In the book, Faircloth had some impassioned speeches about how we seculars get in a twist over crosses on public land or prayer in government while neglecting faith healing, funding for religious institutions (including schools), religious-based tax exemptions and double-standards for religious groups. These directly harm people, cost us money and are things that even religious people could get behind.

It’s good to see the CSA and CFI taking action but yes, I too wish that it was less reacting to the latest scandal and more acting on some long-term failings.

If it is a dull little butterknife (as many are) it is really no more a threat than a pencil or many other commonplace items that we dont prohibit. The further you move down the spectrum towards sharper, pointier and longer objects (as others are) the threat level change. Those on both side of the issue like to trot out the most benign (tiny dully little butterknives) and the most extreme examples of kirpans (big sharp swords) and ignore the nuance.

The policy being proposed in the article seems reasonable although I think adding the stipulation that the blade be dull is also “reasonable”.

Oh an a side note: supporters of the kirpan really need to stop with this whole ‘its not a knife its an object with deep spiritual roots’ schtick. If its a knife its a knife regardless of any ‘deep spiritual roots’. I can be both. Just dont tell me that its not a knife because it has deep spiritual roots. That just doesnt follow.

I’m just not convinced that its necessarily a “knife” in many cases.

I’m not really sure what Rad’s point is, really, I think Tyson’s position is perfectly sound.

However, I actually avoided calling myself an atheist once (recently) because of the company I was with. I was invited to a chalet in march and it was the future husband of the sister of my sister’s boyfriend (read that again if you have to). Regardless of if you can make the connection in your head (most humans can make no more than five), I was out of my element in the sense that I had no real business being there. I’m the brother-in-law of the future brother-in-law…

Anyway, the future wife in all this mess is a teacher at a catholic school. I’m pretty sure it’s a highschool but I didn’t concentrate on it.

When asked about my beliefs, I claimed to be agnostic. I’m not sure if it’s because my sister (also a non-believer) was feeling combative or naive, but she came back and told her “no, he’s an atheist. He blogs on an atheist site.”

Again, knowing my sister, this wasn’t meant to centre me out, but more to reinforce the idea that I “know what I’m talking about”.

I tried very hard to avoid the debate, but she just started throwing out passive aggressive ad hominems and lob balls.

In the end, having the foresight of recognizing there was a WHOLE LOT of weekend left in a small cabin together, I kept my mouth mostly shut and did not make the host’s fiancé feel stupid. I have my convictions but being the “fox in the hen house” means there is still a farmer on his way with a shotgun.

I call myself an atheist largely because of the negative connotation, so I can completely understand why Tyson would want to avoid it. He’s also a promoter of science, so ‘atheism’, can be a handicap in that area.

She’s dead wrong when she talks about the difference between belief and knowledge though. Its incredibly important to any serious discussion of religion/science.

But, isn’t this where the anti-bullying legislation came up from, though? Because gay kids were being bullied about being gay by kids who believed the bible and how it condemns homosexuality?

Why is it these Christians always take the low road and claim persecution? I know, I know, historically this has been the case. What a frustrating situation to be in.