Old Conservaspam buried on my desk
Ian | 21 November, 2009 | 19:32I think these two editions of Conservaspam came to me in August when I was still in Edmonton-Strathcona. This time “compliments” are due to Laurie Hawn and Peter Goldring.
I think these two editions of Conservaspam came to me in August when I was still in Edmonton-Strathcona. This time “compliments” are due to Laurie Hawn and Peter Goldring.
I sat through a talk today by Dr. Elmar Kremer, a theologian and philosophy emeritus from University of Toronto entitled “The Classical Christian Concept of God and the Straw man of the Atheists.”
Dr. Kremer used his hour long talk to attempt to argue that the True Christian God of the Bible is more of a deist being, that is something that made the universe and didn’t need to interfere in it after. Of course he doesn’t call himself a deist, and perhaps if his talk had been “on my personal faith in Jesus” we may have seen some more theism in this talk. So instead of arguing for the existence of God (not just a deist god) he replaced the supposed “straw man” God of Dawkins/Dennet/Harris with a more nebulous concept and some fuzzy theological buzzwords and left us with a (deist) god.
But he had some great words introducing the topic before he got into his semantics and wordplay. Apparently publishing books and getting a media presence constitutes “aggressive atheism,” which pales in comparison to the aggressive Christianity of the past and present:
Nevertheless, he mentioned the atheist bus campaign, which he took to have two objectives. First, to actively deny God, claiming all intelligent people are atheists and second, to insinuate belief is oppressive with the phrase "relax and enjoy your life." He didn’t really explain how the logic of this worked, but did mention that his Christian daughter would be stressed if she didn’t believe in God.
With that he began to define his vision of the "Christian" (which he emphasized repeatedly was also the view of the Jews and Muslims) view of God. This God is so great he said, that he didn’t even need to create the world. Basically he, and many theologians believed that the world need not have existed.
Of course we can take this statement to mean several things. I would agree that this exact world not only didn’t have to come about, but compared to all possible worlds, it was amazingly unlikely that it even would come about. But it did.
We could also say though, that any world need not have been created. Now that seems vanishingly unlikely. There’s been a couple good formulations of this principle from Lawrence Krauss and Victor Stenger (both physicists conveniently) which boil down to the idea that nothing is incredibly unstable. In the vacuum of empty space, there’ exists a vacuum energy due to quantum mechanics. Put simply, if you have nothing long enough, eventually something will pop out (of course the net energy is still 0 within quantum uncertainty). So I utterly reject his principle that a universe did not have to be, and life only exists because “God is Good.”
He continues on and introduces his theological buzzwords for what God’s like:
Of course these are such subjective terms that you can earn multiple degrees just defining one or two of them in a novel way, adding almost nothing to the collective human experience (this is why science turns to testable predictions). It’s very noteworthy that he traces these characteristics to the middle ages. I guess theology isn’t a fast-paced field of research.
The last one of those characteristics is especially important to our speaker, since the response to every atheist argument he presented was “God’s not like us so we can’t possibly understand Him.” For example:
A hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing.
That last argument came from Sam Harris’ Letter to a Christian Nation to which Kremer further replied that God doesn’t have “observational knowledge” like we do, since He has no sense organs. Rather He knows by “doing” (Kremer used the example of how he knows his fingers are crossed behind his back). This begs the question: If god doesn’t listen, why do people pray? Furthermore, it also makes us ask: If God knows us by “doing” are we not free-willed individuals but rather puppets of the big guy in the sky (sorry, that’s anthropomorphizing) creator of the universe?
He ends by claiming that his depiction of this deistic god is in fact the same God that Richard Dawkins describes as “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
To Dr. Kremer I say: Your God is not the god believed in by the billions who think the world is 6000 years old, and you need to climb down from the ivory tower and meet some actual religious folk and consider what is actually believed.
Then you’ll see who’s created the straw man of a deity.
What could be more noble than “Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism?”
Well, that is, if they were based in reality.
Unfortunately, this multi-partisan committee throws around accusations that seem to lack any basis whatsoever. From their about page:
Antisemitism is not a new problem, however recorded incidents of antisemitism have been on the rise both locally and globally. Furthermore, the problem is now being manifested in ways never experienced before. While accusations of blood libel, or petty vandalism are still issues for the Jewish community, new fears have arisen especially for those who support the State of Israel. On campuses specifically, Jewish students are being threatened and intimidated to the point that they are not able to express themselves, or are even fearful to wear a Jewish skull cap or star around their necks. Antisemitism represents a break from Canadian values, which promote the rights of all individuals to practice their religion, educate themselves, and express themselves with security and freedom.
Despite the fact that Murray Dobbin at the Tyee calls bullshit on the “rise” in anti-Semitism, showing that the converse is true. I especially like how they specifically target campuses with some baseless examples of true discrimination (where’s the links to news stories or actual reports).
The best comes in their contradictions:
Antisemitism is an age-old phenomenon, yet it is always re-invented and manifested in different ways. For example, while accusations of blood libel are still being made against the Jewish people, instead they are being directed against the State of Israel, such that anti-Zionism is being used as a cover for antisemitism. [emphasis added]
..dissent and opposition to individual actions of the Israeli government are both permitted and encouraged in and outside of Israel, just as political dissent is permitted and encouraged with respect to any democratic nation.
So who’s on this? NDP MPs Pat Martin and Judy Waslycia-Leis are steering members, Vancouver Liberal MPs Joyce Murray (my own MP) and Hedy Fry are on the “Inquiry Panel.” And a number of Bloc and Conservatives. Of course, the inquisitor himself Jason Kenney chairs the whole party. We might expect groups from the Conservatives, but I didn’t expect this from some supposed “progressive” MPs.
So “Who is paying for/supporting the inquiry?”
We will voluntarily disclose all sources of funding.
But they never really say when they will release that information anywhere…
So let the witch-hunts begin. Because criticizing Israel in 2009 is equivalent to banning Jewish refugees in the 1930s. Note the difference: outright government discrimination in 1933 was okay, but debate on college campuses today is the real anti-Semitism.
And this is all to say nothing of the increasing number of Jewish communities that are coming out in criticism of Israel’s actions.
So contact the MPs on the list, ask them who funds the CPCCA and why they feel criticism of Israel is illegal.
First the long-overdue news: The Edmonton Transit System Advisory Board is strongly recommending that when the South LRT extension opens at Century Park that ETS add a route that goes from the new LRT station to the airport as an add-fare for an extra $2.50 [pdf report]. They recommend half-hour service and have strong evidence that the service would be hugely successful and would break even at 27 riders per bus (under half full I think).
The better news: This will mean the end of the crap scam-of-a-service that is the Edmonton Sky Shuttle.
Why I want the Edmonton Sky Shuttle to die:
Customer service apparently isn’t important when you run the only affordable way to get from the remote Edmonton International Airport (one-way cabs cost around $50). Their ridership seems to be declining and I don’t doubt that if the city has its act together and approves the airport bus route (and doesn’t cave to the cab lobby) that the Sky Shuttle will quickly disappear from the roads.
It’s bad enough already that the only way to get from the airport to Edmonton is Airport Taxi (no other cab companies are allowed to pick-up from the airport), a limo, or the Sky Shuttle; and to go from Edmonton to the airport you can take any cab (except Airport Taxi), a limo, or the Sky Shuttle. This means that other than the Sky Shuttle – every cab is empty on at least one leg of the 45-minute one way Edmonton-Airport trip.
So here’s hoping that Edmonton Transit listens to their advisory board, smartens up and makes this bus route a go come April – that will mean only a couple cab rides for me, because I’ll be caught dead before another dollar of mine goes to Edmonton Sky Shuttle.
Canada recently released a new Citizen and Immigration guide (pdf) which is meant as an introductory crash-course in Canadiana for new immigrants to our country.
The document is reasonably non-partisan (as it should be), and includes several references to our religious heritage:
The Constitution of Canada was amended in 1982 to entrench the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which begins with the words, “Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” This phrase underlines the importance of religious traditions to Canadian society and the dignity and worth of the human person. [pg. 8, emphasis added]
I’m not sure how that phrase relates to the latter, and another way of expressing the former might be “This phrase underlines how conservative Christians have held sway over Canadian government officials for the past 30 years.”
Canadian society today stems largely from the English-speaking and French-speaking Christian civilizations that were brought here from Europe by settlers. [pg. 11]
Of course another way to say that might be “Canada was settled by settlers from England and France,” since I don’t know of other “English-speaking and French-speaking Christian civilizations.” Or maybe Canada wasn’t “civilized” until the Christians came.
The good news though is that it also includes this statement about religious diversity in Canada:
The great majority of Canadians identify as Christians. The largest religious affiliation is Roman Catholic, followed by various Protestant churches. The numbers of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and members of other religions, as well as atheists, are also growing. [pg. 13, emphasis added]
Which is a somewhat reasonable shout-out, even though “Non-religious” as a category is second only to Roman Catholics (2001 Census – numbers may be much closer now), so their information isn’t completely accurate (unless you add up all the Protestant denominations). But is is good to know that we’re recognized as a growing group. Of course it continues:
In Canada the state has traditionally partnered with faith communities to promote social welfare, harmony, and mutual respect; to provide schools and health care; to resettle refugees; and to uphold religious freedom and freedom of conscience.
At least the government recognizes it’s breaking of the wall between church and state (which never existed here).
Of course the section on diversity in Canada fails to recognize the equality of gays and lesbians, and the proud fact that Canada is among the few countries in the world that recognizes gay marriage.
Looking through our history we see all the “Canadian Heritage” moments from CBC, and this mention about our role in the abolition of slavery:
Thousands of slaves escaped from the United States, followed “the North Star,” and settled in Canada via the Underground Railroad, a Christian anti-slavery network. [pg 16]
Of course, Wikipedia doesn’t feel it’s necessary to mention the Christian ties of the Railroad in it’s summary, and has this to say about it’s diversity:
"Conductors" on the railroad came from various backgrounds and included free-born blacks, white abolitionists, former slaves (either escaped or manumitted), and Native Americans. Churches also often played a role, especially the Religious Society of Friends(Quakers), Congregationalists, Wesleyans, and Reformed Presbyterians as well as certain sects of mainstream denominations such as branches of the Methodist church and American Baptists.
That doesn’t seem to be a uniformly “Christian” network to be, and further the pamphlet doesn’t really dive into how slavery was Biblically justified, but space is an issue and slavery isn’t as integral to Canada’s history as it was to the USA.
The following history sections quickly brush over confederation, the Riel Rebellions, the world wars and Cold War (with “the democratic nations” versus the “dictators” of Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin and those fleeing “Communist oppression”), and a section on women’s suffrage. There’s recognition of our discriminatory past with respect to the Japanese.
We then get some basic introduction into how our government is supposed to work, and even a brief mention of the fixed election dates (with a convenient exemption):
Under legislation passed by Parliament, federal elections must be held on the third Monday in October every four years following the most recent general election. The Prime Minister may ask the Governor General to call an earlier election. [pg 30]
In other words we have fixed election dates unless it’s inconvenient for the ruling party (which is what fixed election dates were supposed to prevent). It’s good that we finally have it in writing what that law actually means to the government.
Unfortunately, the section on “After an election” neglects any possibility for coalition governments (which is somewhat reasonable given our lack of history with them), and the fact that confidence votes can apparently be prorogued away by the Prime Minister and can result in events other than elections. Of course most of this is finer constitutional law that only comes up once or twice in a life time.
There’s then a little quiz on who your representatives are followed by the idealistic section on the justice system, which Omar Khadr would be happy to know that:
Our justice system is founded on the the presumption of innocence in criminal matters, meaning everyone is innocent until proven guilty. [pg. 36, emphasis in original]
The section on the economy mentions “energy products” but neglects the tar/oil sands or any images of them (they are briefly mentioned in the short section on Alberta on page 49 though).
But overall it’s a reasonably okay document.
I tend to collect any evangelical Christian tracts that I find lying around or that are handed out on the street, but usually I just get Living Waters tracts, which invariably end with the 10 commandments test.
Today, however, while shopping for a new coat at Southgate Mall in Edmonton, I came across my first authentic Jack T. Chick brand tract!
This specific version is the “Titanic” where the evil atheist Chester who rejects his aunt’s preaching, and then upon finding a note from her in his suitcase declares his eternal hatred for her and “her Jesus” and wishes she was dead. The Titanic then sinks and Chester at the Pearly Gates discovers that he’s not in The Book of Life and goes to hell.
Here’s my disclaimer: I grew up in rural Southern Alberta, surrounded by Conservatives and gun-owners. I think my dad owned between 3 and 5 rifles and shotguns. Nevertheless, I’ve always been somewhat ambivalent about the gun registry legislation.
I’ve generally supported the idea in principle, but if there’s no evidence there for it, it may be time to give it up.
That is, unless someone can provide some real, evidence-based arguments for it’s continuation.
Instead we get this (in reference to the Montreal Massacre which inspired the registry):
Not only are these ReformCons forgetting the women of the Polytechnique, they’re stripping their deaths of meaning. And dismissing 20 years of heroic feminist struggle to try to make Canada a safer place.
I’m sorry, but an emotional appeal to that tragedy does not a good argument make.
In fact, trotting their memory out to appeal to your own partisan gains is distasteful and disgusting.
If there were evidence supporting the registry, it ought to have come out in the Auditor General’s report three years ago that instead said:
The auditor general’s report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety.
You can also find police chiefs on either side of the debate, bringing their personal politics in with little more then anecdotal evidence.
Can registered guns be used to kill people? Absolutely.
Can those evil villains still access unregistered guns? Absolutely.
Is this the only method we have of knowing who has guns? No. In Canada we already license firearms owners and have safety training courses. This fact seems to be absent in every single mindless debate on this issue.
So up until now I was a luke-warm supporter to neutral on the gun registry. But after so many crap, holier-than-thou arguments (especially from partisan Liberals), I personally couldn’t care less if they scrapped the registry tomorrow.
Hell, maybe we could actually put the money toward social programs and education campaigns that can actually prevent violence before it happens.
See also:
On the long gun registry. To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth
Who would have guessed that when the final round of Vancouver 2010 Olympic tickets went on sale this morning that a lot of people would try to buy them?
Did VANOC think the few protesters were the majority of people? Even just in Vancouver there’s upwards of 2 million people, let alone the people who plan to fly into town for the games.
So this morning everyone get’s greeted with this nice page:
Their Twitter feed is more helpful (all of these posts are 2 hours old):
- Fans – making some progress on the tix site. Its getting better. Hang in there.
- RT @mhlchong finally logged in!! – Congrats!
- Folks, we’re aware of the issue on the tix site and hope to have that solved shortly. Hang in there – its a very popular site today. #2010
- Hang in there folks, lots of traffic on the tix site today.
So no Olympic tickets for you. The tubes are full.
Update: The Province has picked up on the story. They report (second hand) that “Vanoc acknowledged network difficulties but hoped to resolve the problem quickly.” Call me skeptical.
The Secular Student Alliance helped the UAAA from our first day. The first year we set up and club’s fair we had a huge box of stickers, wristbands and business cards from them.
If they get just $7500 in donations by December 21st, they will have reached their $50,000 donation goal and Todd Stiefel will match with an additional $50,000 for campus secularism.
It’s clear that the other religious groups can raise the money – Campus for Christ runs multimillion dollar budgets and Ray Comfort is printing his tainted Origin of Species editions like there’s no tomorrow.
So donate or join now.
Here I thought it was just a curious quirk of a by-election that New-Westminster – Coquitlam Conservative candidate Diana Dilworth hadn’t (and didn’t plan to) attended any all-candidates’ forums, but now it turns out that she’s actively avoiding the media too. The outlets that she’s avoided include:
In the Georgia Straight, I found this: "Conservative candidate Diana Dilworth didn’t return The Straight’s call before deadline."
In the Vancouver Sun: "Dilworth, a Port Moody councillor, was unavailable for comment Monday. However, her campaign manager issued a press release highlighting the economy and crime as the top election issues."
And, a week later in the Tri-City News: "Dilworth wasn’t available to comment before the Tri-City News’ deadline."
And of course the Tyee, who did eventually get a few token responses after essentially cornering the candidate at a Conservative rally.
Sounds like a bang-up candidate the Tories found with this shell.
(h/t Accidental Deliberations)
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Politics Religion Links Atheism Media NDP Personal Elections Science Conservatives Secularism Alberta School Edmonton Scepticism BC Canada UofA Atheists and Agnostics Creationism Vancouver Liberals Economics Site Parody Fun Video CFI Humanism Global Warming Evolution Bible Capitalism SFU The Peak Free speech Anti-choice Philosophy Gay rights Books Companies Computers Random USA movies BCHA
Recent Comments