Athée Canadien
Secularism
New poll finds Ontarians support elimination of Catholic schools.
May 18th
The Forum Research survey also found more than half of Ontario residents — 53 per cent — oppose the public funding of Catholic schools with 40 per cent supportive and 6 per cent unsure.
As the issue of gay-straight alliances dominates debate around new anti-bullying legislation, the poll concluded people are accepting of the anti-homophobia clubs designed to promote tolerance.
Fifty-one per cent agreed that students in publicly funded Catholic schools should be allowed to form clubs under that sometimes contentious name with 28 per cent opposed and 21 per cent undecided.
The GSA issue is big if we can make good use of it. Atheist groups CFI:Canada and the Canadian Secular Alliance cosponsored a rally last weekend yet I found it annoying that all of the focus has been on forcing the Catholic schools to accept GSAs rather than acknowledging the real problem that Catholic schools are funded in the first place.
But since the government is proposing laws that reduce the influence of Catholic beliefs within the separate schools, having the public wonder why we’re keeping the two systems apart is a valid end game. Why attack separate schools on moral or anti-religious grounds when simple economics might do the trick?
via Toronto Star
The Ten (Liberal) Commandments – from NYT circa 1951
May 6th
My buddy sent me this. I thank him, for it is truly inspired. I need not add anything; but felt absolutely compelled to share. Take from it what you will:
It originally appeared in the December 16, 1951, issue of The New York Times Magazine, at the end of the article “The best answer to fanaticism: Liberalism.”
An Atheist Community?
Apr 29th
John Wilkins from Evolving Thoughts wrote a post entitled “Community, unbelief, and the rise of secularism” in response to PZ Myers’ talk at the Global Atheist Convention:
This was the first time I attended such an event. I didn’t quite know what to expect. I have been to many ideology-based conferences, events and happenings over the years and one thing that they all have in common is attempting to build a sense of community. Indeed, that is what my friend and Good Twin PZ Myers spoke on. We had lunch the day before his talk and I noted a few things I’d like to share with you now.
What is most fascinating about Wilkens’ post is his explanation of what it takes to build a community: the Costly Signalling hypothesis.
Please read “Community, unbelief, and the rise of secularism”; Wilkins explains the Costly Signalling hypothesis better than I can.
However, I do question whether atheists want to build a community. Do I? Do you?
Convenient hypocrisy
Apr 27th
Chris Selley wonders why Canadians put the heat on our politicians who want to open the debate on abortion while at the same time allowing publicly funded schools to push a pro-life agenda.
But that’s the greatest part of stories like these. While politicians cower, the Catholic system all but rubs their noses in the Vatican’s brand of social-conservative activism. [Catholic School board trustee Bruce] Campbell reminded the Post that, “hundreds of [Catholic] students every year attend the March for Life,” and that, “the concept of pro-life is ingrained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which affirms life begins at conception.”
“In Catholic schools there is a culture of faith-related, social-justice activism,” Mr. Campbell told Xtra! earlier this week. “[Catholic schools do not support] activism that is not in keeping with the tenets of the Catholic Church.”
It’s a good comparison. Politicians need to be called out wherever possible but why so silent when the schools we fund push their students to support the same ideas? Maybe Canadians are just lazy. Simply mocking politicians who have unpopular religious beliefs is easier than trying to stop unpopular religious actions. Sad.
School Choice
Apr 26th
Scott Rowed discusses school choice.
Choice means discrimination against teachers based on their religion. Catholic teachers can work in either the separate schools or public schools. Teachers from other religions or no religion need not apply to the Catholic system, even though the jobs are fully funded by public taxes. In the publicly-funded private and alternative schools run by evangelical churches, choice means that teachers must believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and that evolution is a myth. If you’re a science teacher who happens to accept, well, science, you don’t stand a chance. Pastors make the hiring decisions for these government-funded positions.
While he’s specifically talking about Alberta’s separate schools, the same logic applies to all provinces who still fund the discriminatory system.
A point worth emphasizing is the idea that while Catholic schools don’t have to discriminate (they regularly admit non-Catholic students), the fact that they can allows them to only accept good students. Catholic schools often have better test scores than its public counterparts not because it is a better system (as its defendants want you to believe) but because of its privilege to keep bad students out.
Clergy Residence Deductions
Apr 26th
Your taxes are due in a few days so here’s an annual reminder that members of the clergy don’t pay income taxes on their residences simply because they’re in the profession. This year the clergy resident deduction is hidden on Line 231 in the general T1 form (as opposed to the T1 Special that most people use) so you probably won’t notice it. Since I’m lazy and nothing else has changed, I can quote me from last year.
Keep in mind the clergy deduction isn’t a simple tax credit like transit passes, education expenses, or charitable donations that only credit you around 15%. Deductions from your net income decrease your taxable income which, in Canada, can mean thousands of dollars a year in reduced taxes. For example, a small town minister earning $35,000 a year likely wouldn’t have to pay any taxes because the clergy deduction would put his taxable income below the basic personal amount.
Why are ministers allowed to avoid paying any taxes? Religions have always enjoyed avoiding taxes as a result of their charitable status (see Day 2 for details) but this is a tax break on the personal incomes of members of clergy. We certainly have our objections to the procedures and practices of all religions, but this is referring to the personal income taxes of one particular profession. If you want to be a priest, that’s fine, but pay taxes on your income just like everyone else.
According to the rules, a minister is defined as someone who:
- is authorized or empowered to perform spiritual duties, conduct religious services, administer sacraments and carry out similar religious functions. Religious functions may include participation in the conduct of religious services, the administration of some of the rituals, ordinances or sacraments, and pastoral responsibilities to specific segments of the religious organization;
- is appointed or recognized by a body or person with the legitimate authority to appoint or ordain ministers on behalf of or within the religious denomination; and
- is in a position or appointment of some permanence.
It seems like a loose definition. It might allow Michael Payton and Justin Trottier (Canada’s only full-time employees who work for an atheist organization) to deduct their living expenses.
Tough economic times
Apr 24th
The Greek orthodox church is facing problems as its cash-strapped government begins cutting spending.
Under a 60-year-old treaty, the state agreed to pay priests’ salaries in exchange for large amount of church property, including land. But this means more than 10,000 priests are now on the government payroll, putting a 190 million euro (US$250-million) annual burden on the country’s overstretched budget.
Under the terms of an international bailout that saved Greece from bankruptcy, the government is cutting pay which for a typical parish priest is about 1,000 euros a month. Athens will also fund only one new priest to replace every 10 who retire or die, causing shortages in remote parishes during a deep recession when the flock most needs help.
It’s a good time to point out how secularism benefits everyone. We don’t have to fund stupid beliefs while religions don’t bankrupt the country. It isn’t the most convincing argument since no one wants to give up their own subsidies but comparing religious funding to big auto and banking bailouts should score us a few points.
More prayer and politics
Apr 24th
It’s a simple idea really, one might even call it a tradition in modern western culture, the separation of church from state, that allows people to believe and practice as they like without government imposing religion on anyone.
Like everyone else in the chambers, Gontard-Zelinkova would rise when the Christian prayer was recited, but as an atheist and secularist, she questioned why she was being forced to do so.“I had to stand up, and if I didn’t, I would be singled out,” she said. “I’m not looking for a war. But as a secularist, I am trying to promote this idea of separation of church and state.”
Prayer may be tradition, it maybe be part of history, but when it comes to government promoting religion, its something best left in the past.
Enforced secularism
Apr 23rd
Michael Den Tandt argues why we need to enforce a secular state to curb the influence of extremist religions.
How can citizens of the West block or defuse the clash? Some on the right advocate limits or outright bans on immigration from Muslim countries. At a stroke, they would undo the Enlightenment, in effect, establishing apartheid on a grand scale. This is a fascistic impulse.
The other remedy, the only rational and desirable one in my view, is to aggressively enforce a secular state, in every sphere – on municipal councils, in provincial legislatures and in the education system – so that religious faith is located impartially in the church, mosque or synagogue, and in the home, and never in forums funded in any way by taxpayers.
Will enforcing secularism really stop the Breiviks and Bin Ladens of our world? Keeping religion private is a goal for every atheist activist but I don’t see how it would eliminate extremism. Don’t most extremist groups already operate on the fringes, away from the public eye? Anders Breivik is a Christian extremist who (likely) operated alone so I don’t see how taking Jesus statues off city lawns on Christmas would have stopped him.
On the other hand, without state sponsorship, will organized religion be able the exert the influence it has now? The Breiviks would still fall through the cracks but the Bin Ladens would have a tough time without government backing. How many churches in Canada would survive if their lands were taxed like everyone else? Not many, I suspect.
On Being a Canadian Atheist
Apr 13th
I actually wrote this a while ago but some recent Canadian news – led by Elizabeth May – made me go back and find it.
What does it mean to be a Canadian?
What does it mean to be an Atheist?
What does it mean to be a Canadian Atheist?
I can answer the first two questions with ease but the third question…well, it baffles me.
If I were an American, an Iranian, an Israelite, an Iraqi, an Indian, or even if I were Irish then I wouldn’t have trouble defining what it would mean to me to be an Atheist from my home country. But I’m none of those nationalities – I’m Canadian.
Comments