The Noah Movie Review: Do Cats Hate Water?

Last night I persuaded Mary Ann to go and see the new movie "Noah" at the cineplex.  I was intrigued by this movie, as it is a bible story, yet I see in the news that Fundamentalists hate it.  Apparently because it is historically inaccurate.  I think that Atheists may have the same objection.

Anyway, it stars Russell Crowe (Noah) who is not my favourite actor, but I don't hate him either. As Noah's  wife, Jennifer Connolly, who I like because she starred in Blood Diamond, but also don't like because she seems to be starving herself to death.

I hope this does not spoil anything, but this version of Noah solves some of the age old questions, like what did they do with all the animal poop, how did they feed all those animals for so long, and how did they stop the animals from killing each other?  I will reveal the secret here:  They put them to sleep (like hibernation) with some kind of burning plant smoke that does not affect humans.  Wasn't that easy?  The Holy Bible should have hired a few more Hollywood writers and it might have come off as more believable.

Now back to the movie.  The director had a radically different interpretation of the Noah story from the one most Christians cling to.  The normal Christian interpretation is that God is an angry God who is easily annoyed, and punishes mankind quite horribly when he is in a bad mood.  And sometimes even if He's in a good mood!  So bottom line: better worship God as hard as you can, as often as you can.

The writer and director of this movie was Darren Oronofsky.  His view is that a Creator made a nice planet, but one of his specially created species is greedy and cruel, and causing a bit of a problem by wiping out every other form of life.  I don't think I'm giving anything away by revealing that the problem species is Humans.  And so "The Creator" can only solve the problem by wiping out most of life on Earth with a flood, and starting over, either with Noah's family, or without humans altogether.

Oronofsky's vision is not too far off the vision of many environmentalists.  The environmentalist view is that humans are just one species of a complex ecosystem, and should learn to live within that ecosystem without destroying it.  On the other hand, the Fundamentalists seem to believe a man-shaped God created Man in his image, and that the entire rest of the universe was only created by God for a backdrop to Man.  In other words, they believe that a universe without "Man" makes no sense whatsoever.

Would you want to see this movie? Probably not, if you only want to see the cute animals  like giraffes and zebras and gorillas marching two by two up the gangplank.  You will see that, but you will also see a lot of killing, and just plain nastiness.  Also you will see just about everything that you normally find in an epic action movie starring Russell Crowe: monsters, battles, a lot of screaming and crying, man-to-man wrestling and swordplay.  But most of all, if you are a Biblical literalist, you will find a lot of offensive stuff on a philosophical level and on a "factual" level. (especially the constant reference to "the Creator" instead of "God".)  It's also not tremendously appealing to environmentalists, if Mary Ann is a representative sample.  Of course, her main objection was that everybody seemed to leave their empty popcorn and drink containers in the theatre instead of taking them out to the garbage.  "Is this the new culture?" she said disparagingly at the end. So apparently not a lot of environmentalist saw this movie, but it does have a powerful attraction for litterbugs.

Owning a Cat is Not A Type of Slavery

This may be an old question, but I only heard it recently.  Is a person who owns a cat the same as a slave owner?  I want to answer this question for two reasons.  I did own a cat, and second, slavery is the argument that fuelled the trend to extreme Bible Literalism.

I admit that I did not pay my cat any money for working for me.  On the other hand, he did very little "work" other than scratching up the furniture and barfing in surprising places. So that is the end of the similarity of pet owning to slavery, now I will give my reasons for supporting pet ownership, even though I oppose slavery.

Ironically, if all slaves were treated as well as the average pet cat, the institution of slavery might have survived till today.  But no, slaves were not treated as well as my cat.  Sad to say, human slaves were treated much worse than cat slaves.

If my cat runs away, I don't send dogs after it to tear it to shreds, then whip it or cut its legs off when I get it back.  Also, there is no law in the land that compels me to commit such barbaric acts to my cat.  Au contraire, I would be punished for "cruelty to animals" for doing it.  And there is no passage in the bible supporting such cruelty to cats.

The problem with slavery was not so much about paying slaves proper salary. Slavery simply was an evil governmental institution that also spawned an evil religious cult.  A cult that used the literal interpretation of the bible to justify such barbarity against fellow human beings, that today we would call it institutional terrorism.  Fundamentalist religion made slave owners feel that any evil they did would be forgiven, because the Bible itself told them that slavery was performed with God's blessing. And the Bible could never be wrong.

End of argument, but I still have more to say!

Post Script:
It is unfortunate that even to this day we have people indoctrinated on this old-time religion from the Slave States/Bible Belt, putting forward the same old arguments that make no more sense today than they did before the Civil War.

It's obvious to me that we must continue to argue about slavery with extreme Bible Believers.  We cannot allow Bible Fundamentalists to sabotage the public education system by changing the topic from slavery to an argument about evolution and "Darwinism".  Let's take the fundamentalist religious controversy back to slavery, where it started, instead of letting it spread its curse of ignorance to all aspects of our society.

Picture: Kitten jammed in a tight box on a slave ship to America.

Why O Why Does God Need to Fight Darwin?

I have heard of religious people feeling they are in conflict with science, even oppressed by scientists.

http://www.darwinismthegreatestlieinhistory.com/

A movie called "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" starring Ben Stein states part of the argument of religious extremists.

Religious argument
1. Scientists are shunning anyone who believes in the Bible, and kicking them out of universities
2. Darwinism (a scientific theory that conflicts with the bible) in particular has led to mankind's greatest immorality: the Nazi Holocaust of World Wart II

I don't believe this supposed conflict is doing anyone any good, and that it is a "made up" conflict that serves mostly the purpose of the religious extremists.

If you are an atheist, or a Christian of mainstream religions, you may think it is impossible for the religious extremists to actually benefit from attacking science.  After all, science has given us modern medicine, airplanes, cars, heated houses, refrigerators, telephones, computers, and other fancy stuff.  But there is still an advantage to be gained from attacking science.  For example, the "Flat Earth" movement from about a hundred years ago did the same thing.  A few charismatic leaders arose, and began speaking tours, and writing pamphlets casting doubt on the theory that the Earth was round.  Even though the round Earth was a well established fact, these Flat-Earthers attracted a large and growing following.  It got to the point that some actual scientists became worried enough to try debating the point.  But it didn't actually do much good.  In time, the Flat Earth movement gradually faded, although as of 2012 it had about 400 members
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society#Modern_activities

We all know about conspiracy theories, and how they can attract followings, like the "Truther" movement that argued the destruction of 9/11 was an inside job, not the result of planes crashing.

I see a similarity between  the "Young Earth Creationists" and these other conspiracy groups, although I feel that Creationists are a much stronger movement with more adherents.  The question is why have they got so many adherents, how did it grow to be such a large movement?

I think we can start by looking at the history of Creationism.  In 1800, almost all Christians were creationists.  but it was not a cult of contrarians, it was simply mainstream thought with no serious challengers among Christians or Jews.  Even Darwin started off as a creationist.  Then in the mid 1800's, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, which seemed to defy the traditional story of the Bible.  Incidentally, this was not much different from the earlier discovery of the round earth, and the fact of the Earth going around the Sun instead of vice versa. Both those theories seemed to defy the word of the Holy Bible. But while the theories of the flat Earth the the sun going around the Earth both gradually faded, Evolution came in for some stiffer opposition which is still going strong today in the USA.

The particular historical circumstances that made evolution such a battleground may be connected to the US civil war.  One clue is that the centre of Creationism today is still in the Southern US states that supported slavery.  Another clue is that the civil war took place around the same time as Darwin's theory of Evolution.  A third, and more complicated clue, is that an argument of the Civil War was whether or not slavery was the will of God. In the debate about whether or not God accepted slavery, one key point hinged on whether or not every word of the Bible was true.  Because in the Bible, it clearly states that you are allowed to own slaves and allowed to beat them nearly to death. Anti-slavery Christians had to downplay the importance of the literal interpretation of the Bible.  But southerners who supported slavery emphasized the literal truth of every word of the Bible, since it supported their cause of slavery.

Once the US Civil War was over, it seemed pointless to continue debating slavery, but a new bugaboo emerged for the Southern religions to attack with their belief in the concept of "Every word of the Bible is literally true".  The new bugaboo was Darwinism.  So for about a hundred years, a low level conflict continued, with the south fighting for "Biblical Creationism" while the rest of the world moved on to a general acceptance of evolution.  This  "Darwinism" debate found new life with the passing of civil rights laws for African-Americans, which forced all government schools to enroll black students.  Opposition to Darwin and Evolution became the way southern people could attack the government school system, and gave them non-racist excuses to keep their kids out of schools.

The Creationist vs. Darwinist debate took on a life of its own, with many people being able to make a good living off it, much like any of the other conspiracy theories.  But this time the argument had a religious element, a racist element, and a political element thrown in for good measure.

In the end, there is no need for people to give up their Bible to accept evolution.  The Catholic Church has done it already, so have other mainstream churches.  Even the strictest biblical literalists accept the idea that the Earth is round and orbits the sun.  And they also (I think) have given up on slavery, regardless of the words in the Holy Bible.  There is no need for a smackdown between God and Darwin.

Picture: http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/1504/the-life-and-lies-about-charles-darwin

The Harper Doctrine: A Talk at CIGI by John Ibbitson

Last night I attended a talk at CIGI in Waterloo by John Ibbitson http://www.cigionline.org/events/harper-doctrine-conservative-foreign-policy-revolution.

The title was The Harper Doctrine: A Conservative Foreign-Policy Revolution.  FYI: Harper is Canada's current Prime Minister, and the person responsible for changes in Canada's foreign policy in the last 7 years.

Although I consider John Ibbitson to be a conservative leaning  (http://withinacertaindistance.blogspot.ca/2012/06/someone-fire-john-ibbitson-please.html)  columnist, and it was -15c, I went anyway, as Mary Ann wanted to go.

My initial thought was that Harper has no original foreign policy.  He simply mimics the foreign policy of the right wing USA, especially Republicans, but to some extent the Democrats too.  For example, he matches the Republicans disdain for the UN, their dismantling of the Kyoto agreement, and their one-sided support for Israel.  He seems to want Canada to cease being a peacekeeper, and become a combat-hardened nation like the US, I assume to help them in  foreign wars.  He even uses the catch phrases of the Republicans like "we won't cut and run".

In his talk, Ibbitson started off by stating that he had come to the conclusion that there was no Harper doctrine and that anyway, doctrines are actually associated with superpowers.  Later on, he stated that Harper's love for Israel developed when he was a teenager, and was not simply a ploy to grab the Jewish vote.  And I assume he was trying to imply without actually coming out and saying it, that Harper was not necessarily copying US foreign policy. I still think that's debatable.

During the talk, Ibbitson took a big swipe at the Province of Quebec for it's newly proposed legislation banning religious garb while performing civil servant or government jobs.  According to Ibbitson, this is clearly a discriminatory practice, effectively banning religions from the teaching profession, hospitals, police etc.  I don't want to get onto a different track here, but I think there is a big difference between banning religions in government jobs and banning religious garb while on the job (and let's also remember religious garb in some cases includes the carrying of weapons).  I'm sure those religions, if they want to accommodate more secular, multicultural Canadian ways, can also find ways to modify their strict "dress codes" to allow their people to take government jobs. After all, look at the Catholic Church and how it finally allowed people to eat fish on Friday, after first making it optional on airplanes. Look at how some religions have abandoned the practice of honour killings (at least in Canada). Most of these religious dress codes are more cultural than a core religious values, but I can leave that for others to argue.  I'm not sure why Ibbitson thought he needed to bring it up, except to point out how Quebec was worse than the rest of Canada.

Ibbitson also talked about how the Conservatives had a strong and growing political coalition that now includes immigrants, the suburbs of most big Canadian cities, and the rural areas of Canada, with very strong support in the Western provinces (that are also still growing in population and influence).  He did not mention that most Canadian voters did not vote for Harper, and that in a true runoff election he would probably lose. From my own point of view, if not for the unfortunate left wing split between Liberals, Green, and NDP; the Conservatives would still be an opposition party.  And just because the west is growing does not mean that all westerners are extreme right wing conservatives like Harper.

In summary, Ibbitson referred to Canada's foreign policy from WW2 up to Harper in 2006, as "Laurentian" and Harper's foreign policy as "Conservative".  My own feeling is that the so-called "Laurentian" policy (a policy based on diplomacy, respect for the UN and world court, peacekeeping, and fairness to all) is more like a "Canadian" foreign policy, while Harper's policy is more like "mini-right wing USA" foreign policy, carried out by his puppet government supported by US oil companies and US evangelicals.  And an embarrassment to most Canadians.

So in the entire talk, which I will admit was fast paced, funny, and worth hearing, Ibbitson described Canada's political situation and foreign policy with the all the conservative assumptions and prejudices.  So it  was not necessarily a balanced view, and he never did mention how Harper's doctrine looks to be a copy of Bush's US foreign policy.  And none of the questions from the audience brought up the subject either. I suppose I shouldn't complain, as I had the opportunity to bring it up myself at the talk, but didn't.  I guess I prefer to write about it in a blog instead.

Is Megyn Kelly a Racist? (And a lot of other people)

There has been a controversy about Megyn Kelly saying Jesus is white, and a big part of that controversy centres on whether or not the comment was racist.

The second part of this controversy, one that has not been clearly stated, is whether or not racism is still alive and well in America, or if racism is all in the past, as many people want to believe. If you can prove Megyn's statement is not racist, you could probably also say racism is over.  But if you can prove the statement is racist, then you have proved racism is still rampant.

Here is my proof.  The fundamental belief that is necessary to support any racist system, is that people can be classified neatly into races.  Let me give you an example.  In Nazi Germany, in order to support their racist policies, not only it was necessary to believe that "Germans" and "Jews" were two different races, but it was necessary to believe that you could easily classify any person as either a Jew or not a Jew, and based on that certainty, you (as a for-sure-German) were now morally permitted to ban the for-sure-Jews from your society.  And then to kill them when it suited you.

To be non-racist, you would have to believe that being a Jew or Non-Jew did not matter.  Another small but important part of that non-racist point of view is that you cannot always tell whether someone is a Jew or a non Jew.

This argument about being able to tell which race is which is fundamental to racism, and cannot be ignored.  A racist always tends to think that races are immutable, that mixing races is an abomination akin to homosexuality.  If you believe that mixing races is not a problem, and recognize uncertainty, then you are probably not a racist.  In fact, logically, I do not think it possible to be a racist if you do not think in absolute terms.  Separating the races is absolutely fundamental to racism, without it, racism cannot work.

Now for Megyn Kelly's remark that Jesus is white, because it's a historical fact.  To me, just the very fact that Megyn apparently believes that it is a "fact" that Jesus is white, and makes me wonder if she is racist, whether the historical "fact" is true or not.  And I'm pretty sure Megyn Kelly does not think of herself as a racist, but then that's true for most racists these days.

But is it really true that Jesus is absolutely white?  Well, no.  For one thing, if he was a historical person, then when he was alive he was probably something in between white and black.  But for true Christians, Jesus is much more than a historical figure, he is "Son of God", right?  So if Jesus has a race then God obviously has a race, as I think we all agree that race is handed down from one generation to the next.  So by saying Jesus is white you are saying God is white.  Carrying this racist idea a little further, you are also saying that races exist in Heaven.  (Heaven being where God and Jesus "live" right now.)  And you are making an assumption that if any orientals, black people, or Arabs make it to Heaven, they are going to be stuck with their race for all eternity.  And I'm sure Megyn thinks that when she goes to Heaven, she is still going to be a cute white girl, and her opinions will still count for something.

Another thing that is believed by many (if not all) Christians, is that Jesus is coming back to Earth.  Not as a spirit, but as a real man, like he did back in year nought.  After all, Jesus himself said so, he just didn't give us the precise date.  I'm sure you see by now where I'm going with this, but anyway... Jesus will have do decide what race He is going to come back as.  Does he come back as the same race as last time, or does he pick some other race?  Does he come back as a man or a woman? I'm sure the white supremacist Christians would have a conniption fit if he (or she) came back as a black ghetto kid.  In fact, I'm pretty sure they would absolutely deny that this was Jesus, no matter how much water he turned into wine or people he raised from the dead, how much water he walked on, or how many people he could feed with a basket of loaves and fishes.

In my opinion, if people in America do not believe that race exists in Heaven, then they can say they are not racists.  But if they believe that Jesus was white, and stays white in Heaven, and will be white when he returns to Earth, you can tell they are still racist.

Picture: From Daily KOS website.

Fox News Tries to Steal Christmas

At Christmas time, there are many ideas floating about on how to make the holiday more "Christian". For the last few years, Fox News has been saying the greeting  "Happy Holidays" is offensive to real Christians.

How do we really put the Christ back in Xmas?   I have come up with a list that I would like to share.  It is partly ideas I got from other people, some ideas are rooted in tradition, some ideas come from the 4th annual Fox News "war on Christmas" campaign.


1. We need to make some strong statements that Santa is of the white race.  Apparently a lot of non-white people feel like they can make Santa any colour they wish, and this has to stop if we are to retain the true Christmas spirit.

2. We should not entertain thoughts of a "Christmas Penguin" similar to the Easter Bunny.   In case you couldn't guess, this idea came to me from the Fox News campaign, although the original idea came from Aisha Harris, of Slate.  Another reason we can't have a Christmas Penguin is that the Penguin is the symbol of Linux.  But when I Googled "Christmas Penguin" (with quotes) I got 457,000 hits.  And Google Images has no shortage of examples.  So apparently, this anti-Christmassy move is underway already.  And while we are on the subject, how many times must I remind you people there are no penguins at the North Pole? So it makes no scientific sense at all.

3. A third idea inspired by Fox News, ban all Festivus Poles, especially those located in public places where they may interfere with Christian Baby Jesus Manger scenes.

4. Christmas time might be a very appropriate time to read the bible, especially the Christmas Story in Luke 2:1-20.  If you know anything about shepherding, just ignore Luke 2:8, because you will know that shepherds in the holy land to not actually "watch their flocks by night" in December, which might make you think that the birth date has been changed to match a Pagan tradition of worshipping the winter solstice.

5. While reading the bible, you may also want to skip all the chapters advising people to stone each other for minor transgressions such as working on the Sabbath.  By the way, "working" is interpreted to include air travel.  And for sure the pilots, baggage handlers, and mechanics are working, so they must all certainly be killed in this particularly gruesome way.  But hey, how else are we supposed to show our true Christianity if not by obeying the Bible blindly.

6. If you want to upstage the neighbours piety, may I suggest this instead of setting up even more inflatable front lawn displays.  I suggest you sacrifice some of your livestock to God.  If you are not a farmer, I think it would be acceptable to instead sacrifice the family dog.  Please do not sacrifice any of your children before consulting with your pastor, no matter what you may have read in the Bible.


Now seriously, I hope everyone who reads this can tell it is humour.  I do not really recommend any of these measures, I am just trying to point out, with examples, what is wrong with some people's narrow view of Christmas, as promoted by Fox News, which I am thankful we don't get in Canada.

I prefer a liberal kind of Christianity that is based on freedom of religion, on tolerance, on helping the less fortunate, on making everyone feel welcome regardless of race or creed. I suppose this might offend some stricter Christians who think they are doing good by saying prayers in school, wishing people "Merry Christmas" and not "Happy Holidays",  singing carols and putting money in Santa's pot.  But come on, everyone should know that the real spirit of Christmas is feeling love and not hate.

Happy Holidays to all.  (and I mean that in a good way).

Picture: from this website http://www.very.co.uk/e/promo/christmas-novelty-knits.end

Pray Nice in School

For all those religious people who want to pray in school, I have a suggestion for a prayer.  I got the inspiration from a website in the US, called PresidentialPrayerTeam.com

Back when George W. Bush was president, a prayer-focused website was put up called

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/


I scrolled through some of the many prayers posted on the web site, where they do in fact ask for us to pray for President Obama.

Here is the prayer, that inspired me for my choice of a prayer to say in school.

"Anonymous
Many in this United States are too busy with Thanksgiving, Christmas and just life to even care or know what is going on in this country. Obama is continuing to deceive the masses and perpetrate evil. Lord this man is not our friend. He needs you in his heart in a terrible way. Father he is misguided and listening to the lies of Islam and Satan to take us down. Father reveal yourself to him and others in his chain of command in the Executive branch. Lord Jesus touch the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts as he has time to redeem himself when it comes to doing the right thing as they hear the case for religious freedom in the Obamacare bill. Lord Jesus rule in favor of righteousness and saving our faith. Amen.
Received: November 27, 2013  (Prayed 9 times)"

http://www.presidentialprayerteam.com/prayerwall/

So based on this "prayer", I developed a short one of my own, which would be acceptable to me, even for use in schools in Canada.   And maybe somebody could even post it on the prayer wall at "Presidential Prayer Team"

A prayer for all:

"Dear invisible being or non-being that may or may not have created the universe, please help us to accept freedom of religion for all except those who use it to abuse children.  Help the misguided to understand that you created science and mathematics, but that you did not create religion.  Help them understand that you gave us brains to reason with, not to blindly follow inappropriate and chauvinistic teachings written down thousands of years ago.  Help our children to understand why freedom, democracy, and our way of life, even the very video games we play, all depend on an educated population, and not on blind faith. May you rule in favour of righteousness and a real education for all. Amen."

Jews Fleeing Persecution in Quebec (and Israel, BTW)

A group of Jewish fundamentalists has left the province of Quebec, and is heading to southern Ontario.  The reason they gave is that they are not allowed to home school their children properly in Quebec, as they are required to teach their children "Evolution".

I find it strange that Ontario has more relaxed laws about the teaching of evolution than Quebec.  When I was growing up in the province of Quebec, it was widely believed that Quebec was a backward province, mired in religion, while Ontario was a modern, progressive province, based on science and reason.  Well, if nobody else believed it, I did.

Then, over the years, Quebec has gradually thrown off the religious image, and has become far more secular, while Ontario seems to be going the opposite direction toward religion. But I still wonder about the given reasons for this religious cult leaving Quebec for Ontario.  My sister, who does not believe in evolution, home schooled her 3 children in Quebec city, apparently without any harassment by the authorities.  OK that was a few years ago, I guess back in the nineties, so maybe things have changed.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Radical+Jewish+sect+leaves+Agathe/9208288/story.html

There are a few more details in this story from the Montreal Gazette.  It seems that this group has been investigated heavily by the child's welfare services in Quebec, and you could argue that this amounts to harassment.  Seems to me no more harassment than having to go to school every day, though, and many people have to put up with that.

Some other side issues being looked at that are maybe really central issues:
- Child marriages to old men within the sect, and teen pregnancies
- The children have dental problems, and hygiene problems
- The children do not speak either English or French, and seem to not be learning either language.
- There are many other curriculum items, beside evolution, that the cult cannot accept

The leader of the sect also adds that some people in the surrounding community (Ste Agathe) call them the "Taliban" because of their women who have to wear clothes resembling burkas and are confined to the home. (See picture above from the Gazette, you decide)

This religious cult was accepted into Canada in 2004 as refugees,  fleeing Israel, where according to their leader, they were persecuted for not believing sufficiently in Zionism.

So in our "sound bite" journalism, we have a simple (and readily believed in Ontario) story of Jews trying to escape persecution in Quebec, but to me the more curious story is Jews trying to escape persecution from Israel. Unless these people were lying just to gain refugee status in Canada. Or unless Israelis had the same concerns for child welfare as Canadians.


Some follow up reading from different points of view (it seems to be a complex story)

Times of Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/suspected-jewish-child-abuse-cult-flees-quebec-homes/

The Jerusalem Post reports on the move from Quebec to Ontario
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Iran-bound-extremist-haredi-cult-settles-in-Ontario-instead-332837

Toronto Star (more Ontario oriented view, many of the readers' comments are also quite critical of the cult.)
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/11/22/jewish_sect_says_exodus_from_quebec_tied_to_clash_with_education_authorities.html

Jonathan Kay, the National Post describes Judaism's Fundamentalist problem.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/11/21/jonathan-kay-judaisms-fundamentalism-problem/

A private Investigation,
http://privateinvesigations.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rabbi-shlomo-helbrans-haredi-cult.html

Remembrance Day Heats Up in Lucan

Just a few days before our annual war over Christmas gets into full swing, we have another annual war brewing, the war over Remembrance Day.  As you know, Remembrance Day is the day where we remember those who fought and died in the various wars that we participated in, which when I was in school meant mostly World Wars One and Two.  Now it also means the Afghan War, a war in which we tried to stamp out terrorism by invading Afghanistan, which had allowed Al Quaida terrorists to train openly in the years before 9/11.

So what is the war over Remembrance Day about, and more importantly, why must we have another war?

The opening shots were fired last year, in the tiny community of Lucan Ontario, where the local Public School did not say prayers as part of the Remembrance Day ceremonies.  The Principal decided, given that this was not a religious ceremony, and the school itself was not a religious school, that prayers were not necessary.

Now I must interrupt the story here, as my own experience is this:  When I was a kid, I do not remember saying prayers in school for Remembrance Day.  We sat in our seats in our own classrooms, and had two minutes of silence to remember the fallen soldiers.  I did not live in a big city, and this was back in the early sixties.  That was less than twenty years after the war, and many of our fathers had actually fought in the war, and I don't remember one peep of protest about it.  Not only that, but I attended a Christian Protestant school far from any cities.  To be fair, it was the province of Quebec which didn't have any non-religious schools at the time, and actually the Protestants were closer to being non-religious than the other public school system which was Roman Catholic.

Now to continue with my interruption by filling in a bit of theological background.  It was well known at the time in the Catholic schools that all Protestants went to hell, be they fallen soldiers or not.  And the Protestants were equally sure that dead Catholic soldiers were all in Hell.  So it seemed that by saying prayers, whether Catholic or Protestant, would only have the effect of increasing the suffering of many of the fallen soldiers, and do nothing for those who had already found heavenly bliss.  So I always assumed that the absence of religious overtones was a comfort for those of the wrong religion. (whichever it turned out to be).

Now to get back to the story in Lucan, which has a Catholic/Protestant connection too.  It seems that for over thirty years, the Catholic school and the Protestant (I mean non-religious public school, as this is Ontario) in Lucan have been holding joint ceremonies in the local Community Centre, presumably absorbing all the expenses of bussing in all their kids for the event.  Many parents also attend.  The schools alternate each year in organizing the ceremony.  And remarkably, (to me at least) the Catholics and Protestants have prayed together.  In one way, this is an admirable and much needed improvement on the religious discord between Protestants and Catholics that went on in my home town.  But it is a little late, as these days we have many other religions adding to the mix (Jews, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc) and we also have an increasing number of Atheists. So while the Catholics and Protestants in Lucan were finally getting their act together, other ideas were creeping in from the big cities, and last year the public school decided to stop saying prayers at school sponsored ceremonies.

But given the new situation, where Christians are starting to feel under fire from liberals, immigrants, and liberal atheists, the Catholics and Protestants banded together in Lucan to insist on prayer in the ceremony this year.  However, the Public school decided to skip the confrontation and have their ceremony in their own school instead.  Predictably, this did nothing to avoid a confrontation.

The London Free Press website (the closest big city) has a poll:

http://www.lfpress.com/2013/11/06/lucan-school-nixes-community-event

"Do prayers have a place in Remembrance Day ceremonies? " 

I don't like the question, as it seems to avoid the problem of how to let everyone have their own prayer, be it Protestant or Catholic, Jewish, or other, without offending anyone. My question is, Have any Canadian Soldiers who are also Jewish or Muslim, died in any Canadian war?  And if none have died, can we be sure none will ever die?  Maybe we should be at least be preparing for the eventuality by changing the immortal words "Between the crosses row on row", because Muslims and Jews do not use the cross as a grave marker.

Picture: Found on the Internet, could not find the credit for it.

A Traveller's Guide to Moral Relativism

You sometimes hear conservatives accuse liberals of "Moral Relativism".  In their accusation, they define "Moral Relativism" as this (according to Conservapedia):

http://www.conservapedia.com/Moral_relativism

Moral relativism is the theory that moral standards vary from society to society, and from time to time in history. Under this theory, ethical principles are not universal and are instead social products. This theory argues that there is no objective moral order or absolute truth.

Moral relativity is a philosophy that states there is no absolute Right or Wrong, and that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. A moral relativist will not say that theft or murder is wrong, because he believes it is up to the murderer or thief to decide whether his behavior is justified.

I don't believe these quotes from Conservapedia represent the views of most conservatives about "moral relativists", and certainly does not represent the views of moral relativists themselves.  There is a lot of BS out there, making it hard to find real information on moral relativism.  I will attempt to do so here.

All through history, people have noticed that there were different cultures with different values, and that each culture regarded the differences between them and the others as an indication of their own superiority. The concept of Moral Relativism has been known for thousands of years.  But it was popularized during the European colonial period. During the colonization period, where European countries attempted to dominate the rest of the world, this feeling of European superiority reached a peak.  I guess that never before had so many different cultures been touched by any other culture.

As this colonization progressed, a few European intellectuals began to deny that Europeans were superior to all other cultures on Earth.

Let me illustrate with one example.  In many Polynesian islands, and in Africa it was quite common for women to go topless.  Now at the same time, in Victorian England, it was scandalous for a woman to show an ankle, and the rumour was that even table legs were forced to cover up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_morality

So, when the missionaries first arrived in Polynesia, they had their hands full trying to convince the local women that their traditional way of life was scandalous.

The intellectuals who discussed cultural differences, theorized the following.  Since, at various times, different cultures had dominated other cultures, and even the method of dress within each culture changed with time, was it possible that there was no absolute definition of scandalous?  Could it simply be that one culture developed in cold climates where clothing was necessary,and other developed in hot places where clothing was neither necessary nor available?  And what about the institution of slavery, which was responsible for producing most of the cotton that made the clothing?  Was that not just as evil/scandalous as seeing a topless woman?

This argument was the core of the colonial era concept of "Moral Relativism".  On one hand you have religious zealots, insisting that their God was superior to all others and hence, their method of dress was also superior.  On the other hand, you have people who insist that there is nothing inherently evil about foreign cultures, and that their methods of dress and even their types of worship were as valid as European ones.

The moral absolutists (opposite of relativists) fought back, saying that many pagans and primitives engaged in cannibalism, which was evil under any circumstances.  I don't know about every nasty rumour started by conservatives or racists, but you can find plenty of evil in non-European societies if you care to look.  But then you can also find plenty of evil in our own society if you know where to look, and if you are allowed to make up stuff that sounds true.

I believe all cultures have their own ways of doing things, that generally make sense to them.  But these values also do evolve slowly with time, with contacting other cultures, and with changing circumstances.  I think some values are absolute, for example when it comes to killing and eating the still beating hearts of the victims, particularly when that victim is me.  But then some cultural norms I think are "morally relative", especially when they harm no-one.

Picture: Historical picture of native women in Hawaii. I found it on   http://1browngirl.blogspot.ca/2009/11/its-free-for-all-friday.html

Further reading: A novel "The Poisonwood Bible" By Barbara Kingsolver, a fictional account of an American missionary in the Congo, but  Barabara lived in the Congo for a while as a child, and so it gives the novel some authenticity.

http://www.kingsolver.com/books/the-poisonwood-bible.html

The Original and Central Argument of Biblical Literalism

I'm continually surprised at how many people in the USA believe the Bible is the literal truth of and almighty God, and yet do not actually know what the bible says.

When I was growing up, both Protestants and Catholics in my home town took the position that some parts of the bible were stories, or at least needed some interpretation.  We were told that God did not intend for every single word of the bible to be believed especially if it conflicted with reality, custom, history, science, common sense, or the laws of Canada.

To me, extreme biblical literalism is a new phenomenon that is spreading to Canada mostly from the USA, especially from the southern states.  It is no coincidence that slavery was allowed for many years in that area, because the Bible does say literally that slavery is allowed.  Furthermore, the bible advises slaves to obey their masters, and tells masters they have the right to whip their slaves.

The Bible's advice on whipping and slavery was probably the main historical factor in today's surprising resurgence in Biblical Literalism.  And you would think it might be  also the main argument against Biblical Literalism today.  But it isn't. The battlefield seems to have moved to debating Evolution vs. Creation. Evolution vs. creation has given us some fine opportunities for clever debate, for example the scopes Monkey trial.  So both sides seem to be content to keep the evolution debate going as if it was the deciding factor.

The problem is that Evolution vs. Creation is a debate that ultimately pits science vs. faith.  Science vs. faith is like apples vs. oranges. I don't like to put labels on the people who oppose science, because those labels sometimes are insulting, or misleading.  Some people call it "blind" faith, but then sometimes the faith people like to call themselves the real scientists, as opposed to atheistic scientists. In one recent example, a movie was made linking Darwinists to Nazis and the holocaust.  In any event, the evolution argument ends up in name calling, and basically a draw with both sides feeling insulted and oppressed.

So even though it is very tempting for both sides to argue about the literal truth of the bible based mainly on evolution vs. creation, this approach is doomed to get bogged down in a perpetual name calling stalemate.

The only way to really settle the question is to bring back slavery as the main focus.  Slavery was what originally gave energy to the modern theory of Biblical Literalism.  Slavery is not an academic question, because slavery affects people's lives directly in so many ways.  Slavery is not something only found a million years in the past, it is something that we have historical records of and still exists today.  And it can cause wars, like the US civil war. That's because when you try to make people slaves, they fight back, and somebody is going to get killed.

So even though slavery is a really hot topic, and can lead to violence, I think that it is the main topic that needs to be dealt with if we are to consider Biblical Literalism.   Almost everything else is a distraction, no matter how appealing the topic may be to atheists, scientists, or liberals.  The only topic that approaches slavery as a hot topic might be the subject of homosexuality, but that was not the historical argument that gave most support to the Biblical Literalist movement.

If you look close enough, you can find pages on the internet defending the Bible's words about slavery.  Let me take this one for an example.

http://mikeduran.com/2013/07/the-bogus-bible-endorses-slavery-argument/

On this page, a biblical literalist has decided to make a head on attack in the Slavery argument, stating that the Bible is not what promoted slavery, it is what ended slavery.  This is partly true, in that many people who opposed slavery were bible believing Christians.  But I think his argument is very weak, and in one important case entirely false.  On this page is this statement.

"God did not allow physical abuse of servants. If an employer’s disciplining his servant resulted in immediate death, that employer (“master”) was to be put to death for murder (Exodus 21:20) — unlike other ANE codes. The Mosaic Law… held masters to legal account for their treatment of their own servants.”

By saying "God did not allow the physical abuse of servants", he is implying that the bible did not explicitly state that masters were allowed to abuse their servants. This is a lie, as you can see right here.

Exodus 21:20-21

“When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

Notice above that according to the literal words of the bible, your slave may be beaten as long as the beaten slave does not die within a day or two. Broken legs?  Chopped off ears and hands? Acceptable according to the Holy Bible, and punishments were accordingly meted out by so-called Christians.  Today,  southern Christian churches have apologized for supporting slavery, without however removing these words from the bible.

Here is a second quote, about servants (also slaves).

Luke 12:47 (King James Version)

"And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."

Like 12:48

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

This statement on the biblical web page, that the Bible does not allow physical abuse of servants is deception.  Or call it simple ignorance, if you prefer to think that Christians cannot tell a lie. The truth is that you can not, and must not take every word of the Bible as the literal word of God.

Picture: Kitten with cool whip. I am not using deception, I just like this picture better than slave master with actual whip.

Logic. Made Simple

I have read more than once, that Atheism is a religion, but this is not what Atheists actually think.  I am almost sure that atheists believe that atheism is not a religion.

I read one long explanation, using some logic, of why atheism is not a religion.  But you have to remember that logic is not just "common sense", there are rules to it that must be understood or it does not work.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

In this web page, some of the ideas presented as logic in the original argument are illogical. Here is one example:

"Religion is a philosophy of life.  Atheism is a philosophy of life.  Therefore Atheism is a religion."

The type of logic is called deductive reasoning. http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/logic.htm

From the Columbia Encyclopedia 1946

"Deductive thinking is largely reducible to a form such as: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal (all S is P, M is S, therefore M is P); or more exactly: If all men are mortal, and if Socrates is a man, Socrates must then be mortal. Such a form is known as a syllogism."

The many problems with the author's statement begin with the faulty logical construction. This is wrong: A is B, X is B, therefore A is X.  If this logic were valid, you could easily prove a dog was a cat.  (A Dog is a pet, a cat is a pet, therefore a dog is a cat.)

The correct form of this logic is actually "if all S is P, and M is S, therefore M is P".  The argument would have to be constructed as:

"If all philosophies of life are religions, and atheism is a philosophy of life, therefore atheism is a religion."

If the first two statements (called the major premise and the minor premise) are correct, the third part (the conclusion) must be correct. However, if either of the first two premises are incorrect, then the conclusion is also incorrect.  And in this particular example, both the premises happen to be incorrect.

OK Now lets have fun playing with "logic". This time I will use my own example, with a negative twist. In order to prove that M is NOT S, you have to juggle a few things around.  Let's try this: If all S is P, and M is not P, therefore M is not S.

If you substitute  S=religion P=tax exempt M=atheism

All religions are tax exempt.  Atheism is not tax exempt.  Therefore Atheism is not a religion.

So, does the logic hold up here?

I think we should go back to teaching logic in schools, unless logic contradicts religious teaching.

Was Slavery Allowed in the Bible?

If you travel around the USA, you may come across a billboard like the picture to the left.  And you may wonder, why are they still arguing about slavery and about the bible being God's word?  It could be a legacy from the time of slavery.  The situation, (maybe oversimplified) is that today, there is a sizeable part of the USA that believes in the bible as the literal word of God. Others believe we need to interpret the bible for a modern world.  (Or don't believe it at all)

To anyone who looks further into the debate about the bible, it seems like the strongest support for the literal interpretation of the bible comes from the Southern Confederate states in the civil war.  Did the civil war have anything to do with this split on how the bible is interpreted?

I found this in Wikipedia: "Religious conflict over the slavery question"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War#Religious_conflict_over_the_slavery_question

Before the Civil War, most Americans held the belief that the bible was literally true. According to the proslavery side, was written in the bible that white people should enslave the black people.

The slavery debate raged on with each side combing through the bible for passages that supported their cause.  The pro-slavery side won the technical debate by a landslide.  Apparently there are a lot of passages in the bible supporting slavery, and almost none to refute it. So the literal interpretation of the Bible actually does support slavery. The reference given in Wikipedia is a book by Mark Noll, "America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. (2002)"  I don't have the book, but apparently it explains how the bible debate was won by the pro-slavery faction.  But the abolitionists felt in their hearts that slavery was wrong anyway.

The book "Slavery and Sin: The Fight Against Slavery and the Rise of Liberal Protestantism" By Molly Oshatz has some words about the debate on p 61:

"Christian abolitionists ... endeavored to make the case that the bible did not in fact sanction slavery, an argument that proslavery exegetes quickly dismantled... The most persuasive antislavery moderate of all, Harriet Beecher Stowe, avoided biblical argument in favour of narrative." 

If it is true that a literal interpretation of the bible supports slavery, where does that leave bible literalists?  Today slavery is seen as an evil. Even the Southern Baptists have officially apologized for supporting slavery.  The only concession by literalists seems to be that the word slave was mistranslated.  If an important word like slave could be mistranslated (I don't think it was, but anyway...), what else could be mistranslated?

Before the war, three major branches of American Protestantism split into north and south versions because of their interpretation of God's will on slavery. The Methodists in 1844, the Baptists in 1845, and the Presbyterians in 1857.  The southern versions of these Churches could insist on an even stricter literal interpretation of the bible, while the northern branches had to use a more liberal interpretation of the bible, to support their view that slavery was wrong.  The Northern churches could begin to acknowledge that the Bible was written more for the ancient desert people than it was for 19th century America.

The debate that could have been settled by reading of the bible, ended up in a shooting war, with hundreds of thousands of Americans killed.  But even though the north won the war, southerners apparently remained convinced that the bible was literally true, while eventually conceding that slavery was wrong.  And that is about where we are today, with the bible literalists now attacking Darwinists and homosexuals instead of Abolitionists.  Hopefully this time it will not be resolved with guns.

Book Review of Hominids by Robert J. Sawyer

Robert Sawyer is a Canadian science fiction write and despite his having written 21 books, I never heard of him before.  And I thought I liked science fiction books.  Most amazingly, I had to find out about him through Mary Ann. She, who dislikes science fiction, was in the middle of reading this book when I found it on the table.  Somehow I lost Mary Ann's place marker in my rush to finish the book.  She chose it because it was the Waterloo selection for "One Book One Community" for 2005.

http://oboc.ca/past-years/hominids/

I won't get into the plot of the book, so this review will not contain any spoilers.  There is a comparison between the world we live in, where Neanderthals are extinct, and a parallel universe where Neanderthals became the only sentient species, and Homo Sapiens went extinct instead.  It seems to me that Sawyer comes up with a lot of ideas about how Neanderthal civilization might have evolved, based on his research, or his knowledge of our own history and science.  For example, he writes that if humans had not been warlike, we might never have reached the moon, as those rockets were originally invented as a weapon of war.  How would technology evolve if we did not use fossil fuels?  These are all interesting questions from a scientific viewpoint. Additionally, Robert Sawyer tackles religion and philosophy.  How would a society evolve that did not believe in a father-figure God who punishes and rewards us in the afterlife?

There was one topic in the book, that was particularly timely, about surveillance.  In the Neanderthal world, everyone's actions are recorded all the time by implanted devices.  There is no privacy, but hardly any crime either.  This topic foreshadows the current 2013 scandal where we find out that the NSA is recording all kinds of phone calls and emails.  Similarly to what happened in "Hominids", NSA is not necessarily looking or listening to all these recorded messages, but in case of a crime, can go back to see what happened.

In the political climate of today, Robert Sawyer comes off as extremely left wing liberal. This book will insult many conservative readers,  who have tired of hearing about everything that is wrong with our warlike, environment destroying species.  In fact the book already has insulted many, judging from comments on this website.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/264946.Hominids


To me (the Lost Motorcyclist), who is now officially a 60's liberal, "Hominids" reads like a science fiction story from the fifties, except with bit more sex, as censorship has loosened over the years.  In other words, the book's philosophical underpinning is science, reason, peace and tolerance.  I have this feeling that some of modern science fiction has been replaced by religious, magical, and warlike fantasies posing as science fiction.

The change from old style science fiction to magical war fantasies may have been started with the very successful movie "Star Wars".  The title tells you about all you need to know about the pacifism in this movie, and then "May the force be with you" tells you what you need to know about the attitude toward miracles and magic.  Star Wars had very little in the way of real science.  It was more like a typical war movie, only this time set in space.  As the space ships passed by, they made quite a bit of noise even though they were in a total vacuum.  Sorry, Star Wars fans, but there is no noise in space.  Little errors like this generally disqualify a movie from being real science fiction. Actually they are probably not even errors as much as a clear sign from the director that this movie is not intended for real science fiction fans.

"Hominids" took me back to an interesting time where real science fiction was better appreciated, in a world where science itself was respected, and evolution was taken for granted.  A time before the right wing backlash against science had begun its last ditch effort to take us back to the dark ages of superstition and witchcraft.

And so, just as much as the conservatives are tired about hearing what's wrong with religion, pollution, and exterminating species; I am also tired of arguments as to why we need to use up all the Earth's resources as fast as possible.  So to me this book was a comfortable read.

About Christian Persecution at Home

First I want to explain the picture, and maybe that's not necessary for a real football fan, but I had to look it up.  I think the picture on the right is Tim Tebow, in a Denver Broncos uniform.  As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing wrong with either picture, but apparently Tim Tebow is an overtly fundamentalist Christian who has exaggerated prayer rituals in football games, and a habit of painting biblical verses and chapters on the black paint under his eyes.  Back when he was a high school aged student, his parents home schooled him, and fought a successful legal battle to allow him to play football at a local high school even though he did not attend classes at that school.  Interesting football trivia.  Anyhow, back to the picture.  It seems a lot of football fans are upset over Tebow's religious displays (the picture here does not show his classical "Jesus loves me" pose), but there are also a lot of fans who love him. Below is the web page I got the picture from, and coincidentally it is written by another motorcyclist.  (In that way, he's like me, "The Lost Motorcyclist".)  He happens to be Christian and through the blog below, gives his views on this "attack" on Christianity, which actually is about the same as my view.  Could it be that motorcyclists think alike even though they may not have the same religion?

http://412ministry.blogspot.ca/2012/01/christians-and-persecution-complex.html

Now for my own ideas on the persecution of Christians. Fox News often portrays Christianity as being under attack, not only in the non-believer parts of the world, but also at home in the USA.  Is this true?  Is there really a "War on Christmas", for example.  Are Christians being forbidden to pray in schools or anywhere else?

Quote by Ronald Reagan, a Republican President of the USA from the nineteen eighties.
 "Today there are those who are fighting to make sure voluntary prayer is not returned to the classrooms. And the frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life -- the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and openmindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives.”

The fight about prayer in US public schools is between those who want the whole school to publicly pray to a Christian God, and those who say no children in public schools should be forced to pray to any God.

In my own experience there has been an upsurge in Christian Fundamentalism in the last fifty years, and it's quite possible that there has also been a pushback against it.  Also, during the same time it appears that there is a drop-off in church attendance, making it look like there are more anti-religious people around.  Also, ongoing immigration from non-Christian countries, may also have added a bit of fuel to the fire, as Christians see their old churches being bought by Muslim groups and converted into Mosques.

I think what had been a quite stable religious situation fifty years ago has become stirred up a bit.  And this includes Canada too.

But in my opinion, the most devastating attack on Christianity (as I know it) is not coming from Muslims or Atheists, but from within, from a certain type of right wing Fundamentalist Christianity.

I believe in tolerance, and freedom of religion, and I also share a belief in the supposed Christian values such as peace, love, and helping the poor.  But I'm never going to give up science, reason, and freedom of religion to support a faith-based gun-toting right wing political agenda.  Much less if that right wing religion is opposed to helping the poor, opposed to freedom of religion, opposed to education, and opposed to peace.

Social Consequences of the Theory of Evolution

There will be gradual changes to the broader civilization as we move away from the religious ideas of biblical Creationism and toward scientific ideas of Evolution.

The Bible has a story of creation that you can believe literally, or allegorically.  Either way it has the power to influence our behaviour. To begin with, it tells us that Men are the dominant sex, and that women were an afterthought, taken from man.  Also, man was created by God in the image of God, once again giving us the idea that men are more important than women.

Another aspect of the creation story is that Man is different from all other animals. In the the story of creation, only man was made in the image of God.  All the other creatures were crafted to look different from God. We are also to understand that Man's morality comes from God, as told in the story of Adam and Eve.  Furthermore we are told that man actually has no innate morality, and is born a natural sinner who needs to obey God, or will suffer punishment.

There are a few other ramifications to this religious story.  It becomes easy to believe that God prefers men to women, and it is also a small step further to believe that one type of man is preferred over other types of men. For example, white men over black men.*   And there is also a very strong support that whoever believes in the "true" Biblical account has the support of God, and anyone of a different faith should be converted or enslaved or killed.

* Although it is not specifically stated in the Bible, white people seem to believe that God is also white.  I can't really prove that of course, but just how many movies, paintings, drawings, have to be made before it's quite clear?

Now what happens to a civilization that is based on such a story of creation, when it finds out that humans were not directly created by God?  That maybe we are not so different from the animals.  Does it mean that now we have no morals any more?  That there is no punishment for being bad?  That our culture and race have no claim to a god-given superiority over any other culture, race, or religion?  That we can't even insist that men are superior to women?

Some people, without fear of a magical all-seeing being overhead, may get a little (or a lot) crazy.  For the vast majority of people, though, I think we will gradually find out that is was not really religion that was stopping them from becoming mass murderers, it was something else built deep inside the human brain.  You can say God put it there, if you wish,or that it evolved that way if you are more scientific.

If you need some proof of this, you should look at animals more closely.  You will notice that animals are capable of kindness.  But you do have to look carefully, as animals, of course do not have exactly the same sense of morality as humans.  But nature is full of heartwarming stories of animals doing good.  And human history has enough examples of religiously motivated people doing unspeakable evil.

Can we predict what will happen to individuals and societies as these scientific ideas spread?  I suspect that we may indeed have more killings and bad behaviours, but I think it is tied more to increasing populations, and new technologies facilitating mass murder, and greater access to information.  I suspect that there is not much real difference in the amount of bad behaviour today or in the future, from what there was a thousand years ago.  No matter what desperate religious conservatives have to say on that subject.  (for example blaming Darwin and the evolution of species for the Nazi holocaust)

But as these ideas of science spread, we will probably find that there will be less religious conflict in the future.  Much more freedom of religion and free thinking.  More equality between women and men.  Less racism.  More kindness to animals, and possibly more care for the natural environment.  Fewer missionaries trying to convert people.  And not a whole lot of difference in average levels of cruelty and violence in society- because it seems more and more apparent, that good and kind behaviour never was a function of religion alone.

Again the Question, Why are Universities so Liberal?

Why are university professors mostly liberals?  If this question is being asked at all, that may be a sign there is something wrong with our thinking patterns.  I always thought it was pretty obvious.  But not so obvious to someone who does not understand the traditional role of a University, or the traditional role of liberals in society.

Here is an article in the National Post, where again this question comes up.  Why so many liberals at universities?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/09/marginalized-and-on-the-defensive-university-conservatives-forced-to-grow-tougher/

Let's just go over the basics again.  Liberal is not a dirty word, at least not before Rush Limbaugh and Fox News made it so.

Definition of liberal

lib·er·al  (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Now lets just check what a conservative is:

con·ser·va·tive  (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

Finally, can I let someone from the early part of the twentieth century explain the traditional role of a University?

Essays: English and American.
The Harvard Classics.  1909–14.
The Idea of a University. I. What Is a University?

John Henry Newman

IF I were asked to describe as briefly and popularly as I could, what a University was, I should draw my answer from its ancient designation of a Studium Generale, or “School of Universal Learning.” This description implies the assemblage of strangers from all parts in one spot;—from all parts; else, how will you find professors and students for every department of knowledge? and in one spot; else, how can there be any school at all? Accordingly, in its simple and rudimental form, it is a school of knowledge of every kind, consisting of teachers and learners from every quarter. Many things are requisite to complete and satisfy the idea embodied in this description; but such as this a University seems to be in its essence, a place for the communication and circulation of thought, by means of personal intercourse, through a wide extent of country.

Based on these definitions, and the idea of a university being people of diverse backgrounds coming together to exchange ideas and/or learn new ideas, I think I can come up with a theory.  A liberal is, by definition, a person open to new ideas, a person wanting to learn.  A conservative is by nature a person opposed to new ideas.  The highest aspiration of a University is to encourage new ideas.

All through history, every time people who were interested in learning came together to form a university, ideas have been exchanged, new ideas have flourished.  Sometimes the authorities did not like what they saw, and shut down the universities.  Sometimes the authorities were tolerant of new ideas, and allowed the university to exist. Sometimes they even gave money to the universities.  History provides a number of examples where societies supporting free-thinking universities flourished in arts, social justice, and in technology. Those that suppressed freedom of thought in universities tended to be held back in those areas.

A modern North American conservative's idea of higher learning is really either "job training", or a place for indoctrination into some religion.  Conservative places of learning tend to have predefined goals, and encourage conformity.  For example, a conservative think tank, or a bible study college.  Conservatives are more interested in money, so they are more likely to go straight into business, using their father's connections to guarantee a good job.  If they do go to a free-thinking traditional "University" it is often just a recreational interlude, with spring breaks, wild frat parties, drugs, football and such.  After four years of being wasted, then they collect their degree and get a high paying job using their father's business connections.

So that is the answer to the question "Why are there so many liberals at university?"  It is because a true university favours the open minded approach to learning new things.  It is not because universities deliberately try to exclude Republicans, the very wealthy, the conformists, the racists, the bigots, and the religious fanatics. It is because the basis of higher learning is to be open minded, and that's the only way to have a true university. Conservative "universities", rarely generate any new ideas.  In fact their entire raison d'etre tends to be the opposition to new ideas. (Like Evangelical universities, still fighting to suppress the Theory of Evolution.)

The picture is from the University of Minnesota at Duluth, the Unfair Campaign against racism.  This (very likely liberal) poster has drawn criticism from white conservatives in the U.S.A., who do not think that white Americans are racist.  An example of how liberals seem to dominate university campuses.
http://unfaircampaign.org/resources/see-it/

Is This Really Criticising Jesus?

Quentin Tarantino's latest movie is Django Unchained, a revenge flick set in the times of southern slavery. On February 16, 2013, Saturday Night Live, hosted by one of the stars of Django, did a spoof on the film called "Djesus Uncrossed", where Jesus (or Djesus, or Jesus H. Christ with the H silent), came back from the dead to wreak vengeance on the Romans.

Was the SNL skit a spoof of the movie, or was it a spoof on God, or was it the most blasphemous skit ever in their history?  I'm sorry I missed that episode, but this skit is posted on the internet, here is one link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/02/17/jesus-rises-on-snl.html

In my opinion, this was not really a criticism of Christianity, it was first and foremost a spoof of the film.  And I have seen almost the exact same theme in a Jesus skit done on "Family Guy" in the episode "North by North Quahog" in the skit "The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This".  However, "Family Guy" has done a lot of other things the fundamentalist Christians hate.

http://themaxeychronicles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/innocence-of-muslimsthe-anti-muhammad.html

For example (from this web page, showing how Family Guy is blaspheming Jesus)

A standing gag is that Jesus drives a Cadillac Escalade.
 In "North by North Quahog", he is seen in the car in an action trailer for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This and is portrayed by Jim Caviezel opposite Chris Tucker.
According to the National Gun Association's pro-guns film in "And the Wiener is...", Jesus  and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans.
During his second coming, shown in "Stewie Loves Lois", Jesus's stature is found to be short since science has proven that people were shorter in biblical times.
He also makes use of his powers to assist his golf game, as seen in Holy Crap. Although he is "Employee of the Week" at Happy-Go-Lucky Toys, he is on the golf course going for his fourth Birdie. He makes his swing, and the ball lands extremely close to the hole, on the verge of going in. Using his power, he gets the ball to go in.
In Go, Stewie, Go!, Jesus is on the side of the jocks in a dodgeball game against the meek.

So the basic line taken by Sean Hannity on Fox News is that Liberals are too chicken to take on the Muslims, so it's open season on Christians who don't fight back.

http://www.newshounds.us/20130213_sean_hannity_gutless_snl_writers_hate_christianity_but_are_scared_of_islam

If that were true, I suppose it would be a valid point against all these "attacks" on Christianity.  But none of these skits are attacks on Jesus or Christianity.  They are all attacks on the perverted form of Christianity that is "Born Again Christianity".  The Born Again Christians have basically undermined true Christianity by turning all the teachings of Jesus upside down, preaching hate, not love; war, not peace; wealth, not social justice.  If you are satirizing a perverted form of "Christianity", you are in reality speaking up for Jesus.

And, by the way, Fox News, "Family Guy" is a show on your own network, so how about attacking yourselves for blasphemy, instead of Saturday Night Live on NBC.

Ezra Levant Mentioned in MacLean's Magazine

The only reason I read MacLean's is to distract me from the pain of a dentist visit.  So I was at the dentist .. again .. and the latest MacLean's was there, with an article about Ezra Levant. The perfect anesthetic before going to the dentist chair.

"Ezra Levant: Love him or hate him, he keeps winning" A profile of the right-wing gadfly who loves to offend by Jonathon Gatehouse on Saturday, January 12

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/12/going-on-the-offensive/


I found one quote in the article particularly relevant, where Ezra Levant blamed the Jews for Canada's human rights laws and here it is:

"The people to blame for the “illiberal and un-Canadian” human rights laws and tribunals he’s been crusading against for the past seven years are well-represented in the theatre. 'It came from us. I mean the Jews, my friends.'"

Well well, apparently Ezra was asleep during History class, which is especially annoying to me, as an ex-History teacher.  So now I have to fill him in on what he missed.  Here goes.

It was just after WW2, when the Allies found concentration camps full of dead and starving Jews.  In the final tally, about 6 million Jews had been killed in what we called the "Holocaust".  The horrified allies tried to analyse what happened to result in this tragic outcome, and concluded at the time that it was years of anti-Jewish propaganda that had built to a fever pitch in the war, and had precipitated this great tragedy, and made it possible for it to happen.  I don't have the time or space to go into every cultural and sociological factor here, but that's what people in Canada, and the other allied countries generally thought back in the fifties.  So, because nobody wanted another world war, many things were done to try and avert the recurrence of such a situation.  Things like the establishment of the UN, the generous financial aid provided to the losers (Germany and Japan specifically), and the prevention of any further campaigns of propaganda against helpless minorities.  And this means not just Jews, but any minorities.  We did not want this to happen ever again, to anyone.  So every country tried to pass some kind of legislation to protect minorities from genocide, including Canada.  That's why we have the Canadian Human Rights Act.

So in a way, Ezra was right. It was because of the Jews that we have the Human Rights Act in Canada.  Ironically, he finds that it is very restrictive in his campaign to demonize Arabs in the way that Hitler demonized the Jews.  Well, sorry for your bad luck Ezra, but anyone who was awake during history class already knows that the Human rights stuff came about because of the Jews who died in the Holocaust, and was also supported after the war by Canadian Jews.

By the way, recent Right wing emails have tried to persuade us that it was not propaganda that enabled the holocaust.  The two main right wing theories regarding the origin of the holocaust are currently

It was gun control.  If the Jews had guns the holocaust would never have happened.  (FYI, France had guns, they surrendered.  Russia had guns, they lost 8 million people fighting the Nazi invasion, Britain had guns, they retreated to their island and got heavily bombed. The Jews in Warsaw had guns, but the Nazis simply leveled their ghetto with artillery and tanks.  I don't think this argument stands up to much scrutiny.)

It was Darwin's Theory of Evolution.  Apparently Hitler decided that Darwin's theory of evolution meant that he had to kill all the Jews before they became a new species or something.  Maybe I misunderstood that argument.  Anyhow it's quite weak, compared to the many hundreds of years of anti-Jewish religious hatred in Europe.  Here is a quote from Martin Luther, the German who started the protestant reformation. (not the black guy who was killed in the Civil Rights movement).

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism#On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[15] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[16] afforded no legal protection,[17] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[18] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them".[19]

I don't think Charles Darwin said anything as bad as that.  Actually, some people think Darwin was a Jew.  That mistake has never been made with Luther. Or Hitler.

Can We Agree the Earth is Old

There is an argument about the age of the earth.  On one side you have many scientists claiming it is millions of years old, based on observations of the world around us, and you have some religious fundamentalists who claim it is less than 10,000 years old, based on reading the Bible.

In the USA, people are split on the age of the Earth. Also the question of the age of the Earth is connected to the issue of evolution (as proposed by Darwin).  I thought that almost half Americans believe the Earth to be 6,000 years old, and also believe Evolution is a hoax. There may be other ways to interpret poll data, but even if only 10% of Americans believe in the young Earth, it's still a very high number for a modern secular state.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2680/nearly-half-the-u-s-population-believes-the-earth-is-less-than-10-000-years-old

This summer, while travelling in Montana I came across a large, new, and I assume well funded, museum that claimed to prove the Earth was not old and there was no Evolution.  There are 16 such museums in the US, and a few in Canada too.

In a recent development, Pat Robertson, a well known TV evangelist, has said on his TV program that the Earth may be much older than 10,000 years.  A video of Pat making his statement is here (starting at 1:21).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Htf9ylcwQc

Pat Robertson, in his TV show, apparently also calls for an end to this fight between science and fundamentalist religion. I feel kind of strange about it, but just this once I think that Pat Robertson and I agree on something.  Unfortunately, people are already starting to defend their beliefs against Pat Robertson's call for reconciliation.

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/the-truth-about-dinosaurs-and-why-pat-robertson-is-wrong-2510316.html

On the other hand, some other people that I usually don't agree with are defending Pat Roberston's stance.  Here is Michael Savage's take on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky38mU_KHiM

The next link is a website that tries to reconcile religion and science, and I think does a convincing job without ridiculing either side.  Ihe website takes a second look at the Bible, to see if it really does say the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (which apparently it does not). Then Godandscience.org  re-examines the work done by James Ussher, Bishop in the Church of Ireland, about 200 years before Darwin's theory of Evolution was first proposed.  They find several flaws in Ussher's reasoning.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/age_of_the_earth.html

I have been trying to make the same point for a couple of years now, and so I consider it a step forward that an influential public figure has come out with the statement that people are not going to hell for believing the Earth is millions of years old.

So now I have my answer to the question "When God created the Earth, did He create the icecap in Greenland?"  Because if you drill through that icecap, you can find layers of ice much older than 10,000 years.   Seems kind of mean to send people to hell for believing the Earth is older than the bottom layer of ice in the Greenland glacier.

Scientific advances are made in little steps that usually take a lot of background preparation.  The theory of evolution is an example of one of those steps. Now, about 150 years later, Pat Robertson publicly rejects Bishop Ussher's theory on the age of the Earth.  I guess Pat has had quite a few years to think about this question.  After all, we know of his involvement with diamond mining, which I assume would mean contact with scientifically trained geologists, and most of them believe that diamonds were not made in less than 10,000 years.

I hope that before long, we can get a little more movement in this direction.  Then the young Earth theory can join the flat Earth theory, and the Fixed-Earth-at-the-centre-of-the-Universe theory that we no longer have to teach in public schools.

Picture: I think this is in a Young Earth Creationist "museum".  From this website
http://www.policymic.com/articles/9604/creationism-uses-dinosaurs-to-lure-kids-into-radical-ideas-but-scientists-should-not-care-too-much