Weekly Update: to

Here’s your Canadian Atheist Weekly Update for to .

[Panel 3 of the 2017-08-20 Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic, which depicts the voice of God telling someone "Oh, wow. You guys think there's a moral? 'Noah's Ark' is just a thing that happened.]

I’d say “well that actually makes it a lot more sensible”, but it really doesn’t.

  • [] Clarifying Humanism through the Haze of Equivocation

    Looks like the AHA is dealing with the same shit we do: a small mob of vocal assholes on social media who take every opportunity – even some that aren’t even remotely justified – to barf up their ignorance and intolerance. Meghan Hamilton takes on four different categories of asshattery the AHA faced over the Charlottesville events.

  • [] “Noah’s Ark” by Zach Weinersmith (Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal)

    Another Weinersmith take on the moral lessons to be learned from Biblical stories.

  • [] Federal appointee to race relations board under scrutiny for writings on Islam

    Wow. Okay, let’s get the obvious point out of the way: If Douglass-Williams really was just criticizing the the jihadist-Islamist agenda as she claims she was, then this would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. In fact, it might even be expected of a human rights crusader. But the devil is in the details. And it’s not just the details of what she actually wrote, which included ignorant howlers like that if Muslims truly had nothing to hide, they’d allow police to conduct surveillance in their mosques. It’s in the fact that she was writing for Jihad Watch and rubbing shoulders with the likes of Richard Spencer. People, I’m shocked and disappointed that I have to say this, but, context matters. Context really matters. Even if you are making a perfectly cogent and rational scholarly argument about the very real problem of Zionist extremism in Israel… if you happen to be making that argument to a crowd of people waving torches and wearing pointy white hoods, and you’re standing on a stage next to David Duke… you cannot seriously object to being tarred with the “racist” label.

  • [] Students left to scramble after Islamic high school shuts down

    It sucks that the students are the victims here, but it sure looks like the management of the school was a little scuzzy.

  • [] Legalize Humanist Marriage in BC

    The BCHA has started a petition calling for BC to allow Humanists to officiate weddings. As of , they are over 3⁄4 of the way to their goal. Let’s push it all the way.

  • [] Video: Unite the two school divisions say parents

    It’s nice to see what average Alberta parents – and not just activists – think about the idea of a single, secular school system. My favourite comment is the very mundane yet powerful observation about the difference between the secular and Catholic curricula: The only thing they [Catholic education system] added in there was religion and I don’t see what the problem is; if it’s going to save some money, then it’s great.

  • [] COMMENTARY: Quebec’s attempt at selective secularism – again

    I’m so happy to see a mainstream news source recognize that what is happening in Québec is not “secularism”. In fact, there are a lot of things in this piece that make me happy, like Dwivedi actually putting a number on the problem: by her very generous estimate, only 0.007% of Québécois wear the niqab, so it hardly seems a pressing issue.

  • [] NDP Leadership Hopefuls Split On Religious Rights In Battleground Quebec

    Well, this is disappointing. One would have hoped that the NDP would be the beacon of light that burned away the bullshit coming out of the right, the racism and islamophobia that the Conservative Party has chosen to get in bed with. But it looks like realpolitik is the the game instead. There’s no way the NDP has a hope in hell in the next election without Québec, and it looks like the leadership candidates know it. Their support for the bigoted, religious symbol-banning Bill 62 may be tepid, but in the current climate that’s bad enough. We’ll see how things go in the debate .

  • [] Niki Ashton Backtracks On Statement Dealing With Quebec Religious Rights Debate

    This is a follow-up from the previous item. What happened was that NDP leadership candidate Guy Caron blew a dog whistle signalling support for the bigoted Bill 62, and the other leadership candidates were forced to respond. Charlie Angus took the principled road, but Niki Ashton, like Caron, has been trying to play both sides… which is always a bad idea when one side is bigoted assholes. The talking point she’s fallen back on – similar to the one Caron is using – is that Québec is a special little snowflake, so we have to let them do what they want. While it is certainly true that Québec deserves the freedom to run itself the way it wants, neither Ashton nor Caron have enough backbone to give a clear answer to whether that means accepting discrimination against vulnerable minorities.

Canadian Atheist’s Weekly Update depends on the submissions of readers like you. If you see anything on the Internet that you think might be of interest to CA readers, please take a minute to make a submission.

4 thoughts on “Weekly Update: to

  1. “accepting discrimination against vulnerable minorities.”

    We still want the right to discriminate or at least severely criticise. It is against the ideas behind the minority practices that we want to discriminate and criticise. As atheists we spend much more time discriminating and criticising the major minorities, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Catholics.

    Today, concerned teachers are questioning the harm being done by having schools named after Sir John A. I think atheists are in the best position to criticise their concerns. Sixty years, or so, before confederation, the British ruling class were deeply concerned about the erosion of Christianity taking place in the wake of The Enlightenment. The Anglican Church and the Catholic Church stepped up to the plate and offered a reassuring solution. They told the leaders of their day that if public education was put under their control Christianity would again flourish throughout the domain.

    They, the church spokesmen, were proved to be correct and Christianity once more reigned supreme. So Sir John A. was a product of this reenergized Christian education initiative. With such a formal training it is no wonder he thought that the same sort of approach would work with our indigenous people. Aside from all the psychological damage inflicted on the native peoples, the Christening aspect was just as affective here in Canada as it was back in the Old World.

    This is where atheist criticism comes in. Blaming the individual Prime Minister for the bad ideas he learned in University isn’t a helpful action. He naturally thought that Christianising the native peoples was an essential first step towards full domination under Christian Rule. In this he was entirely correct. Today, I would venture to speculate, that the majority of Native people in Canada are much more Christian than the average native-born, non-indigenous Canadian.

    What we, as atheists, might surmise is that a more secular indigenous peoples would have fewer problems taking full advantage of the wider modern world. Similarly, our first Prime Minister probably would have made better choices, by our standards, if he had been a more secular minded individual.

  2. “a small mob of vocal assholes on social media who take every opportunity – even some that aren’t even remotely justified – to barf up their ignorance and intolerant”

    Oh, well, as long as you feel superior to them, that’s all that matters.

  3. “It sucks that the students are the victims here”

    These students were victims long before that. There’s no such thing as a Muslim child, or a Christian child. It’s not heritable. These are indoctrination centres, where people are made stupider in that way.

  4. “only 0.007% of Québécois wear the niqab, so it hardly seems a pressing issue”

    Unlike your Valentine’s underwear, everyone knows who is wearing a niqab. Or rather, everyone knows that there IS a niqab, but we don’t know what’s under it. But we know that it’s probably someone who is oppressed, and also sexist (against men and women both). And we know they probably buy into a whole range of ideas repugnant to Canadians, and are broadcasting that with this bold visual statement.

    I do agree to the extent that Quebec should have taken down the cross in their legislature, and off their public employee’s necks as well. The rule should be “If you wouldn’t wear outfit X from Star Trek here, then you won’t wear corresponding outfit Y from your religion here either”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Help

WordPress theme: Kippis 1.15