Terahertz

Hot on the heels of Marci McDonald’s bestselling The Armageddon Factor, comes another expose on the religious right in Canada. I just finished Losing Control: Canada’s Social Conservatives in the Age of Rights, which was written by gay activist Tom Warner and published by Between the Lines.

Full disclosure: My review copy was provided at no charge by BTL publishing. Nevertheless, take my review as my honest opinion on this book.

Losing Control provides a good supplemental reading to the narratives provided by McDonald. While McDonald provides the detailed look into some of the cast of characters involved in the religious right, Warner adds an academic history in the events that date back to the formation of the modern rights movements in the 1960s.

Warner documents a shift in Canadian thinking from it’s Christian roots to a secular society that prizes individual and minority rights. This shift has obviously come hard for the social conservatives in the country, who have since rallied around various conservative parties, from the Progressive Conservatives to the Reform, Canadian Alliance and modern Conservative Party.

Warner breaks his treatment thematically, treating the abortion debate, repressive sexuality laws, gay rights and gay marriage in successive chapters. He finishes with some discussion about the social conservative inroads in politics.

Unfortunately, he only has passing references to the debates over evolution vs. creationism and school prayer, both of which have been hot topics for social conservatives.

In The Armageddon Factor, McDonald used mostly original research to compose her book, however the vast majority of Losing Control is based on 29 pages of third-party sources. This extensive bibliography provides a valuable resource for anyone wanting to get the dirt straight from the source.

I partially criticized McDonald for minor editorializing at points in The Armageddon Factor, and while Warner uses the mostly neutral term social conservative to refer to Canada’s vast network of religious right figures (which includes evangelical protestants, Catholics, conservative Jews, Sikhs and Muslims), he does end many of his chapters in a more of a warning style.

As an example, at the end of the chapter on regulating sexuality he states:

Sadly, there is no realistic reason to believe that members of Parliament will take the next logical step and actually decriminalize prostitution and repeal the repressive bawdy house sections of the Criminal Code. As has so often been the case in the past, the best hope for progress on those issues rests with the justices of the Supreme Court and their interpretations of the rights guaranteed by the Charter.

This is of course not to say that I disagree with anything Warner has to say, I’m with him almost the entire way through this book. He does come down firmly with the BC Civil Liberties Union and criticizes other gay activists who have used the Human Rights Tribunals to censor hate speech, to which I’m still undecided upon, but otherwise I’m in total agreement.

I think the greatest value in Losing Control is in its framing the battles with the religious right in terms of conflicting societal values. It’s secular rights (which include religious freedoms) versus theocratic ambitions to regulate morality.

One final chapter I was hoping for was for Warner to connect the dots (something McDonald attempted to do) and discuss the main organizations that have been active in the fights against progressive minority rights. Such organizations as REAL Women Canada, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Catholic Civil Rights League and Focus on the Family Canada. At the very least, a brief perusal through the comprehensive index will identify the organizations that routinely come up in church-state separation debates.

Overall, Losing Control is a well-researched book that covers the history of social conservatives in Canada and the battles that have been fought and progress that has been made since the introduction of various Bills of Rights and the Charter. While not an outright replacement for The Armageddon Factor, it does make a good supplement for anyone who wants to dig a bit deeper into these issues.

Coming up this Saturday I’ve offered to moderate a CFI Cafe Inquiry at Harbour Centre on the topic of whether or not religious symbols in public matter.

I’m going to use this post to get my thoughts in order for Saturday, so if you don’t want a spoiler, don’t read the following until after.

This topic is especially topical for myself as this morning I got a call from one of the Wardens from the Corporation of the Seven Wardens – the group that oversees the Iron Ring Ceremony.

First some history. The Iron Ring is a ceremony dating to 1922 for engineering graduates in Canada that symbolizes their commitment to upholding the high standards required of their profession (as in we want bridges that don’t fall down). The process to obtain a ring (upon successful graduation) begins with signing an obligation which features the following lines:

…I will henceforth, not suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an Engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

…Upon Honour and Cold Iron, God helping me, by these things I propose to abide. [emphasis mine]

In the spring of 2009, I requested the option to strike the words “God helping me” from the obligation. When my request was turned down, I walked away from the Iron Ring. I soon typed a letter about the ceremony and forwarded it to the Corporation and various engineering bodies (including the UofA Engineering Faculty of Engineering who promotes the Iron Ring and provides space for sizings and APEGGA – Alberta’s engineering professional association). The letter made the rounds and the Corporation discussed it at a meeting last October but then I didn’t hear any more from them.

Then this morning, I got an update. The delay was no one’s fault (a medical issue), but I did get some good information. The Warden admitted that adjustments have been made to the obligation in the past (about a decade ago), mostly to respect women in engineering by moving to gender-neutral terminology. And while it didn’t sound like change was planned, the issue will be discussed at their upcoming plenary meeting.

He also stated that the only other time it has really been brought up was when a pair of Muslims objected. Their complaint was withdrawn when they agreed to interpret the God of the obligation (likely Kipling’s Freemason deistic God) as Allah.

I guess the only reason I was privy to a return call after these months was how impressed the Wardens were with my letter and approach to the situation. I guess there is still something to be said for a rational, well-worded letter in some instances.

So, getting back to the topic at hand, why does this symbol, and ones like it, matter? And, perhaps more importantly, is this something that atheists should get up in arms (note: “fundamentalist” atheists are prone to write books when they’re angry, as opposed to some other worldviews) about?

Obviously, given my history, my answer is yes.

My general response is that the invocation of religious language actively alienates a portion of the population. This portion is as high as 1-in-3 among young-adult Canadians (those who would be convocating or earning Iron Rings).

Events like convocation from a university degree, singing the national anthem, or earning an Iron Ring are cultural rituals. The point of these rituals is to unite people and develop a sense of community. While using religious language can strengthen that connection between theists, it prompts reactions from rolling eyes to righteous indignation in non-theists.

Another issue I noticed while attending my fiancées recent convocation, as the Chancellor used her opening invocation to give a little prayer to “our Creator” (perhaps to spite His reduced role later in the ceremony), was that religious language devalues the effort and hard-work of the people who have earned their degrees, rings, or founded this nation. By focussing on the supernatural, we neglect the natural.

I understand that we are supposed to feel humbled by the good graces that are bestowed upon us from up high (whether it be God, the universe, or even just our elders), but in ceremonies that are meant to honour achievements, shouldn’t the focus be on those who have made the achievements?

Some will want to share their moment, and recognizing friends, family, and other support networks, and that’s fine – but it’s worth recognizing that not everyone has the same networks. Some are religious, other are not. By presuming the religiosity of the audience and attendees, those in charge of the ceremony belittling the accomplishments of those who aren’t religious.

Now, what about atheists who just aren’t bothered by God in ceremonies and speeches? The live-and-let-live apatheist type.

For them, at very least, parts of the ceremony or anthem are of little to no value to them – and are therefore a waste of time to repeat.

But more importantly, it’s worth recognizing that members of the Religious Right utilize religious language in public ceremonies as an argument for more public pronouncements of faith, or for scripturally-inspired laws.

Should Canada ban abortions? It says God in the anthem and charter, so Canada must be a Christian Nation, which ought to follow Christian laws.

Finally, on a purely strategic note, going after these symbols nearly always gets press attention, and if utilized properly, can be very positive for a group. The media still loves the God debate and atheists fighting to kill God gets attention. The UofA’s convocation charge received national media coverage both when it was initially brought up, and when the changes were finally approved (convocating last, I chose not to release a statement as I crossed the stage).

With all of that said, I think there are a lot of challenges out there for secularists and atheists. We each have interests and cares, and many campaigns only take a few people (but showing your support for such movements helps) to at least bring attention to the offending language. I can understand the desire not to take on some long established symbols, but in other cases, like the Iron Ring, I could not sign the obligation without violating the very intent of the document.

Symbols are important, but only so long as they are still applicable to the communities they represent. Values progress and change, and our ceremonies and rituals ought to reflect that progression.

Apparently the easiest way to get out of a parking ticket in Toronto now is to claim you were with a religious group at a worship service.

I guess the best way to see if this law is truly discriminatory or not is for humanists meeting at the Centre For Inquiry Ontario (just blocks from the University of Toronto campus) is to try to get parking exemptions.

Parking fines either apply universally (people can walk/ride/transit to church) or they don’t apply to anyone.

What’s the point of a law if you just give exemptions left, right and centre?

(h/t Friendly Atheist)

Sorry for the delay in posting this review, I was hoping to have this piece published in The Peak’s Arts section but they choose to go with a 2,000 word piece about a museum’s shoe exhibit instead, but that’s a whole different rant.

The Christians are coming!

In The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, Marci McDonald attempts to raise the awareness of our own growing Christian Right. She purports to show how they have quickly and subtly gained an alarming amount of influence in the government.

In the first chapter, McDonald outlines Stephen Harper’s personally religious history, a topic that is not spoken of very much by Harper of the media. Harper became a born-again after moving to Calgary and joining Preston Manning’s Reform Party movement. However, Harper, unlike Manning and much of the Reform Party, was more comfortable keeping his faith and politics mostly separate. McDonald notes that it was only later when, as leader of the new Conservative Party, Harper attempted to reach out to the evangelical communities.

But it was still hard for McDonald to measure the level of influence the Christian Right has had under Harper’s consecutive minority governments. There have been few socially conservative policy changes, and of those most have disappointed the very factions McDonald seeks to expose. Harper has repeatedly turned away from the abortion debate and upon winning his first minority government in 2006 he quickly allowed for his promised free vote on same-sex marriage – a vote that was actually earlier than many evangelicals had wanted, since it provided them less time to mount a defence. Similarly, by breaking his fixed-election date law in 2008, Harper killed several of his caucus’ private members bills, including an unborn victims bill that was called the “first winnable abortion bill” in years.

However, McDonald does point out that perhaps Harper’s greatest success has been in his “incremental” changes, evidenced by his countless appointments of partisans and born-agains to all levels of courts, the senate and the civil service. Within the Prime Minister’s Office, Harper counts many evangelical leaders, including the former leader of Focus on the Family Canada, Darrell Reid.

Similarly, Harper has been able to make many changes by the mere stroke of a pen. In recent months Harper has cut funds to Status of Women Canada and KAIROS, a social justice charity that apparently represented the wrong-type of Christians for this government (like McDonald has been told she is). He has sent tens of millions of stimulus dollars to Bible Colleges and after he cut funding to abortions for overseas aid, a crowd of 15,000 pro-lifers rallied on the steps of the House of Commons.

McDonald also briefly discusses the so-called “Christian Left,” which included Tommy Douglas, the father of Canadian medicare. She points out how both Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP leader Jack Layton have reached out to various faith communities through acts like the revival of the NDP Faith and Social Justice committee. Contrary to some interpretations, it does not seem to me that McDonald is against these, or even Harper’s, attempts to dialogue with people of faith in principle, but merely that she hopes that such activity is acknowledged publicly.

The Armageddon Factor is an enlightening read, regardless of your personal views, but unfortunately the book strays from neutrality enough that it reads as a bit more than just a who’s who of the Christian Right. My initial hope was that it could have been more like the documentary film Jesus Camp, which, for the most part, just lets the subjects speak for themselves.

Either way, the book does shed light on much of what has been going on in the dark. No democracy is served by secrecy and backroom lobbying. At the very least, this book will hopefully force Canadians to decide what kind of country we want this to be, because if we do not, there are those who have a scripturally-inspired version of what they think it should be.

It comes up frequently enough, aren’t the same old religious debates just tired and boring? Since most of the “New Atheist” arguments were developed in the Enlightenment to counter medieval Christian theology, it is easy to depict the debate as repetitive. And I have to somewhat agree, the answers to questions about God, creation and morality seem to be well established by modern science and philosophy. So the question that remains is: Why do hundreds of people routinely turn up to existence of God debates?

One answer lays in these are called the “big questions” for a reason. And while some may have determined their personal answers, they are still worth continual questioning and reconsidering. As many of the religious so frequently claim, our immortal souls may hang in the balance.

But for each of us who are willing to reconsider our personal answers, there are still many more that have already decided theirs and are ready to murder those who claim different answers. Others are not so absolute in their convictions, but are still so righteous that they believe that they have the justification to force their views on others.

The first example is a recent incident involving an 11-year old girl in a New Mexico public school who tripped, scraped her nose and loosened two teeth. Her teacher, a pinnacle of regressive bigotry, decided that her parents did not need to hear about this incident, nor did the girl need to see the school nurse. It was because of the teacher’s religious objections to the fact that this girl had two mothers that something so reprehensible to occur. This persecution is further evidenced by the fact that after the girl had submitted an assignment earlier in the semester, that described her parent’s summer wedding, the teacher called it disgusting and tore it apart in front of her.

In another case, Swedish artist Lars Vilks has received death threats for drawing Mohammed’s head on body of a dog. He was recently head-butted by extremists while giving a talk at Uppsala University. This happened for the sake of a crude, poorly-drawn sketch.

But we do not need to look to the American South to see such prejudice. Right here in Vancouver a popular music teacher at Little Flower Academy, a partially-public funded Catholic school, was denied maternity leave and essentially fired due to the fact that when she went home she was greeted by her loving wife.

So the real reason that it is worth debating these “dead horse” issues is that they continue to fuel religious fundamentalists who want to reshape our progressive society into a God-fearing theocracy. Dawkins’ recent success has more to do with his willingness to expose religion as a detrimental sacred cow than the originality of his arguments.

This negative effect is most obvious in the recent scandals in the Catholic Church. While pedophiles can gain access to children through a variety of means, such as sports teams or elementary schools, most organizations stand up for the victims and make efforts to prosecute the perpetrators for their heinous crimes. However, it takes an organization that believes it has divine providence, like the Catholic Church, to systematically shuffle pedophiles between congregations, swear victims to secrecy, deny the charges, and finally blame the victims for crimes of their priests.

Religion far too often creates a structure that favours blind devotion to doctrine and authoritarians. The hope for humanists is to demonstrate that a positive and fulfilling life can be lead without the need for uncritical adherence to scriptures. When people stop thinking, they have a great capacity for evil.

The rule seems to be that all protests these days form on Facebook from someone’s random idea. There was prorogation, then boobquake and now “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”

Each has its merits and deserved criticisms, but each is also responsible for getting thousands of people thinking about something they hadn’t previously considered.

Tomorrow’s Draw Mohammed Day may have started out as a response to the threats against the creators of South Park for (almost) depicting the claimed prophet in a bear suit, but it is now a defence of free speech and a collective resistance to the bullying of Islamic fundamentalists.

Such bullying can be seen in the murder of Theo Van Gogh or the fatwa’s against Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The latest example is the rallies that has caused Pakistan to block Facebook until the end of the month so their apparently overly sensitive Muslim population won’t have to be subject to seeing pictures of their prophet (that is if they go to the effort to look for them).

So tomorrow isn’t about being offensive or racist or derogatory, but rather standing together for our rights because they can’t kill all of us.

Here’s a sample of my artistic skills and the Mohammed I will be drawing:

O-|-<

It’s mothers day, but I guess that means that sometimes you have to sit in class bleeding if you have 2 mothers and a bigot for a teacher.

The story isn’t completely confirmed yet, but early reports seem to be that an 11-year-old in New Mexico tripped and cute her nose and loosened some teeth was denied access to the school nurse or a call home because her teacher thinks she should attend another school since she has married lesbian parents.

The Albuquerque Journal also reports that when the girl submitted an assignment about her summer vacation, where her parents got married, the teach ripped the page out and told her “this is gross, this is horrible, you need to write about something else.”

The family is rightfully filing a lawsuit for negligence and violations of her civil rights (this is a public school).

"We don’t send our kids to school in New Mexico to get hurt and to learn hatred and intolerance," Foster [the family’s attorney] said. He said his suit will aim to show a pattern of harassment.

Because the Catholic Church hasn’t had enough negative press recently, out comes a story that a Catholic school teacher has been asked to finish the semester working from home. I’m not exactly sure how she’ll manage that but the idea is that her contract won’t be renewed next year.

So what is so wrong with this teacher that she has to avoid the school?

If you think that it’s action on pedophilia in their ranks, you’d be wrong.

It’s the simple fact that when this teacher goes home to her family, she is greeted lovingly by another woman and child.

And no, this isn’t the Southern USA or the third-world. This woman was discriminated against in Vancouver, her school is only a few kilometres from where I live!

But even worse is that as a Group 1 Private School [pdf], the BC government funds 50% of this school’s per-pupil budget. That’s right BCers, your tax dollars are going to fund religious-fuelled homophobia.

Same-sex marriage is legal in this country. Gay couples are allowed to adopt and have children. It is downright wrong that this discrimination can be funded by everyone.

The government does stop partially-public-funded private schools from discriminating on a few grounds (from above PDF):

"Before issuing or renewing a certificate of group 1, group 2, group 3 or group 4 classification to an authority the inspector must be satisfied that
(a) no program is in existence or proposed at the independent school that would, in theory or in practice, promote or foster doctrines of
(i) racial or ethnic superiority or persecution
(ii) religious intolerance or persecution
(iii) social change through violent action, or
(iv) sedition.”

So no racism or religious discrimination, but I guess sexism and homophobia are still cool.

The other ironic thing about that document is how it brags about “diversity” while segregating large chunks of the population into their religious groups. Even further, almost all of the private schools are Christian!

At least the good news is that our heroine is getting a position with the public Vancouver School Board in the fall where she won’t have to put up with the child-abusing bigots.

I’ve been somewhat torn over the French (both France and Quebec) laws that are being moved in to ban Niqabs and Burqas in public settings.

On the one hand I think it’s a symbol of a repressive society and that no one should have to wear such clothing. But on the other hand, I support a free society where no one has the right to tell you what you can’t wear.

The Humanist Association of Ottawa comes down on the side that as an issue of secularism – “separation of church and state made clear and simple” – the Niqab ought to be banned from being worn on government property.

Now I have to part ways with the HAO author Ricky here, as a secular issue you can argue that no religious symbols ought to be promoted by the government, it is wrong to argue that (1) no religious symbols can be displayed, and (2) that private citizens who are at government buildings ought to be suppressed from displaying their symbols. And here’s why

1. My argument is that a secular state should not promote any one religion. This is best phrased in the First Amendment to the US Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” While Canadian law is not directly equivalent, I believe most Canadian legal scholars would agree that we have, for all intents and purposes, a secular state. To argue that the government cannot display religious symbols would be to suggest that state sponsored museums, art galleries or zoos can’t deal with religion in any form. Imagine a museum exhibit on the middle ages that was prevented from displaying a cross – it’s absurd.
2. As a private citizen in a free country, I ought to be allowed to wear a cross, star-and-crescent, Star of David, or a scarlet A into a government building and still receive services.

So in the end, I have to side with the Muslim women. Many have chosen (whether coerced or not is another discussion) to wear a veil in public, despite public ridicule and discrimination, and no laws ought to control that clothing. As for government employees, I use similar reasoning goes to Christians pharmacists who want the right to refuse prescribing contraceptives in that you leave your faith at home or find a line of work that fits your worldview. Pacifists don’t sign up for the army and complain they have to carry guns.

I’ll add one note about the Sikh Kirpan ceremonial daggers – if we are going to exempt one segment of the population the right to carry weapons in public, we have no reason not to let everyone. My personal preference is for everyone to leave their knives at home, regardless of their value to you. Similar logic applies to most religious accommodations to our laws – our laws either apply to everyone equally or they are useful.

It seems to me that most of the arguments for selectively banning Muslim garments stem purely from the newest forms of racism and xenophobia.

My last post before my hiatus attracted some likely deserved criticism for my sloppy writing.

I was mostly trying to just outline the back and forth between PZ Myers and people he felt like disagreeing with.

Phil Plait asks how I parsed that he said skeptics ought to “step aside,” and I’ll admit that is a misreading (so I’ve adjusted my post), but his post seems to tend on the verbose side (not that anything is wrong with that, but his points do seem to get lost in this case – although perhaps that’s just me). He does say:

Skepticism deals with issues of the paranormal, issues with faith, issues where scientific evidence can be used to test a claim. In this case, I don’t see skeptics needing to be involved more than any other interest group.

Fine, I guess, I just disagree with flying the “skepticism” flag sometimes, perhaps this is a humanist issue and a freethought issue. The fact that the church has been knowingly shuffling pedophiles around and using their power and intimidation (which they claim to be divinely given) is more serious to me than just the laws they broke, it’s that they broke them knowingly and continuously. It’s that the workers of God had more right to keep abusing society’s most vulnerable than the children to not be raped.

It’s the arrogance that gets me riled as a human-being (which Phil points out), so perhaps its not a “skepticism” issue but then I guess I’m hoping that we can all be more than a mere skeptic.

Next, I attracted Massimo Pigliucci’s attention. I’d like to clear up that I do not consider him a post-modernist, and I likely ought to have just left that second-to-last paragraph out of the discussion. And I think ADHR responds nicely to Massimo’s concern about PZ “simply hurling insults” by stating:

I don’t think Myers is trying to engage in an intellectual debate, so how is his failure to do good science or good philosophy even relevant? It’s like castigating Sidney Crosby for his inability to score touchdowns.

PZ keeps his science in the lab and classroom and uses his blog to vent, and he apparently found quite the market for those ventings.

So in summary: Sorry Phil Plait, I mischaracterized your article, but still disagree. Sorry Massimo, you’re not a postmodernist.