re·ject

As it’s Oscar season, I’m busy catching all the nominees for the best picture — which means I caught the critically acclaimed ‘We Need to Talk About Kevin‘ (which I was sure was going to be nominated in some way, but wasn’t .. and that’s a subject for another post).

Anyway, I enjoyed the film so much that I started to read the 2003 novel it was based on, of the same name by the author Lionel Shriver.  As I read, there was a quote that caught my eye and caused me to pause — it’s a quote spoken by the mother/protagonist of the novel, reflecting back on her flaws as a parent. One shortcoming she muses about is the lack of a religious environment she exposed her son, Kevin, to:

Both of us were lapsed, so it made sense to raise our kids as neither Armenian Orthodox or Presbyterian. Although I’m reluctant to inveigh that youth today need to crack the Old Testament, it sobers me that, thanks to us, Kevin may have never seen the inside of a church.

The fact that you and I were brought up with something to walk away from may have advantaged us, for we knew what lay behind us, and what we were not.

So I wonder if Kevin, too, would have been better off had we spewed a lot of incense-waving hooey that he could have coughed back in our faces — those extravagant fancies about virgin births and commandments on mountaintops that really stick in a kid’s throat. [my emphasis]

As soon as I read this passage, I had to stop — if only because it resonated a little too much.  Is my little girl — being raised in a happily godless home — at a disadvantage?
More >

The religion that cried “wolf”

Okay, this is just getting ridiculous now. Those of you that know me best from my work decrying racist attitudes and unraveling the code of “politely” racist statements know that I have a fairly well-developed radar for bigotry. I am not one to shrink from making the call, even in those circumstances where the room is against me and I am forced to explain myself in excruciating detail. Racism is a serious problem, and I think we should be devoting more time and attention to it, not less.

If you’ve been involved in discussions of race-based (or really, any other kind of) bigotry, it’s a good chance that you’ve been accused at some point of being “the real racist”. The argument goes something like this: if everyone just acted like race wasn’t important, it would all of a sudden cease to be a factor. I will not bother detailing the number of reasons why this position is stupid - it’s the Wile E. Coyote school of debate:

However, the ubiquity and regularity of this completely facetious line of “reasoning” has left folks like me, who deal in racism on a regular basis, with a particular sensitivity about bogus “racism” calls. There’s nothing that undermines your completely legitimate argument faster than someone saying “yeah but soandso said the same thing, and ze was full of crap!” Then you have to waste time and precious consonants explaining the many ways in which your situation is not the same as theirs.

Which is why stories like this make me mad: More >

Ontario government sponsors religious tobacco

No. There is no difference between tobacco sold by big corporations and tobacco prepared for religious ceremonies.

And yet, the Aboriginal Tobacco Program is sponsored by the Ontario government. Worse, it’s sponsored by Smoke Free Ontario and Cancer Care Ontario, both provincial government agencies working with the ministry of health to prevent cancer.

Since traditional aboriginal tobacco isn’t meant to be smoked in cigarettes I doubt the practice is wide spread enough to be considered a problem on its own. Yet by sponsoring bad science claims like ‘traditional tobacco is a healer’, the government is placing the public at risk. The government has no place protecting specific religious practices, much less dangerous ones and our health officials, if they have any integrity, need to stand up and do their job. Stop sponsoring religious practices, cancel this silly program, and declare all tobacco to be equally dangerous.

bFvIF

I did it all for the lulz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol… yeah

 

 

Image taken from http://imgur.com/bFvIF

 

Enablers

Doug Thomas, president of Secular Connexion Séculaire (SCS), asks the question, “Is There a Line to Draw,” as the Email Topic Discussion for January 23.  Thomas’ question and answer,

So, is there a line to draw between those theists whom we can see are peace-loving individuals and the fanatics? There may be, but it must be a blurry and faded one and it’s time theists stepped up and helped us draw it more clearly.

echo Jerry Coynes’ statement in the concluding paragraph to his post, “A bad week for free speech”:

As usual, Muslims who claim not to be extremists stand by silently while their coreligionists try to dismantle freedom of speech via threats of death.  The silent ones are enablers.

I reserve a special censure for men and women who attend Catholic services, or send their children to Catholic schools, public or private. They are enablers; they enable The Roman Catholic Church to continue its nefarious activities and spread its damaging propaganda.