The issue of keeping the 'Lord's Prayer' in Ontario's Legislature is still in the news. However, the Toronto Star today is publishing a short essay from a Rabbi who is in favour of keeping the Christian prayer even though the Canadian Jewish Congress (Ontario Region) supports its removal:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/306143
But, where is the atheist voice? Why hasn't the Star published the perspective of the non-religious?
Feel free to read the article for yourself but the rabbi wants the impossible! He believes everyone should respect the religious prayer but then says it should have some "minor change in formulation". How can changing the prayer (given by god no less!) also be a way of respecting it? Typical religious 'squaring of the circle'.
His final point of "(we,) an august legislative body, aren't sovereign but only have legitimacy when we see ourselves as God's creatures doing God's work." violates the separation of church and government. He may believe he is doing god's work but I certainly don't. And, I really, really hope the government isn't doing god's work. Not only am I confused about which god the government would be working for, I'm rightly terrified of the work all the mythical gods of the past have done.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
The Dark Side of 'The Golden Rule'
'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. That's the version of the Golden Rule that I know and many people use it as the simplest rule of morality. However, it has a 'dark side' that many people may not have considered.
I wish I could take credit for this flash of insight but I really got the idea from the book, 'Can We Be Good Without God' written by Robert Buckman, past-president of the Humanist Association of Canada.
'Do Unto Others' can also be quoted as justification of horrible, immoral acts. For example, if you do something that I disagree with, I can justify torturing you simply by exclaiming, "I'm treating you in the same way that I'd expect to be treated if I did such a terrible thing as you'd just done."
In other words, if you are a homosexual I can stone you to death (under Biblical authority!) because I'd expected to be stoned to death if I were a homosexual.
So, be careful with your use of 'The Golden Rule'.
I wish I could take credit for this flash of insight but I really got the idea from the book, 'Can We Be Good Without God' written by Robert Buckman, past-president of the Humanist Association of Canada.
'Do Unto Others' can also be quoted as justification of horrible, immoral acts. For example, if you do something that I disagree with, I can justify torturing you simply by exclaiming, "I'm treating you in the same way that I'd expect to be treated if I did such a terrible thing as you'd just done."
In other words, if you are a homosexual I can stone you to death (under Biblical authority!) because I'd expected to be stoned to death if I were a homosexual.
So, be careful with your use of 'The Golden Rule'.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Lord's Prayer in Ontario Legislature
The Premier has suggested that the practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer in the Provincial Legislature should be changed. I'm only partially in support of his action because he said 'change' instead of 'removal'. My local MPP (Member of Provincial Parliament) is in favour of the status quo and in today's paper, he is quoted:
"I find it hard to understand why (the Premier) would paint our many diverse cultures as being so intolerant as to necessitate the eradication of the Lord's Prayer."
What?!? Non-Christians are being intolerant because we don't want to recite THEIR prayer or have it forced upon us?
I really like my MPP and have known him for years before he became a politician (though, I didn't vote for him) but he's absolutely wrong on this issue!
NO! Non-Christians do not want to recite your prayer.
NO! Non-Christians do not want to be forced to listen to your prayer.
NO! Keep church and state separated - pray before coming to work.
Three strikes... the prayer is out!
"I find it hard to understand why (the Premier) would paint our many diverse cultures as being so intolerant as to necessitate the eradication of the Lord's Prayer."
What?!? Non-Christians are being intolerant because we don't want to recite THEIR prayer or have it forced upon us?
I really like my MPP and have known him for years before he became a politician (though, I didn't vote for him) but he's absolutely wrong on this issue!
NO! Non-Christians do not want to recite your prayer.
NO! Non-Christians do not want to be forced to listen to your prayer.
NO! Keep church and state separated - pray before coming to work.
Three strikes... the prayer is out!
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Jesus = Buddha = Krishna ?
Interesting documentary, hosted by a British Christian, that shows the connections between Jesus, Buddha and Krishna:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7956238808750388174
I know very little about Hinduism and Buddhism so it was great to learn a bit.
An comment early in the doc raises an intriguing question. Why are Christians so intolerant to the other religions? Turns out that Hindus and Buddhists recognize the similiarities to Jesus and, generally, tolerate Islam and Christianity but the opposite is not true.
Can it be that these two monotheistic religions are trying too hard to NOT educate their children about other religions?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7956238808750388174
I know very little about Hinduism and Buddhism so it was great to learn a bit.
An comment early in the doc raises an intriguing question. Why are Christians so intolerant to the other religions? Turns out that Hindus and Buddhists recognize the similiarities to Jesus and, generally, tolerate Islam and Christianity but the opposite is not true.
Can it be that these two monotheistic religions are trying too hard to NOT educate their children about other religions?
Monday, February 18, 2008
Who can "cast the first stone"?
I'm re-reading Christopher Hitchens' book, god is not Great. I got to the part where he discusses the well-known biblical story of Jesus exclaiming, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone". In case someone doesn't remember the story it goes like this:
A group of men bring a woman, accused of adultery, to Jesus. They are challenging Jesus' message of kindness and ask Jesus whether they are to stone her to death (under the laws of the Old Testament) or not. If not, they are breaking god's laws! Jesus, of course, says that only those who are without sin can cast stones at her. The men, sinners that they are, shrink away. Such a wonderful story. However, as Hitchens reiterates, complete nonsense.
He points out that we are ALL born as sinners and everyone has sin (under Christian beliefs). Therefore, it is not possible for anyone to cast any stones. In others words, us humans cannot do anything about people who cheat on their wives, steal or murder! So, in the Old Testament, god says 'stone adulterers' but then in the New Testament, Jesus says 'sorry, you can't'.
Huh?
Just another confusing set of rules. I've heard it said many times - everyone needs to read the bible because we need more atheists!
A group of men bring a woman, accused of adultery, to Jesus. They are challenging Jesus' message of kindness and ask Jesus whether they are to stone her to death (under the laws of the Old Testament) or not. If not, they are breaking god's laws! Jesus, of course, says that only those who are without sin can cast stones at her. The men, sinners that they are, shrink away. Such a wonderful story. However, as Hitchens reiterates, complete nonsense.
He points out that we are ALL born as sinners and everyone has sin (under Christian beliefs). Therefore, it is not possible for anyone to cast any stones. In others words, us humans cannot do anything about people who cheat on their wives, steal or murder! So, in the Old Testament, god says 'stone adulterers' but then in the New Testament, Jesus says 'sorry, you can't'.
Huh?
Just another confusing set of rules. I've heard it said many times - everyone needs to read the bible because we need more atheists!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Understanding How The Brain Works
The following link is a 20 minute presentation from Jeff Hawkins who specializes in Neuroscience and is developing a Brain Theory (how the brain really works). He is predicting that 'thinking' computers are not very far away after all:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2910575059115387235
This is a fascinating video that provides exciting insight into how the brain works. For years people have lamented that the operation of the brain was going to be forever mysterious. However, new science theories are on the horizon. In fact, maybe we CAN figure out our own brains!
I won't give away what he feels is the mechanism for how the brain works. I suggest that you take the time to watch the video as it could be the final frontier for understanding how we think.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2910575059115387235
This is a fascinating video that provides exciting insight into how the brain works. For years people have lamented that the operation of the brain was going to be forever mysterious. However, new science theories are on the horizon. In fact, maybe we CAN figure out our own brains!
I won't give away what he feels is the mechanism for how the brain works. I suggest that you take the time to watch the video as it could be the final frontier for understanding how we think.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Pandering to Religion, Again!
A ruling from the Human Rights Commission has decided that a Sikh man is being discriminated against because of his religion. Ontario Traffic Law requires everyone to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle but he was wearing a turban, so he got a ticket:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/303897
What I don't understand is that no one has a 'right' to ride a motorcycle in Ontario at all! If you want to ride one, you must get a licence. No licence, no motorcycle. No one forced him to ride the motorcycle, he chose to and that choice means that he is required to follow the law.
Now, one could argue that he should be given the choice to ride with or without a helmet. After all, it's his life and if he sustains a head injury while riding, that's his perogative. However, in Canada, we have free health care. So, if he gets an injury that a helmet could have prevented, all the taxpayers are forced to pay for his negligence. A cost that could have been avoided if he simply wore his helmet!
Societies have a right to establish certain laws to protect its citizens (even from their own negligence) and these laws have to apply to everyone. We can't allow people to claim exemptions based on their religion! This isn't discrimination. People choose their religion (or choose NOT to have one) and they must weigh their choice against the laws of society.
I remember muslim women complaining that they had a right to be completely veiled when casting their votes. But how can their photo-ID be verified if they refuse to unveil themselves? Sorry, NO EXCEPTIONS FOR RELIGIONS! Society's laws trump silly religious rituals, every time.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/303897
What I don't understand is that no one has a 'right' to ride a motorcycle in Ontario at all! If you want to ride one, you must get a licence. No licence, no motorcycle. No one forced him to ride the motorcycle, he chose to and that choice means that he is required to follow the law.
Now, one could argue that he should be given the choice to ride with or without a helmet. After all, it's his life and if he sustains a head injury while riding, that's his perogative. However, in Canada, we have free health care. So, if he gets an injury that a helmet could have prevented, all the taxpayers are forced to pay for his negligence. A cost that could have been avoided if he simply wore his helmet!
Societies have a right to establish certain laws to protect its citizens (even from their own negligence) and these laws have to apply to everyone. We can't allow people to claim exemptions based on their religion! This isn't discrimination. People choose their religion (or choose NOT to have one) and they must weigh their choice against the laws of society.
I remember muslim women complaining that they had a right to be completely veiled when casting their votes. But how can their photo-ID be verified if they refuse to unveil themselves? Sorry, NO EXCEPTIONS FOR RELIGIONS! Society's laws trump silly religious rituals, every time.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A Time-Wasting Argument?
I got to thinking this morning, how much longer do atheists have to continue debating theists on religious issues? At what point do we throw our hands up in frustration and go find something else to do?
I think the simple answer is that we have to continue fighting until an impenetrable wall has been built between church and state to constrain religion to the churches and the privacy of one's home. Only then can we be free to stop debating theists and move on with more important things to discuss.
Religion must be restrained to apply only to those who sign up to a specific religion and never be imposed on members of a public society. Religious people certainly have a right to opinion in public discourse but as soon as they cite their religious belief as a reason to adopt their opinion they must be excused from the debate. Homosexual marriage, for example, cannot be opposed because 'god wills it' but certainly can be opposed because a person believes marriage to be defined as between man and woman. I would vote then to change the definition of marriage!
However, I found myself in a 'thought experiment' this morning. Imagine Oprah interviewing a person who made the dramatic claim that an imposter, who looked like Oprah, was, in fact, the interviewer. Could this person convince anyone in the audience that this were true?
I argue yes. I think someone with a fervent personality would be able to throw enough doubt at the audience that people would entertain the idea that there is an imposter on stage. I imagine an argument such as, "You look like Oprah but if we look at previous tapes and pictures of Oprah we can see that you are not exactly the same." How many in the audience have actually seen Oprah live before? Can they really be sure this is Oprah? What basis do you decide that this is Oprah?
There are many things that could be done to prove Oprah, is Oprah, but how far do we take this? Do we do DNA testing? Do we search the building to see if the real Oprah is hidden somewhere?
The answer, I think, is obvious. We don't need to expend any time or energy disproving the interviewee's claim - we ask the interviewee to, instead, prove their claim! It is up to the person making the claim to provide enough evidence before we feel worthy to spend time investigating it.
This, I feel, falls at the heart of the atheist's stand. Atheists have no faith and no belief because they choose to wait until some evidence can be presented about god(s) before they will spend time investigating it. And so far, no evidence is available.
I think the simple answer is that we have to continue fighting until an impenetrable wall has been built between church and state to constrain religion to the churches and the privacy of one's home. Only then can we be free to stop debating theists and move on with more important things to discuss.
Religion must be restrained to apply only to those who sign up to a specific religion and never be imposed on members of a public society. Religious people certainly have a right to opinion in public discourse but as soon as they cite their religious belief as a reason to adopt their opinion they must be excused from the debate. Homosexual marriage, for example, cannot be opposed because 'god wills it' but certainly can be opposed because a person believes marriage to be defined as between man and woman. I would vote then to change the definition of marriage!
However, I found myself in a 'thought experiment' this morning. Imagine Oprah interviewing a person who made the dramatic claim that an imposter, who looked like Oprah, was, in fact, the interviewer. Could this person convince anyone in the audience that this were true?
I argue yes. I think someone with a fervent personality would be able to throw enough doubt at the audience that people would entertain the idea that there is an imposter on stage. I imagine an argument such as, "You look like Oprah but if we look at previous tapes and pictures of Oprah we can see that you are not exactly the same." How many in the audience have actually seen Oprah live before? Can they really be sure this is Oprah? What basis do you decide that this is Oprah?
There are many things that could be done to prove Oprah, is Oprah, but how far do we take this? Do we do DNA testing? Do we search the building to see if the real Oprah is hidden somewhere?
The answer, I think, is obvious. We don't need to expend any time or energy disproving the interviewee's claim - we ask the interviewee to, instead, prove their claim! It is up to the person making the claim to provide enough evidence before we feel worthy to spend time investigating it.
This, I feel, falls at the heart of the atheist's stand. Atheists have no faith and no belief because they choose to wait until some evidence can be presented about god(s) before they will spend time investigating it. And so far, no evidence is available.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Removing 'Lord's Prayer' from Legislature
I just checked out the website for the Toronto Star and was surprised to see the Ontario Premier presenting a motion to remove the lord's prayer from the legislature!
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/303245
He is quoted as saying that it is time to reflect the new multicultural times, "The members of the Ontario Legislature reflect the diversity of Ontario – be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or agnostic. It is time for our practices to do the same. That is the Ontario way." He neglects to mention ATHEISTS. Hello!?! We exist!!
The article mentions a 'non-sectarian prayer' in the House of Commons (Federal) but I don't think there should be any sort of prayer anywhere in the government buildings.
The schools in Ontario have adopted a 'moment of silence' in place of the lord's prayer. I think this adequately addresses everyone's needs... Now, if only we could remove the singing of 'O Canada' from the schools with it's line "god keep our land, glorious and free". No thanks. I'd rather real, human Canadians keep the land free and glorious!
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/303245
He is quoted as saying that it is time to reflect the new multicultural times, "The members of the Ontario Legislature reflect the diversity of Ontario – be it Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or agnostic. It is time for our practices to do the same. That is the Ontario way." He neglects to mention ATHEISTS. Hello!?! We exist!!
The article mentions a 'non-sectarian prayer' in the House of Commons (Federal) but I don't think there should be any sort of prayer anywhere in the government buildings.
The schools in Ontario have adopted a 'moment of silence' in place of the lord's prayer. I think this adequately addresses everyone's needs... Now, if only we could remove the singing of 'O Canada' from the schools with it's line "god keep our land, glorious and free". No thanks. I'd rather real, human Canadians keep the land free and glorious!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Where does oil come from?
I first found this documentary on TV Sunday night but I wasn't able to watch it all. I was surprised at how little I knew about oil and just how dependent we all really are. I found the documentary online here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/
Part 3 discusses how global warming will actually create new oil (while killing most life on earth) and how the earth will eventually get back in to equilibrium (if you can be patient for about 250,000 years!). Next time you hear some fundie denying global warming, punch them in the face.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/
Part 3 discusses how global warming will actually create new oil (while killing most life on earth) and how the earth will eventually get back in to equilibrium (if you can be patient for about 250,000 years!). Next time you hear some fundie denying global warming, punch them in the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
