

Pondering Pam Et Al.

It was a comment yesterday that The Mound of Sound (a.k.a. The Disaffected Lib) made in response to a cartoon I posted depicting the much beleaguered Senator Wallin that made me think. He reminded me of an earlier time when there was honour associated with public service, and expressed the hope that Harper's poisonous partisanship is something that we will eventually recover from.

I have been following politics for a very long time, something that no doubt partially accounts for my deep cynicism. I am well-aware that the current scandals engulfing the notorious quartet of senators under investigation cannot be seen as an indictment of the entire institution; in fact, in many ways it is a mere diversion, or at best a sensational tip of the iceberg, of much deeper problems plaguing our democracy, problems that have only worsened under the dark reign of the Harper cabal, problems that may seem irrelevant to the majority but are in fact threatening the kind of life and values that we enjoy as Canadians.

Yet my gratification at the public squirming of people like Wallin and Duffy is deep and abiding. Mound's comments set me to thinking about why. In my daily life, I like to think that I have a reasonable amount of empathy for others. Why is it totally absent when it comes to public figures who hold authority? Why does the betrayal of public trust, the abuse of power, inflame me so much? I think there are likely three reasons:

Having been 'taught' in the Catholic school systems many years ago, I and many of my fellow students were regularly subjected to both physical and verbal abuse by our teachers, abuse that began in elementary school, only to be intensified at the secondary level. It took me many many years to overcome my anger and bitterness over that mistreatment.

As a teacher, I was keenly aware of the responsibility and trust the position entailed. Almost all of the people I worked with over the years respected that trust. All of us knew that the rare instances in which it was violated reflected badly on all of us. it was a trust we did not take lightly.

Also during my teaching career, I was witness to administrative abuse of authority, decisions made that favoured students and their parents in the effort to stave off parental complaints that could impede their upward career trajectory. Once, I was myself the victim of a vindictive principal who disciplined me with an insubordination charge for the campaign I mounted to get a candy vending machine removed from beside my classroom due to the noise and distraction it caused, as well as what I considered to be the inappropriate commercialization of an academic area. It was a charge I later successfully fought and had removed from my record.

So I guess my point is a public justification for the animus I hold against people in high places who treat others, mainly the electorate, with contempt. Stephen Harper does it, his acolytes do it, as do his Senate appointees. I ardently look forward to their fall, but hope the damage they have done to people's faith is not irreparable.

For those interested, Rosie DiManno has Ms Wallin in her sights today, as does Tim Harper. As well, the Star editorializes on how all of this reflects very very badly on our Prime Minister and his abysmal judgement in appointing three of the four senators now at the receiving end of profound public odium.

Our Porcine Friends Deserve Better

I have been assured that no animals were hurt during the production of this cartoon:

A Timely Message Important To Everyone

The video that follows was made by Canadian Doctors For Medicare, who are advocating for a national pharmacare program, something that a country as rich as ours could well-afford. It is a logical and necessary extension of our national healthcare. In fact, according to an article in The National Post,

Canada is one of the few developed countries in the world without a universal pharmacare program, and we are the only country in the world with a universal medicare system that excludes prescription drugs (as if pharmaceuticals are not an essential element of medical treatment). Each year, a staggering 10% of Canadians cannot fill a prescription due to financial reasons.

Instead of a consistent and uniform standard throughout the country, Canada has a patchwork of provincial programmes that may or may not meet people's needs. During the 12 years I lived in Manitoba in the 70's and 80's, for example, I enjoyed its pharmacare coverage which, at the time, as I recall, had a standard deductible of only $80. While things have changed somewhat in the interim, with the deductible now a percentage of family income, it is far superior to what other Canadian jurisdictions offer.

A sharp contrast is found in Ontario, where I now live; only people over 65 qualify for general coverage. Other groups, depending upon their level of poverty or their special needs, can access some coverage through other programmes.

For a breakdown of what is available in the other provinces and the Territories, click here.



That we do not have a national program offering universal access should be a source of shame. Perhaps if we are ever fortunate enough to elect a government that cares more about the well-being of its citizens than it does about bloated corporate profits, things will change.

UPDATED: Puncturing The Myth That Raising Minimum Wages Will Kill Jobs

The question of minimum wage has been very much a topic of discussion in alternative media of late, and I have written a few posts about the struggle. I am leading off today's consideration of the issue with a well-considered letter from a Star reader, followed by a Real News video that explores the Australian experience with a much higher minimum wage which, despite the right-wing hysteria equating anything that raises the costs of doing business with the killing of jobs, is doing quite nicely, thank you.

Re: Hiking the minimum wage, Letter, Aug. 9

In his letter, Doug Stewart seems to be forgetting one very important thing. The economy depends on people spending money. If someone is paid so little they can’t afford the basics, they not only will not have much to contribute to the economy and taxes, they will also become a burden on the taxpayer. Do those in the Timmy’s drive-through, sitting in their big SUVs, really need the few pennies they save by being served by those earning poverty wages? Why is that person behind the counter also not entitled to be able to buy things? You might also take a look at Walmart. It’s a very large and successful company. Its owners are among the richest people in the U.S. Yet, their employees often have to rely on the state for things like adequate food and health care. In Wisconsin, a Walmart employee is estimated to cost the taxpayer some $5,000 per year in state benefits. California is working on a law to fine Walmart every time an employee has to rely on medicaid. This is that you get when you don’t pay people enough to support themselves. The taxpayer winds up subsidizing the employer. Is that really what you want?

James Knott, Mississauga

By examining the experience of Australia and some European countries, this video offers a useful counterbalance to the propaganda that permeates the mainstream media about minimum wages:



UPDATE: Thom Hartman adds additional facts that show how wrong companies like Walmart are in bleeding their workers while at the same time being subsidized by the taxpayer.