Canada’s biggest secular battlefield is over the publicly-funded Catholic school districts in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, but a number of provinces also fund private religious schools to varying amounts.

In Winnipeg, Manitoba, a private Catholic school receives 50% of the funding compared to a neighbouring public school. The school can then inject as much religious education as they want (typically so long as they meet the basic curriculum requirements).

It’s little wonder then why Christ the King School (yes, it’s that unapologetic) is brewing up controversy, given its latest stunt:

Children at a private Catholic school in Winnipeg who attend anti-abortion vigils outside the city's Health Sciences Centre are receiving community service credits for their participation.

Principal Dave Hood of Christ the King School said Tuesday that joining the vigils is a voluntary and family decision. But he's considering it as an official school activity as early as next year.

And before you ask, this isn’t a high school, or even middle/junior high. It’s an elementary school for 200 students from K-8.

The principal emphasizes that “We’re not there to block anyone,” but did advise parents of the daily anti-abortion vigils outside the hospital.

At least the paper adds a voice of reason to the debate:

Lori Johnson, executive director of the Klinic Community Health Centre and the Sexuality Education Research Centre, calls the vigils a political lobby and argued any school receiving public funding should not be allowed to involve children.

"It would certainly not be allowed in the public sector," said Johnson, a registered nurse and former longtime school trustee with the Winnipeg School Division board. "That is ill-considered by any school, public or private. It should be at the cost of losing their public funding."

So congrats Manitobans, a part of your tax dollars are going to promote a religious agenda through young children.

Of course this is also in the province that recently returned the NDP to a fourth majority government. It is also the province that has had some issues with the Lord’s Prayer being pushed on students in public schools.

While I am glad that Manitobans didn’t opt for the regressive Conservatives, democracy doesn’t end with election day.

Secular progressives (I think I need to write a book detailing this position) in Manitoba need to get involved in the provincial NDP and push for the end of this two-tier education system. I’ll discuss this further in a coming post though.

The trip left me with a longing to live in such a warm, beautiful area, surrounded by delicious food, drinks, and beautiful lakes.

Then I read about things like this and the reality of small town BC comes back to me.

For the forth [sic] year in a row the mayor of Kelowna, British Columbia, Sharon Shepherd, has issued a proclamation recognizing Protect Human Life Week, at the request of the Kelowna Right to Life Society.

“It is the intention of this proclamation to promote respect and protection to all human life, especially the infirm, the aged, the handicapped and the unborn,” the Protect Human Life Week proclamation states.

…

Kelowna Right to Life is urging supporters of Protect Human Life Week to thank Mayor Shepherd personally for proclaiming the pro-life week.

“Aside from year one when she received a considerable amount of backlash from those who believe killing unborn babies is a good thing, she has largely escaped criticism of her show of tolerance toward the pro life community in the Central Okanagan. Supporters are encouraged to drop Mayor a Shepherd a quick note thanking her for respecting our mission,” the pro-life group said.

Four years straight.

This is four years of a mayor putting a creepy religious attachment to their warped morality ahead of the interests of women, seniors, and the terminally ill.

They even plan to show Ben Stein’s horrendous movie Expelled. I’m not sure what that affront to human dignity has to do with respecting life, if anything I want the bit of my life back that I wasted watching it.

Their week officially kicks off next Saturday, the 24th. Perhaps by then we can increase that criticism.

Mayor Shepherd’s email address is conveniently given in the article: mayorandcouncil@kelowna.ca

Let’s send her some backlash.

I’m going to try to craft something on behalf of the BC Humanists and encourage as many people as possible to write their own letters.

And if the mayor refuses to back down, perhaps we can get CFI Okanagan to host their own week. Either something civil like a Separation of Church and State day or perhaps more provocative like abortion and blasphemy rights week. If she goes ahead with this week under the guise of “tolerance” then she’ll have to “tolerate” our viewpoints too.

Going off the details that are undisputed as of now, a bomb was set off in downtown Oslo, near the government buildings and later a man dressed as a police officer opened fire on delegates of a Labour Party youth camp. (Real) Police believe the two events are linked and the death toll is still rising and is at least 10.

The New York Times had initially reported that an Islamic fundamentalist group had taken credit for the bombing, but the paper was quick to note that such claims are often false.

Any time a terrorist attack (and I define this as a terrorist attack since it was an attack that inspired terror) occurs, it’s almost instinct now to blame Muslims. Hopefully most people take a second and realize it’s not any or even a sizable number of Muslims who could commit such atrocities (can anyone picture Mayor Nenshi doing anything so atrocious?). Finally, we actually realize that in situations like this, we need to wait until some facts come out before posting our favourite violent sections of the Koran in relation to this attack.

Almost ironically, some reports are starting to come out now, and they’re worthy of the same skepticism as the initial reports, that the gunmen was a blonde Norwegian and has no links to any Islamic group. The irony comes from the fact that this man may prove to have ties to ultra-right organizations that strongly oppose the left-leaning governing Labour party and Muslim immigration.

Rather than Islamo-Fascists it may prove to be just old fashioned Western Fascists.

Of course if a xenophobic right-wing group had escaped without being caught, they could have pinned the blame on Muslims and immigrants, potentially swinging popular opinion over to some of their more extremist policies.

But now I’m into idle speculation.

I wish the best for the investigators and Norwegian people. Norway holds a soft-spot in my heart as the place Alberta (and Canada) could be if we actually worked together.

Canada's secularists - mostly atheists/humanists - are at war with Canada's foundational principles of justice and liberty: equality before the law, the rule of law and division of powers - distinctively Christian principles.
In order to distract Canadians from their scurrilous behavior, they have directed their militant "McCarthyite" rage against Canada's Christian MPs, as this article reveals - as well as a French Le Devoir article published today. The atheists are showing their fangs. Nice to see the key role that Canada's Christian-hating mainstream media are playing in this warfare strategy.

He has even gone so far as to repost (I’m sure that violates both my, and PostMedia’s copyrights) my religion and politics article on his website No Apologies with the paranoid title “ATHEIST MCCARTHYITES ON THE WAR PATH'.”

The Le Devoir article he references is found here, and one of my friends with more French literacy translates and summarizes it:

1. In the first part of the article, they talk about a liberal female MP who went into anaphylactic shock because she was eating at a restaurant earlier in the day that serves seafood (which she's allergic to) and the scent later caused the reaction. Three CPC MPs, instead of administering any kind of aid to her, got down on their knees and did something that looked like they were giving her a religious blessing. The people on the plane did not want to call them out on it, because they were afraid they would be labelled as intolerant.
2. Another CPC MP was talking about adoption and that how he too was "adopted"; he had his biological family and his adopted family, which turns out to be Jesus and company. In the end, he basically says divine adoption takes precedence over real adoption.
3. Faytene Kryskow, a religious militant (their words, not mine), was given a laissez-passer certificate (basically let them go through without question) for the Parliament building from a Conservative MP. Kryskow is apparently the director of 4MyCanada, an organization that wants to return traditional family values to our country.
4. Last but not least, the good Minister Kenney. While at SFU, a group of young women were handing out pamphlets on abortion, but the University said no and so they (the young women) threatened to take it to the courts. The University backed off and adopted a code which said what was tolerated in terms of expression.
Kenney said that the code was stupid and basically went on to say that now anyone could go on campus to spread their message, from the Ku Klux Klan to pedophiles. He then wrote to the Catholic Church asking them to revoke the Catholic status of the University (in summation, he cried like a little bitch).

Some of which is found in Marci McDonald’s The Armageddon Factor, which references Tim Bloedow 6 different times, among them:

1. He wrote a 132-page book called “Environmentalism and the Death of Science: Exposing the Lie of Eco-Religion” where he argues that there is no environmental crisis and that we should let Jesus and the free market save us. This received praise from national columnist Lorne Gunter and he worked for Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott. (p. 117)
2. Vellacott issued an invitation on behalf of Christian nationalist Charles McVety to all MPs to watch Ben Stein’s Expelled. McDonald notes that both McVety and Bloedow attack the environmental movement. (p. 206)
3. Backers of Bloedow’s website include a number of wealthy Canadian businessmen - Hamilton’s Al Schutten and Martinrea chair Rob Wildeboer – the latter of whom was appointed by Harper to the “Science, Technology and Innovation Council.” Bloedow was also appointed as chair of the “Equipping Christians for the Public Square (ECP) Centre,” which defended homophobic Christians who got in legal trouble for their words. (p. 276)
4. Bloedow sees the Supreme Court as the major obstacle for the “re-Christianization” of Canada and called for dismantling the courts. Bloedow has an odd mix of Libertarian –Christianity where local governments could handle justice issues. He’s failed to explain how this would work in a fair or reasonable way (i.e. not just tribal vendettas and bigotry ruling). (p. 280)

But what strikes me most is the blatant ignorance of throwing out terms like “McCarthyism” without understanding the underlying irony of a Christian levelling such a claim against an atheist. During the Red Scare, Senator Joe McCarthy fear-mongered about the atheist communist threat to America, and subsequently the USA passed many pro-Christian signs of support, including adopting “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The McCarthyism of the day was based on fear and lies. Atheists are not trying to repress Christianity using the state, but instead to recognize that in a multicultural, pluralistic country, we can no longer continue making laws that recognize only one sub-sect of society. All people are equal.

Surprisingly, for PostMedia (which owns the Calgary Herald which routinely bashes atheists in its editorials), the comments were roughly split between pro and anti-secularists, although both sides featured numerous ineloquent trolls. Some like this are a bit troubling to me [all quotes are exact and any emphasis is my own]:

I truly believe that knowing the religious affiliations of any residents as well as "open access" to view through the freedom of information act any individuals' tax returns should be part of this country's policies and enshrined in the constitution. Too many are getting away with ridiculous exemption claims on their returns based on religious allowances and as far as I'm concerned, all religious claims should be disallowed.

The reason that many churches are given a tax-exempt status is that they must be involved in helping and supporting their community. This reduces the cost of "social programs" for the government, since churches don't charge for this service. They are paid for by donations. These social programs must be "proveable" to Revenue Canada, whether it is sponsoring youth nights, food banks, shelter, etc. in order for donations to count as tax exemptions.
I, for one, would rather see local communities helping local residents in need, than increasing our already bloated bureaucracy.
As for knowing religious affiliations, how do you define that? We all hold some type of world view which influences our decisions or behaviour, whether we are Humanist or Christian. Should we request everyone to state this on any government job application, so we can "vet" them for possible biases? People are individuals, and even within organized religions (i.e. Muslim) there are con

I would question whether religious social programs are as effective, or even moral (since they often come with some proselytizing), as government (or secular private) charities and programs. As for defining “religious affiliation” I think we have ample ways (since we fill out a census, although I do not advocate open access to people’s census or tax returns) to identify that; however, what I’m more concerned with is beliefs. It’s a subtle distinction, but what I was trying to get at was whether there are hidden and unquestionable motives operating behind any of our leaders. Our approach to policy should be based on evidence and reason, not faith and dogma.

These two are funny to me:

That has to be the most boring article I have ever read. What a waste of time and I would like to sue Ian for wasting valuable minutes from my life.

Is it just me or does Ian Bushfeild look like he could be Igantieff's son.

Then there’s pleas to tyranny of the (false) majority:

The writer of this article says : "McDonald credits evangelical Christians with rallying behind the Harper Conservatives, propelling him to victory" Umm I am not an evegelical Christian, but I did vote conservative. I voted for the best man for the job. It is clear that people wanted Stephen Harper in. Even if some of their reasons were based on his religious "views" so be it! That is democracy and that is what the people who voted want and/or believe in. This is a Christian Nation whether people like it or not and it shows in our desires for our country.

I thought this was a “multicultural” country. Originally it was a mosaic of many different aboriginal cultures (many of whom are fighting to keep that culture alive today), then imperialist Anglicans and Catholics arrived and fought it out, and now we have many different faiths and non-faiths. The appeal to democracy is also flawed since Harper’s Conservatives have never received >50% of the vote (they’ve at best gotten in the high 30%s, not an overwhelming majority by any definition) in a federal election (the last time a party got at least that was the PCs in 1984, and before that in 1958).

So, what is Mr. Bushfield’s hidden agenda? From now, on he should start his “objective”, “innocent’ commentaries with his own beliefs and religious convictions (theistic or other). Unless he does that, he has no ground to stand on.
He writes: “deeply held beliefs will not affect the policy positions once in power”. Hmmmm, other personal things also have effect on people’s decisions, many of them much deeper than religion. According to this brilliant idea, people should be questioned about whether they were abused as a child, whether their parents were alcoholic, whether they are materialistic or greedy, whether they cheat, what their sex life is like, just to name few things for starters.
What a profoundly inane idea!
As for his statistics about 1 in 4 Canadians not believing in God, it shows how accurate, trustworthy and/or reliable his comments are. And he is worried about other people’s hidden agendas? He should go and by a big mirror, and look into it first!

What’s with the scare-quotes? I didn’t suggest that I was being objective or innocent, and when it says I blog at “Canadian Atheist” I think we can figure out my own beliefs (if that’s not clear enough, I’m an atheistic secular humanist and naturalist). As for those other issues, my point was religion is a taboo subject while there’s few issues questioning past criminal or racist remarks (see any number of candidates that get dropped by the major parties each year). My agenda is quite clear and not hidden, I want to see a world where reason and evidence guide our actions, not dogma and blind faith.

Maybe Ian Bushfield should spend more time not in university and blogging and get out in the real world. He might realize there is a Christian left as well.

I know full well that the CCF and early NDP were guided by Christians and that Tommy Douglas was a pastor – it’s possible to be right (pun intended) for the wrong reasons.

Does everyone agree that Canada is a great country?
Then stop trying to change things.

Shit, I didn’t realize that we’d reached perfection and eliminated poverty, homelessness, and are no longer poisoning our environment. I guess I’ll just give up trying to make the world a better place.

Why all the attacks on people of faith? Each to his own. If you don't believe in God or creation that's your business, but mocking and putting down Christians or others who believe in God isn't very tolerant now is it...

It’s everyone’s business when you enter the public sphere and those beliefs affect policy – that’s the entire point of the article. If my government is run by people who think the world is going to end in their lifetimes, I can imagine they’d be a bit more careless in their foreign policy and environmental platform than those of us who realize that we’re responsible for this planet and ensuring that it’s worthy of our future generations.

Why do you feel that atheism or humanism has a greater 'right' to influance our politics? Are you and those of such persuasion greater than the creator? Sad state to be in Ian. I know for I once was blind myself and I thought I was seeing clearly. Remember this saying; God shows grace to the humble (before God)( by opening their eyes) but resist the proud (so that they remain in the dark) I sincerily hope you come to grasp this saying one day.

Harper shocked the nation with God bless Canada! Why ? As you said it yourself 1 in 4 believe in God. Much of this uproar comes from the atheist-left in Canada. Why do you think your way is better? Why should we move toward policy based on reason and not are judo/Christian roots? Only a concieded person would make such proposal.

Would it be conceited to point out spelling (and grammar, “1 in 4 believe”) mistakes? I would suggest my way is less bad since it’s amenable to new evidence, and it’s very easy to be of “persuasion greater” than a creator who doesn’t exist. Christianity in charge gave us the dark ages, reason gave us the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. Although I am tempted by returning to our “judo” roots.

I crack up when I hear atheists and agnostics yelling to keep religion out of politics. Their own post-modernist secular worldview is just as much a religion as any. The difference is so many of them don't have the knowledge or insight to understand that.
Policy based on "reason and evidence" is what the French revolutionaries promoted. However, the "Age of Reason" resulted in the Vendee, the Reign of Terror and ultimately Napoleon. God help us. The humanist atheists certainly won't.

I didn’t realize I’m a post-modernist. Nevertheless, it’s worth remembering that the cause of the French Revolution is generally attributed to the policies of the monarchs (who claimed their authority from God), which led to a secular overthrow. Unfortunately, years of austerity allowed (as is often the case) cruel power-mongers to rise. I don’t see how this commenter is suggesting that Robespierre was guiding by reason or evidence in his massacres, perhaps he might shine some evidence on that assertion (oh wait…).

Interesting that the rabid attacks here seem to be against Christians only. They are clearly arguments looking for a fight, not a discussion, and the intolerance shown in those postings shows how dangerous it would be for society if secularism was all that was allowed.

As opposed to Christianity’s tolerant track record?

Then there’s historical revisionism:

The truth to be said is every one has deeply held beliefs that affect their policy positions . Had Canadians known about Paul Matin hidden agenda I think he would have lost the election . Consider the poll of the time, 93% against samesex mariage yet Martin's humanist views were imposed! Why? Pure arrogance. Yes we were victim of his ideological 'reasoning'.

Maybe in 1911 were 93% against same-sex marriage, but a plurality has been in favour since roughly the mid 1990s. Further, Paul Martin is Catholic, not a Humanist. There are currently no openly atheist MPs in Ottawa, a point that I neglected to include in this article (wasn’t sure how to include it, but will likely write it up later).

And finally, one who gets it:

this article did not put down people of faith, what it did do was call on belief systems to be openly discussed. After all, we should see that an evangelical Christian or other fundementalist religion sees non believers as sinners going to hell. That is part of the operating system we should talk about.

Tl/dr: In a nutshell, internet comments (even the atheists) are generally a waste of time and intelligence.

That’s a screenshot from the frontpage today of Canada.com. No clue who that kid is, but the picture is priceless.

Go ahead and read through the varied comments too. I’ll repost and respond to some them later.

Religious beliefs affect policy - so the leaders should talk about them

The night Stephen Harper was first elected prime minister in 2006, he shocked the nation by ending his speech with a phrase that sounded almost American: “God bless Canada.” Yet, even after five years in power, the media and politicians have yet to broach the taboo subject of religion in Canadian politics.

Agreements between British Protestants and French Catholics led to the creation of our country. That multicultural spirit continues today in a country that welcomes people of any or no faith. However, this multiculturalism is under increasing strain as continued immigration brings customs that clash with other Canadian values and freedoms.

As more Canadians abandon Christianity or bring other beliefs from around the world, some of our older traditions look increasingly archaic. Some surveys have pegged the number of Canadians who don’t believe in God as high as 1 in 4, yet our anthem and Charter both explicitly favour belief in God.

When last year’s Throne Speech promised updates to the national anthem that would address some of the sexist phrasing, the uproar from conservative believers forced a retreat. Few expected such a progressive change from the current government, and many sought further improvements, but Harper’s backtracking was too fast for any actual discussion on the merits of change to occur.

Much of this uproar came from the Christian right in Canada, which has been growing over the past few years. Journalist Marci McDonald documented this growth in her 2010 book The Armageddon Factor. Organized in response to the gay marriage debates, McDonald credits evangelical Christians with rallying behind the Harper Conservatives, propelling him to victory.

Their success is such that Harper’s Minister of State for Science and Technology made some unclear statements about his beliefs on the subject of evolution while others have stood in the House (http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/04/02/james-lunney-v-science/) and defended Biblical Creationism. In 2000, similar statements led to Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella openly mocking then Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day on national television.

Yet questions about the personal beliefs of candidates for our highest offices seem to remain off-limits. While there should never be a religious (or atheistic) test for our government, it is greatly mistaken to think that deeply held beliefs will not affect the policy positions once in power. People have a right to know if any of our elected officials think the world will end in our lifetime.

These beliefs lead to actions like the government’s denial of funds to maternal health initiatives that might have provided access to abortions in the Third World, and to social-justice group KAIROS that apparently represents the wrong kind of Christian. Dennis Gruending documents numerous other organizations (http://dennisgruending.ca/pulpitandpolitics/2011/03/25/stephen-harpers-hit-list/), including Pride Toronto and Planned Parenthood, that have fallen victim to these seemingly ideological cuts. While past Prime Ministers have harboured varying levels of commitment to their beliefs, few have let it bleed into their policy. Until recently, most politicians seemed to take Trudeau’s legacy of keeping the government out of the bedroom to heart.

My hope for this and future elections is that we can have an open discussion about the role of religious belief in Canadian politics. We need to shed light on hidden agendas and move toward policy based on reason and evidence.

Ian Bushfield is currently a masters student in physics at Simon Fraser University and lives in Vancouver. He is president of the B.C. Humanist Association and blogs at http://terahertzatheist.ca and http://canadianatheist.com .

Lying for Jesus

You may not have heard, but last week was proclaimed “Jesus Week” by the Christian student groups on campus. The week featured a variety of events for these evangelists to spread their faith.

On Wednesday they put together a panel of four SFU professors to explore questions about Jesus. Unfortunately, the panel was dominated by white Christian men, none of whom were theologians, religious studies professors, or even historians. To speak about religion and history, the best professors SFU’s Christian clubs could find were two mathematicians, an economist, and a political scientist affiliated with the right-wing Fraser Institute.

Yet, despite these lacklustre qualifications, the Christian ad-machine was in full force with posters displaying quotes by Katy Perry, Bono, Albert Einstein, and Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, only half of these quotes were honestly chosen. While she gave up gospel singing to pursue stardom, both Katy Perry and Bono are at least nominally Christian and definitely theists. The same can’t be said for the other two spokespeople.

Einstein’s poster sports the quote: “No one can read the gospels without feeling the presences of Jesus. His personality pulsates with every word. No myth is filled with such life.” While a true quote, Einstein was merely conveying respect for the Christian myths. He later made his view very transparent, stating: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Misquoting Einstein tends to be popular among Christians who desperately hope to add the credibility of an agnostic Jewish physicist to their arsenal, but as with any lie by omission, this is dishonest and un-Christian.

But the dishonesty goes deeper with their quote from Richard Dawkins, snipped from his satirical article “Atheists for Jesus” in which he stated, “[Jesus was] . . . a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness, [he] must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him,” which neglects the fact that the actual point of the article was to suggest that, were he alive today, Jesus would likely have been an atheist.

Buried on one of their many Facebook pages is the explanation that all quotes are chosen to show how Jesus’ teachings have reached and touched us all. Yet, when taken out of context and plastered across campus they appear as little more than desperate attempts to steal endorsements.

But wait, there’s more. Friday featured Kirk Durston, a recent PhD graduate of biophysics from the University of Guelph, attempting to rebut Stephen Hawking’s recent book The Grand Design. Hawking’s book argued in laymen terms how the universe could feasibly arise without God.

Never mind how disconnected modern cosmology and biophysics are: academic qualifications are apparently unnecessary during Jesus Week. Durston continues to argue that evolution is too complicated to happen and has previously suggested that genocide is just peachy if God Himself legitimately tells us to commit it. Someone who has failed to grasp the basics of evolution from first year biology thinks he knows better than the world’s preeminent astrophysicist? And here I was thinking Christians were supposed to be modest.

From the crosses that adorn the relic SFU crest, to Christmas and Easter vacations, Christianity is deep-rooted in our culture. I really have to question whether last week was at all successful at making even one person aware of Jesus who had never heard of him before February 14.

It’s generated two responses so far: David Minor’s Jesus is not a four letter word [7 March] and Kristen Soo’s Jesus’ message can be for anybody [14 March]. Also, it got the following responses in the “Reader Comments” (aka letters section)

Ian Bushfield’s opinion piece ‘Lying for Jesus’ is one of those bizarre ramblings reminiscent of Gadahfi’s recent speeches.

Bushfield presents himself as a champion of truth, yet writes an article replete with misrepresentations and sketchy half-truths.

He did not attend my lecture on Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s Grand Design. Instead, he made up an absurd report, throwing in words like ‘evolution’ and ‘genocide’ that had no association with the lecture.

It appears the ‘genocide’ comment was obtained from a gross misrepresentation originating out of an atheist blog a few years ago, which Bushfield seems to have uncritically swallowed as gospel to spice up his rather dodgy article. The actual lecture presented last week reviewed some of the major ideas advanced by Hawking and Mlodinow in their recent book Grand Design.

- Kirk Durston

And:

Taken out of context, the Einstein quote does make it sound as if he believed the gospels to be true. It is misleading.

You claim “everything [most SFU students] have heard [of Jesus] is cast in a negative light”, despite that mainstream media and North American society as a whole are still pretty Christian-friendly.

Growing up in Canada, I certainly heard more good things about Christianity than bad, and I bet it was the same for most SFU students. University is one of the few settings in which people freely but intelligently discuss and criticize Christianity, and Bushfield’s concerns over the methods used to convey Jesus Week messages are a legitimate part of such discussions.

If Jesus week really were an honest “invitation to dialogue”, perhaps its supporters shouldn’t rush to accuse students of being part of some evil Christianity-bashing movement when they speak up.

- Monica W.

Her book set off a storm of controversy over the summer by drawing attention to the strength of the Christian Nationalist lobby within Stephen Harper's government.

She'll be responding to some of the criticisms levelled at her, and likely giving a bit of an update to what's happened since her book was published.

For more information, check out the page at the BC Humanist Website.

A few thoughts cross my mind:

• Does this shaky spy-cam action and rock music show anything other than the film-makers bias?
• Why does this paranoid bigot feel the need to film a check-in gate?
• And does this not worry airport security more than a family of travellers who have already passed the main security gates?
• On a related note, what’s the real, scientific explanation of why we feel this need to see faces? We know people are very easily deceived, so what does seeing someone’s face actually accomplish?
• If they are not who they say they are, won’t getting through customs in England be quite a bit more difficult?
• Why question the gender of one of the passengers other than to suspect that most Muslims are terrorists?
• If this “error” was so egregious, then I guess we must just be lucky that these veiled “women” didn’t use this opportunity to strike with plastic knives and bring down the plane. Or of course, there is no real need to be any more secure at the gate other than to ensure that people paid for their seats.

And while I deplore Islam and its brutal subjugation of women, ignorant accusations like this do nothing to help bring peace and freedom to the victims.