Athée Canadien
Christianity
God’s apparently petty in PEI
Nov 26th
Prince Edward Island has finally repealed Canada’s last Sunday Shopping blue law. The law banned stores from opening on Sundays from Christmas until Victoria Day (in May).
However, in the words of Liberal Transportation Minister Ron MacKinley, God was pissed at this bill, but rather than actually do anything to stop it, he caused Progressive Conservative opposition leader Olive Crane to slip and injure her ankle and wrist.
"I’m not what you call a saint, but I believe in God and I believe in [doing] the best I can do. You were at CBC pushing Sunday shopping, were you not? On TV?" [MacKinley] asked Crane. "Right after that interview what happened?"
"We had a bit of an accident," Crane responded.
"Does that not tell you something?" said MacKinley.
"Like what?" said Crane.
"Like the Lord works in mysterious ways, and maybe you should start worrying what’s going on here? We are going all the time, we’re getting farther and farther away, whether it’s prayers in the schools or whatever it is," said MacKinley.
Yes, those ways are very mysterious indeed. But apparently God doesn’t care too much since similar laws have been repealed everywhere else in Canada…
Anglican Infighting
Nov 16th
The Anglican Church has won a ruling by the BC Court of Appeal that allows it to hold onto 20 million dollars in real estate. Dissident groups of Anglicans who oppose the central authority’s recent stance supporting gay marriage have broken away and are claiming ownership of their land. The Anglican Church claims it still owns its churches and demands that the congregation leaves.
I couldn’t find the specific details of this case but I’ve dealt with church properties owned by the congregations and not a central authority which means they can probably retain title if they break away. For example: my local church could be owned by “The Congregation of St.Whatever United Church of Canada, a non-profit, membership-run corporation, which means the people might be able to keep their property if they leave. However, if another local church is owned by “The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of Fakecity”, a Vatican-backed authority that overseas multiple properties, then the congregation will run into trouble since they clearly have no title to the land. I’ve never looked into the Anglican Church’s operations but the court seems to have sided with them so it likely has a similar set up as the Catholics.
This whole affair reminds me of a debate I had with a Quebec separatist. I asked him how the province planned to pay for the billions of dollars in land owned by the Canadian government and crown corporations. Separatists seem to think that they will automatically nationalize everything within their borders but as someone who deals with land transfers everyday, I know it isn’t as simple as that. (My argument is the same with anti-monarchists who think dumping the Queen is easy without realizing that every piece of property in the country will need to be modified and the entire legal system changed, but that’s a topic for another day)
Persecution… I do not think it means what you think it means
Nov 12th
There is a common complaint from some conservative Christian groups that because religion is becoming stigmatized and losing favour among the populace, this is tantamount to persecution of Christians. They like to cite cases in which Christians are compelled by law to do things that violate their religious beliefs, like refraining from actively discriminating against gay people. The next step is to then cry that their Charter Rights are being “trampled” because they aren’t allowed to break the law. Similar complaints are made by other religious groups, claiming that my beliefs require you to change the way you live.
I recently wrote an article in which I call this phenomenon what it is – privilege:
Privilege is what happens when you or your group have an undeserved level of power based not on your actual merits, but for historical reasons.
One of the manifestations of privilege is the fact that the group in question is completely unaware that they enjoy it. Because these groups have built a system for themselves (through the selective interpretation of history, through in-group legislation, through behind-the-scenes social programs) that empowers its members from the moment of their birth… The other side of privilege is that those who have it are free to deny that it exists, and instead claim that those in the non-privileged groups are trying to rob the privileged of things that they deserve.
I have been recently haunted by a creationist in my comments (it’s like seeing a white rhino – I know they exist, but it’s still weird to see one in real life), who proceeded to fill the stereotype to an absolute “T”. Step 1 is to deny the existence of privilege, then the second is to claim that the majority is the real victim, and then come the accusations that pointing out the problem is doing the real damage. Warning for those reading through the comments – I stop being nice after being accused of inciting hatred against white people and there is some purple prose sprinkled in there.
The point is, despite whatever naughty language I might use, there seems to be an inability for those in any privileged position (whether it be white privilege, male privilege, or religious privilege) to see that it exists. So of course Christians will feel that they are being “persecuted” when they are no longer given a favoured position and forced to abide by the rules to which everyone else is subject. But that’s not what persecution is.
Jen McCreight over at BlagHag calls this out on them too:
Those “militant New Atheists” simply disagree with you and vocalize their disagreement. Notice how we’re not throwing you in jail or murdering you. Whining about how you’re a martyr because your feelings are hurt trivializes the deaths of millions of people who have been and continue to be killed in the name of religion.
All is not lost though – it is entirely possible for people to recognize their own level of privilege. The cool thing is that once you see it, you can’t un-see it. It’s a useful consciousness-raising exercise, and has ramifications beyond this one issue. Pointing out the excesses of the religious establishment is not simply an attempt to spew vitriol against believers; done properly, it has the ability to raise consciousness about a real phenomenon that most people can’t see, and many will deny even when they do see it.
Help-Portrait
Nov 1st
It is no secret that religion does some things better than the secularist movement in Canada, especially things that appeal to families and people in need. Religions have youth groups, social services, family nights, an incredibly tight social network and do service projects like crazy.
In Vancouver a group of Christians are doing their 2nd Annual “Help-Portrait“:
Help-Portrait is a movement of photographers who are using their time, equipment and expertise to give back to those who are less fortunate this holiday season. The goal is simple; find someone in need, take their portrait, print their portrait and deliver them. Started by photographer Jeremy Cowart, this movement has spread around the world; reaching 58 countries at over 600 locations with more than 7000 photographers involved.
Something that seems so small, and that most of us might not even do, can mean a lot to a person or family. Atheist and secular groups in Canada should start to do more projects like this. They don’t cost anymore money than a regular event that gets put on (and could even cost less, depending how it was put on), would attract Christmas-time-donors and contributes to the humanizing of Atheism.
This group has been able to partner with big-name organizations such as Epson and Canon. It would be interesting to see if these big-name organizations would be so quick to partner with an atheist group.
One that I always participate in is the Samaritan’s Purse Operation Christmas Child where you get a shoe box, fill it with presents (pencils, socks, toys etc) and send it to a child who wouldn’t have gotten anything for Christmas. It can costs so little to do and again…will mean so much. It would be great if CFI or one of the other big-name atheist groups would decide to do something like this for this Christmas (or …since Christmas is technically Christian… just do something like this at anytime).
Supreme Court rules against Catholic Church
Oct 30th
There is more work for lawyers in Quebec now that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that an abuse victim can sue the Catholic church and reopen her case. (side note: I wonder how many other URLs end with court-priest-sex.html)
I don’t know enough about Quebec’s civil law to understand the case itself but it looks like there is a statute of limitations on abuse cases and the Catholics are simply arguing that the victim waited too long rather than defending the accused of his actions. It’s a valid defense since I believe in the rule of law but we can still argue against the church on moral grounds.
When I’m arguing with a Catholic, I always ask her how much money she’s personally spent defending child molesters. It’s a nasty tactic, I know, but making every Catholic aware that every dollar she’s spent on her church is partially spent keeping pedophiles out of jail might encourage her to donate a little bit less. If we aren’t going to take down the churches anytime soon we can keep whacking their shins until they eventually fall over and appeals to emotion and hits to their pocketbooks like this will be far more effective in the long run than any of the facts we have at our side.
On a similar note, Quebec abuse victims are also asking for a cut in the profits raised at today’s Saint Andre mass. I doubt it will have any effect but publicity stunts are important and always welcomed.
CFI Skeptics welcome Creationist Dr. Sarfati
Oct 28th
This past week, British Columbia was host to creationist lecturer Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, a PhD in chemistry who gave a series of lectures entitled “Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth.” The title, while pithy enough on its own, is based on the title of the international bestselling book The Greatest Show on Earth by British biologist, professor and novelist Richard Dawkins.
Dr. Sarfati, founder of Creation Ministries International, asserts that evolution is a hoax based on his literal interpretation of the story of Genesis – in which God created the universe in 7 days about 10,000 years ago. One must admire the courage and temerity of a man who looks at pre-human fossils dated orders of magnitude older than that; rock formations dated billions of years old; and abundant cosmological evidence putting the age of the universe even older than the rocks; and says “nope, ten thousand – book says so.” Maybe ‘admire’ isn’t the right word…
What did we do?
Upon hearing that we would be paid a visit by such a luminary figure, British Columbia skeptics decided that if creationist propaganda was going to be spread around our fair province then audience members deserved to hear what the scientific evidence had to say. After all, forewarned is forearmed. Centre for Inquiry (CFI) Vancouver, in partnership with our colleagues at CFI Okanagan, the University of British Columbia (UBC) biology department, UBC Okanagan (UBCO), the UBC Freethinkers and the UBCO Skeptics contacted the venues where Sarfati was scheduled to speak – UBC’s Vancouver campus, The Pacific Academy in Surrey, and UBC’s Okanagan campus – and requested permission to set up an information table in the lobby.
The Pacific Academy, a privately owned venue attached to a Pentacostal Christian school (K-12) in Surrey, declined our request to set up a table. While we were understandably disappointed – especially given CFI’s past willingness to allow creationists to push their propaganda (usually in the form of “if there’s no God, how did all this stuff get here? Therefore, God.”) at our events – we recognized that private businesses have every right to hold whatever events they like. The Surrey event was attended by around 800 people of all ages.
We were able to prevail upon UBC to allow the presence of science within the morass of apologetics by reminding them of their obligation to present information that is consistent with the policies of the university. While creationism might be entertaining, evolution is a fact. We were lucky to be able to borrow on the heft and credibility of our colleagues within the UBC biology department.
The Vancouver lecture was not quite as well-attended, perhaps due to the fact that people in a university environment know a bit more about science than the general public. Many of the students we encountered there attended out of sheer curiosity – having heard about the evolution vs. creation “controversy” (only controversial to those within the creationist camp). They thanked us for being there to present the evidence, rather than… well, we’ll get to that later.
The UBC Okanagan lecture was again not quite as popular as the one held by the Pentecostal Church in Surrey. Our volunteers were present to provide some information to those who might not have a background in biology. Feeling a bit cheeky, some of us wore t-shirts that said “Creationism: a Philosophy of Ignorance”, referring to the argument from ignorance that Creationism is based on (“I don’t know how this works, therefore it must be God’s doing”). Our esteemed presenter wasn’t particularly pleased about that, but we’ll get to that in a bit.
Overall, our presence was welcomed by audience members. We were careful not to force information on people, preferring instead to wait for curious parties to come to us. We were not there to sell anything or to force an agenda, merely to make information available and give people a chance to pre-empt some of the more egregious lies inherent to creationism.
What happened at the lecture?
While the bar for creationist lecturers isn’t set particularly high, either in terms of evidence or persuasive arguments, Dr. Sarfati did his utmost not to clear it. Instead of presenting evidence for the truth of creation (which would be impressive, because there isn’t any), he instead presented a series of shallow, recycled and easily- (and oft-) refuted arguments. Some of the highlights:
- The second law of thermodynamics says that organization can’t increase in a closed system, therefore beneficial mutations cannot happen and evolution cannot occur. Never mind that the Earth is not a closed system, gets regular energy from the sun, and beneficial mutations have been observed to occur (a PhD in Chemistry really should know this)…
- Science comes from Christianity (therefore… God?). Never mind that the Christian church repeatedly blocked scientific progress that was contrary to dogma, that science has explained many things that were supposedly divine “mysteries”, and that during the Dark Ages – when the church was at its height of power – it was the Muslim world that made the greatest contributions to science…
- Noah’s flood explains everything, from the Grand Canyon to the divergence of species. Never mind the fact that contemporary floods don’t seem to have the magical properties of Noah’s flood, that building a ship capable of holding 2 of every animal in the world would require a level of technology we don’t even have today, and that there is no evidence anywhere of a flood that covered the entire world and then carefully planted specific types of animals only in certain places…
- Fish float when they die, therefore they can’t fossilize, therefore fish fossils are evidence of being buried by mud slides from Noah’s flood. Never mind the fact that you do not need Noah’s flood to create mud slides that bury fish. It happens all the time. Never mind the fact that fish sink after their air bladders lose integrity, or that fish without bladders sink right away, or that fossil records are not the only – or even the strongest – evidence we have for evolution…
- If you put a frog in a blender and turn it on, you’ll never see a live frog be reassembled. I’m not even sure if this one is worth taking on, and someone should probably call the SPCA.
After the lecture there was a Q&A session. Dr. Safarti wasn’t too pleased to see our volunteers in the first place (someone put a copy of Biology for Dummies on the podium – perhaps not polite, but certainly funny), and mentioned our insouciant t-shirts a few times in Kelowna. He became even more hostile when we pointed out some of the more egregious fallacies in his argument, interrupting the questioners, accusing us of trying to convert people to atheism (a big scary deal to Dr. Safarti), and assuring us that the answers were in one of his books, but he couldn’t answer it right now. The Vancouver event was attended predominantly by students and evolutionists, who did not respond well to these evasive tactics and cheered on those who took the creationist presenter to task for them.
Our reception was somewhat frostier in Kelowna, where the crowd was not quite as pro-science as in Vancouver. Our questions, rather than being met with tacit approval, were the cause of some consternation to the audience. One attendee, a professor of philosophy, attempted to demonstrate some of the logical problems with Sarfati’s arguments – an audience member threatened to put the professor in a head lock. Perhaps it goes without saying that we didn’t win any popularity contests there. Hopefully we got mentioned in a few church sermons the following Sunday.
Needless to say, Dr. Sarfati was not pleased to have people present who are aware of history, science, and basic logic. His hostility was not saved for skeptics either: he made many disparaging comments about atheists, Muslims, and made disparaging remarks about other Christians who believed in evolution. Perhaps being a jerk and a buffoon isn’t relevant to the fact that his presentation was frankly a big steamy pile of BS, but it certainly didn’t help his cause.
What did we learn?
The British Columbia branches of CFI are working on our “skeptivist” approach – bringing the tools of skepticism out into the open and engaging the public. We were lucky to have partners at UBC, as well as the support of the national branch of CFI. We were once again received positively by most of the audience at the event we attended – a reception we can at least partially attribute to being polite and non-pushy (being a good-looking group of ladies and gents probably didn’t hurt either).
People are understandably curious when someone tells them “the thing you’ve been taught is a hoax”. I’m sure that many of the attendees were either confirmed creationists for whom science is blasphemy, and more than a few were science-literate skeptics present at the lecture for a chuckle. Our mission was not and has not been, to convert the whole audience to one way of thinking; it was to present the actual evidence and allow people to make their own decisions. We are confident that after hearing “both sides” of the creation/evolution issue, reasonable people will choose the side with the evidence on its side over the one that relies on distortions and outright falsehoods to make its point.
Our information tables were visited predominantly by the people we were hoping to attract – science-weak university students who were there out of curiosity. They thanked us for being there, knowing that evolution is embraced by the scientific community but not being too sure about why. While skeptics and atheists are often accused of “preaching to the converted”, we were glad to have an opportunity to “preach” to those whose understanding of biology is less than full.
Dr. Sarfati is perhaps not the greatest challenge facing us in the creationist camp. While folks like Ken Ham at least have some kind of charisma, Dr. Sarfati has pictures of blended frogs and slander against non-believers. However, it is important to counter pseudoscience and fraud whenever it appears, particularly when it’s on our university campuses, no matter how unimpressive the speaker may be. We are happy to have been a part of this, and optimistic that we may have given people some things to think about.
More strident Episcopalians
Oct 26th
This shrill screed from the hateful quill of Bishop John Shelby Spong:
I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is “an abomination to God,” about how homosexuality is a “chosen lifestyle,” or about how through prayer and “spiritual counseling” homosexual persons can be “cured.” Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy. I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate “reparative therapy,” as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality “deviant.” I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that “we love the sinner but hate the sin.”
That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement. I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is “high-sounding, pious rhetoric.” The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer.
Bishop Spong, you’ve given me a word-boner.
Of course we in the atheist community must fall all over ourselves to condemn such hateful rhetoric. After all, he might turn away some atheists who would totes get on the pro-gay bandwagon, but for all the mean words said about religious people. If you believe in your principles so little that you’ll let language be the deciding factor of your involvement, perhaps it’s best that you stay home.
And please believe that Bishop Spong (great name, incidentally) gets better:
In my personal life, I will no longer listen to televised debates conducted by “fair-minded” channels that seek to give “both sides” of this issue “equal time.” I am aware that these stations no longer give equal time to the advocates of treating women as if they are the property of men or to the advocates of reinstating either segregation or slavery, despite the fact that when these evil institutions were coming to an end the Bible was still being quoted frequently on each of these subjects. It is time for the media to announce that there are no longer two sides to the issue of full humanity for gay and lesbian people. There is no way that justice for homosexual people can be compromised any longer.
*Quiver* I’m no longer convinced that being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice, because I’m super gay for the good Bishop right now. I need me some Spong.
This is the power that rhetoric has – it can uplift, it can inspire, it can forge unlikely allegiances. While the Bishop and I would never agree on theology (unless he’s purely a “cultural Christian”, in which case I’ll just scratch my head and change the subject), even a hardened firebrand like myself would be proud to stand next to the author of these words. And it’s not because he’s pandering to my position, or being just s’darn nice about what he’s saying, it’s because he’s unashamed to state clearly what he believes. I have more respect for someone who disagrees with me clearly and directly than I do with someone who pussyfoots around the issues and obfuscates, straining mightily to hold the middle ground at all costs.
While I recognize that not everyone will respond to direct language positively, there is a significant subset of the atheist community that does. My contention is that despite the fact that we may disagree on any number of other topics – from wine to economic politics to the supernatural – we ‘firebrand’ atheists are not so rabidly anti-religious as to ignore good ideas from a variety of sources, even the religious. Plus, when my back’s against the wall, I’m comforted more by someone willing to stand and fight beside me than I am by someone who thinks we just need to compromise with the mob so they’ll put their torches down.
He’s just so… STRIDENT!
Oct 25th
I read a great article today in – of all places – The Huffington Post:
An increasingly popular bumper sticker reads, “Guns Don’t Kill People — RELIGION Kills People!” In light of recent events I would add religion kills young people: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young people.
Despite the progress we’re making on achieving equality under the law and acceptance in society for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, why this rash of bullying, paired with self-loathing, ending in suicide? With humility and heartfelt repentance I assert that religion — and its general rejection of homosexuality — plays a crucial role in this crisis.
It’s a pretty direct, in-depth, and scathing appraisal of religious people; not only the fundamentalists:
On the one hand, Religious Right hatemongers and crazies are spewing all sorts of venom and condemnation, all in the name of a loving God. The second-highest-ranking Mormon leader, Boyd K. Packer, recently called same-sex attraction “impure and unnatural” in an act of unspeakable insensitivity at the height of this rash of teen suicides. He declared that it can be cured, and that same-sex unions are morally repugnant and “against God’s law and nature.”
But also those mushy middle-of-the-road moderates who sit idly by and allow these kinds of hate to continue without objection:
On the other hand, what’s the role of more mainline, more progressive denominations such as mainstream Christianity, Judaism, and Islam in these recent tragedies? Mostly silence. And just like in the days of the AIDS organization Act Up, “silence equals death.”
It is not enough for good people — religious or otherwise — to simply be feeling more positive toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Tolerance and a live-and-let-live attitude beats discrimination and abuse by a mile. But it’s not enough. Tolerant people, especially tolerant religious people, need to get over their squeamishness about being vocal advocates and unapologetic supporters of LGBT people. It really is a matter of life and death, as we’ve seen.
Shocking! So strident! So evil! So Gnu!
Who is this dickish atheist author spewing such hatred against good religious people? Who is this “confrontationalist” who is doing the skeptic movement a disservice by making it harder for religious people to get on board with our principles? Who is this in-your-face jerk who is shooting us in the foot?
That would be Episcopelian Bishop Gene Robinson.
He and Dan Savage should hang out.
A good idea is a good idea, regardless of the source. It’s nice to see a prominent Christian refuse to wave the “love the sinner, hate the sin” banner – as though calling it a ‘sin’ isn’t hate – and give his own people a kick in the ass. Neutrality in the face of evil is no virtue, anger in the face of evil is no vice.
My favourite part, somewhat obviously, is when he draws parallels to the anti-racist movement:
I learned this in my dealing with racism. It’s not enough to be tolerant of other races. I benefit from a racist society just by being white. I don’t ever have to use the “n” word, treat any person of color with discourtesy, or even think ill of anyone. But as long as I am not working to dismantle the systemic racism that benefits me, a white man, at the expense of people of color, I am a racist. And my faith calls me to become an anti-racist — pro-active, vocal, and committed.
But of course this is a confrontationalist approach, so obviously it doesn’t matter if he’s right or not – he’s wrong by virtue of the fact that he’s not bending over backwards to make people feel good for being cowards and sitting on the sidelines. Personally, if more religious leaders were like this guy, I’d probably have a lot less to write about.
I officially baptize Gene Robinson as an honorary Gnu Atheist firebrand dickish asshole, and welcome him to the fold of people who are not content to play nice when there are lives at stake. I’ll leave Mr. Robinson with the final word here, but you should read the whole article.
These bullying behaviors would not exist without the undergirding and the patina of respect provided by religious fervor against LGBT people. It’s time for “tolerant” religious people to acknowledge the straight line between the official anti-gay theologies of their denominations and the deaths of these young people. Nothing short of changing our theology of human sexuality will save these young and precious lives.
Can religious people be good?
Oct 20th
In my old age, I get forgetful.
I forget that while I have made my stance on religion very clear in a number of writings elsewhere on teh interwebz, readers here may not be familiar with that stance. It is therefore easy to confuse my irritation and frustration over the kid gloves that religion is handled with (like nothing else in the world) with some kind of hatred for religious people. The majority of my family members are religious – some of them embarrassingly so. Many of my close friends are, to some degree, religious practitioners. It would be essentially impossible for me to maintain relationships with anyone if I was a foaming-at-the-mouth ‘militant’ atheist asshole. This is, of course, a caricature of anyone who dares say mean things about religion, but that’s been done to death in other conversations, and I won’t mention it again here.
If someone asked me the question in the title – can religious people be good? – I’d probably stare at them in disbelief at how anyone could ask such a ridiculously stupid question. Of course religious people can be good, and of course religion can motivate people to do great things. I came across this one today, and thought I’d share it with you:
I hugged a man in his underwear. I think Jesus would have too.
I spent the day at Chicago’s Pride Parade. Some friends and I, with The Marin Foundation, wore shirts with “I’m Sorry” written on it. We had signs that said, “I’m sorry that Christians judge you,” “I’m sorry the way churches have treated you,” “I used to be a bible-banging homophobe, sorry.” We wanted to be an alternative Christian voice from the protestors that were there speaking hate into megaphones.
Sadly, most Christians want to run from such a sight rather than engage it. Most Christian won’t even learn if that person dancing in his underwear has a name. Well, he does. His name is Tristan. However, I think Jesus would have hugged him too. It’s exactly what I read throughout scripture: Jesus hanging out with people that religious people would flee from. Correlation between then and now? I think so.
It’s a pretty remarkable story of… we need a word here… Christ-ivism? Going out in the community and demonstrating your beliefs rather than just talking about them or holding up signs. Presenting a positive and meaningful example of why you believe what you do. Those of you in the Vancouver area or who read Pharyngula regularly will remember that I was part of a team of atheists and skeptics that marched in Vancouver’s Pride Parade this year. Anyone who thinks we wouldn’t have been proud to start a dialogue and form a relationship with a pro-LGBTQ Christian group has a particularly craven view of the atheist disposition (sorry, couldn’t resist :P).
Below the story, in the comments, is this:
What would you have done if one of them would have asked, “Do you think being gay is wrong?” I’m sincerely interested. It’s not our place to judge, of course not. People who up signs bashing gay people have it all wrong. They’re doing the opposite of showing Christ’s love. However, I struggle, because I don’t want to water-down God’s truth. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin (and so are a million other things so many people, myself included, do or have done..like premarital sex, getting drunk, porn, jealousy, pride, laziness…etc, etc. Sin is sin, no one worse than the other, all separating us from a holy God).
I guess this is my struggle. In the process of reconciling and apologizing for the hateful things Christians have done to gay people in the past (and there are many things to apologize for)…how do we also hold on to God’s truth? Because Jesus, yes, Jesus would have hugged those men, but He would also wasn’t afraid to offend either, not in the name of truth. I wish I knew what Jesus would say.
And it is here where my criticism lies – Christianity is a philosophy system of thought like any other. Ditto for Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Rastafari, and secular humanism. Clearly the author of the original post was either untroubled by the Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality, or found another way of siding with compassion over condemnation. He made a choice to ignore some parts of his philosophy belief structure and embrace others. Everyone should be free to do that for themselves, and not place the prescriptions of their own philosophical personal interpretation on anyone else.
But when we forget it’s just philosophy and begin to believe that it is the will of God that we classify some kinds of sex as hell-worthy that we get into trouble. The commenter is clearly presented with a contradiction between what she/he feels is right, and what is written in the philosophy system of thought’s source document. As a secular humanist, I am free to ignore any or all of the components of the philosophy system, as I do with Buddhism and Taoism and Communism and a whole host of other philosophies ideas that I think have some merit but don’t fully agree with. Not so for the religious person – either she/he must step away from the scripture upon which the religion is based, or “interpret” it to match her/his a priori beliefs.
I am incredibly glad whenever I see anyone able to apply their philosophy beliefs to the benefit of humankind, regardless of what those philosophy beliefs are. I will continue my criticism of flawed philosophies ideas without guilt, but I hope that will never be construed as “hatred” for religious people.
Keeping Faith Alive in Contemporary Society
Oct 17th
Joe and I attended the World Religion’s Conference on Saturday held by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community at the University of Waterloo. The overall theme for the conference was “keeping faith alive in contemporary society”, however it seemed like this topic rarely (if ever) came up in the presentations… Well, to be fair they all talked about what their religions do and why these things *should* continue and why they *might* continue, but I thought there would be a much stronger focus on strategies and plans for keeping faith alive by working together. My take on the talks will be incredibly different than Joe’s, so I hope that you’ll read both of our accounts.
There were 8 religions so I will address each of them with my overall feeling/response now…some of them I didn’t really listen or like, so I won’t say much, but 3 or 4 of them I really liked. Please understand that what I took out of each talk my be extremely different than what the main concept may have actually been… but we all take out what we need/want to.
Hinduism with Chander Khanna of the Hindu Institute of Learning
The overarching concept of his talk was that all of the religions on the stage, including atheism, were simply all the same thing. (He called atheists “delayed” in their faith and procrastinators…heh.) He elaborated on this by saying that we’re all different paths heading toward a common place and that the future of faith in contemporary society is hidden inside of this.
His hope, that I agree with, is that there will be a meeting point at the center that will involved many levels of understanding and will essentially morph into new religions of the future. In the future people will look back on the Christianity, Islam and Buddhism that we have today and talk about how strange it all seems. The future religions understand each other, including the secular humanists’ perspectives. What a lovely idea! Too bad he didn’t have any suggestions on how to do this, he sort of just said it would happen all on its own. Given the history of Christianity and Islam I highly doubt it. I think that there still needs to be some major activism for calming down extremists so that we actually have a chance at a world full of different religions, celebrating their differences and working together on big issues.
He continued…
The real risk to Religion does not come from Contemporary Society with its discoveries of Science or rising affluence by from the viruses, the infections which have distorted, hijacked and vilified some of the basic tenets for political and societal expediencies.
…and I couldn’t agree more. He gave some examples of how religion has been used “out of context” to create great suffering in the world such as with the caste system in India where 70-80% of all Indian poor are “untouchables”. People too often use bits and pieces of religions to advance their own points of view or political agenda, this is not what religion is for. It is nice to think of a time when it won’t be used for this.
Humanism with Stuart Bechman of the Atheist Alliance International 
You can all take great pleasure in knowing that secular humanism and atheism was represented in a very eloquent and intelligent fashion by the president of the atheist alliance international, Stuart Bechman. While he might look a little bit like a used car salesman he did an extraordinary job defending the secular position in front of an auditorium filled with religious people (except Joe). He did a lot of things I liked and a couple things I didn’t like (which I forgave him for later because other people did it too).
He did the ever-inspiring and never-old “the universe is awe inspiring” speech saying that “faith” for atheists is in humanity. He expanded on this by saying it is important to have an understanding of life, the universe and everything in order to make right decisions for the future. For the wellbeing of future generations, he says, it is important to use our knowledge and science to come to good decisions.
What I didn’t like: He said that we are all essentially Gods because we shape the world of tomorrow. Maybe it’s the Christian in me, but I just didn’t think it was entirely appropriate to call humans “gods”. Not only does it make him seem like he has a bit of an inflated ego but it is also pretty much as blasphemous as you can get…lol. Which I don’t have a problem with, but some might. He also reminded everyone that passion is not truth and that the religious need to question their faith and dogma because humans are gullible and emotional. At first I had a problem with this because he seemed like he was trying to de-convert people, but then I realized that pretty much everyone was trying to convert someone so I let it slide. But I also don’t like the underlying assumption that faith materializes because a person is gullible and emotional. People of mature faith don’t grow their faith because they are emotional, they do it because they are seeking and finding.
It is worth noting that he was the only panel member who didn’t promote working together for a better future.
Judaism with Dr. Daniel Maoz a professor of Jewish studies
To be completely honest… I tried to listen to him, I really really really did.
But the hat he has on in the picture – he wore it through his entire talk and it was so distracting because you couldn’t see his eyes at all… all you could see was a hat. An ugly hat.
And he talked really slow… and for like 5 minutes he was talking about learning how to play bridge and how it is really hard to play bridge until you actually do it… and then it turned out that the bridge-playing analogy wasn’t even central to his point, it was just to demonstrate that he understood that we wouldn’t understand Judaism as outsiders…
Anyway, …I fell asleep. Joe listened tho, ask him.
Christianity with Charles Van Alphen from St. Michaeil RC Parish
He was a Catholic and I’m United so we did totally not see eye-to-eye on the appropriate amount of scripture to be saying or on the basic groundings of Christianity…however…the meat of his talk was actually quite good.
He advocated that the future of faith lies in having a mature understanding of faith in order to put that faith and religion into the context of today and tomorrow. He said that the context today is love, and that Jesus preached love and that we need to focus on this. The obsession with dogma, he argues, has created too much conflict and hate. The bible was created by a group of people with an agenda to advance – so there are things that no longer fit into the context of today and for faith to be alive tomorrow, it needs to catch up with this context.
I think the reasons atheists will have a hard time understanding this is because of their lack of a mature faith… I know hearing/reading that will piss you all off, but I don’t care. You don’t have mature faith and therefore you think religion is only what you read and these shallow definitions of God (ie: comparing God to fairies in a garden) are remotely accurate.
Buddhism with Dr. Christopher Ross a professor in Religion and Culture
Aboriginal Spirituality with Walter Cooke of the Elder Counsel Ojibway Cree Bear Clan
I don’t have a single note taken down for either of these guys…. Despite the fact that Dr. Ross had a wonderful English accent and it was sort of promising when he said we didn’t need to keep faith alive if it was dying… to just let it die if it has no purpose… But, then he just went off about Buddhism in Western society and stuff.
I went to the conference to see the aboriginal guy! But it was pretty bad, too. I’m taking a class right now on aboriginals and it is really focused on the politics of aboriginal cultures and how they are trying to fit their culture and spirituality into a changing world. There are some amazing scholars out there with good ideas about how to do it very effectively, but this guy wasn’t one of them. Not even close. It was too bad, really…. aboriginals are finding ways to resist globalization on local levels and have their culture represented in larger political bodies – this is key in keeping aboriginal faith and spirituality alive.
Islam with Mubarak A. Nazir from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama ‘at Canada
Much to my surprise Nazir was my favorite speaker (enough that Joe said “you’re converting to Islam now, aren’t you?”). I’m not quite sure what it was about him, but he was vibrant, confident and very charming.
He played up on the fact that similarities are not news worthy. That events that are free (like this conference) are not filled up to the brim because there is no conflict. But these are the events with substance and with information that can help make the world a more loving place. Debates about religion vs. science/atheism, debates about the mosque – these are all popular because the create friction and hate, which people thrive off of. But we need to learn to stop and think. To love your mind, yourself, your neighbour and the poor to create a better world.
The future of faith is in the contemplation and conversation with oneself and with others who are more mature in their faith. Thus we need to stop and think about what we know, reflect on what we know and let our minds wander.
“You can put books on a jackass and it won’t become educated.”
Education isn’t always in the books and it isn’t always in the classroom or the lab. There is much to be learned in the faith world and innature that we should be allowing ourselves to be more exposed to. This is such a great thing that people should internalize. Scientific knowledge is NOT the only knowledge that is out there.
Yeah. I said it.
Sikhism with Kulvir Singh Gill from Sikh Centennial Foundation and Seva Food Bank
He was the youngest on the panel and really well spoken. He is really the only person who outlined two very specific strategies for keeping faith alive in contemporary society.
1. We (people in religion) need to face the plurality of the modern world. Each person needs to accept that there is no one single path and that all paths lead to the same God. Too many faiths have been overly focused on numbers – how many houses of worship have they opened, how many followers did they gain – but they need to refocus. He expanded on this by telling a story about a black cat who was the pet of a monk at a monastery. The monk would tie the cat up during meditation. The monk passed the cat on to the next kid and the next kid – and eventually the cat died…so they went and got another black cat to tie up during meditation. The point here is that this was once something that was functionally useful but had turned into something totally useless. He equates this stories to the discrimination and inequalities found in so many religions. He says these inequalities in our holy texts were functionally useful for the old societies, but today they are useless because we have changed.
2. He argued that we need to move away from fear and guilt in religion. Children can’t be forced to wear a veil, a turban or to not cut their hair. The children need to want to do it, and to love to do it. Instead of using the religion as a way of making a child scared, we need to teach religion and faith to the next generation as something to embrace and to love because faith should grow from the heart.
Right now we are collectively keeping out the love.
There you have it!
I agreed with a lot that was said and disagreed the most with the atheist. :) The only guy that offered some real concrete advice for keeping faith alive was Kulvir Gill from Sikhism. I think his two ideas are good, but they are certainly not the whole picture. A lot needs to be done to keep faith alive. People need to faithful and hopeful of a lot of things in the future in order to live productive lives. I think if you all lose faith in religion, love, humanity – whatever our “thing” is then there are going to be a lot of depressed people out there. We all need something to hold onto, and I think it is up to each of us to learn to work together and to teach the next generation to stay positive and put their talents to work.
Comments