My article in the Gateway on Tuesday has stirred some response. Seeing as the letters are not available online, I’ll reproduce them here (for those of you out of town).
A couple quick notes first, neither letter addresses my arguments, both are written by chemical engineers (you can extrapolate and assume from here most UofA engineers are theocratic neocons) and I think there needs to be a contest for whoever can find the most logical fallacies in the second letter (read it more than once, it’s got fractal wrongness – thanks to Alan for the phrase).
Bushfield ignorant of Christian Teachings
I wish to point out that, despite his criticism of the University’s religious reference in their graduation ceremony, Ian Bushfield knows nothing about religion.
I am a Christian, but don’t live “in fear of” my God, as Bushfield claims religious people do. This view is just as “dark-aged” as the University’s reference to glorifying God in their convocation ceremony.
Also, telling new graduates to use their degrees for the glory of God, while offensive to many and out of touch with today’s world, is not a “denigration of the hard work of all students.” The University is not saying that we receive our degrees by the grace of God or because of some aspect of faith or religion. They are simply trying to tell us, in their own, out-dated way, to try to live right and work hard after we graduate.
Now, if only they could do that in a more inclusive way – and offer modern Religion 101 classes for those like Mr. Bushfield who are a little confused about people’s relationships with their gods – we could all enjoy getting our degrees a little more.
Neil Rosychuk – Chemical Engineering III
To respond to this one I’ll likely write up a “things you likely didn’t know about the bible” op-ed in the near future. Although it is good to see that he kind of supports the gist of my point, but is offended by my tone (which I purposely made somewhat inflammatory for the sake of getting noticed).
Liberal secularists want to impost their views
The only thing abhorrent and intolerant is secularists’ treatment of religion as a mental illness, which Bushfield has done here.
I’m not sure which is stronger: your love of leftism or “progressiveness,” or your passion for secularism. Both are evident in your mischarecterization of religiosity as fear of a creator and not the rational worldview that it is.
Moreover, the venomous harping on the traditional institutions which birthed our current civilized worl is fashoinable [sic] leftist dogma. Separation of church [sic] is secularist code for “we want to impose our values on you, the religious, through the courts.”
How about we instead duke it out in the Commons. Just as secularist values need to be recognized in the public square, so do religious. This doesn’t mean I can break recognized unalienable rights which should be guaranteed within the constitution for all, but if the majority want to enact the Lord’s day, or a school have a Christmas concert [sic], touch luck for atheists.
Lastly, wouldn’t the religious be discriminated against by not having their traditional charge any longer? All victim, all intellectual, no wisdom, try again Bushfield.
Judah Mierau – Chemical Engineering IV
At least he calls me an intellectual while frothing at the mouth.
I’ll give props in a few days to whoever spots the most fallacies from the theocratic nut Judah (note the name).
I suspect The Gateway may post more positive letters on Tuesday to make the appearance of a debate, but no promises. You can still comment on the online article too.