Canada is sharing in Christian shame

The Canadian government is planning to help a fundamentalist Christian group, Youth for Christ, to proselytize. They’ve offered to contribute several million dollars to the construction of a youth center in downtown Winnipeg, which sounds like a wonderful, useful idea…except for the fact that the group building it has this as their mission:

To impact every young person in Canada with the person, work and teachings of Jesus Christ and discipling them into the Church.

They also openly admit to their plans:

Sharing the person of Christ with every young person within our target group in Canada (5.4 million youth). This will require the development of new strategies, as well as strengthening existing efforts.

So, sure, anyone can come on down and freely use their skate park, their gym, their various services, and they don’t need to be Christian. It would be especially great if they aren’t Christian, because they will be met by a team of cheerful youth pastors who will tell them all about the glory of Jesus while they work out or play. That’s the whole purpose of the facility — not to provide a healthy recreational outlet for kids, but to corral the unconverted in one place for easy predation by a coven of kooks out to win over their minds.

Here’s another nice twist to the story, too.

Roughly one in 100 youths contacted by the organization — 17,010 out of 154,192 — “responded to the opportunity to become a Christian,” said the report, which identified “the aboriginal youth community” as a “prime area for development.”

It’s not just those cranky atheists who are outraged at the funneling of money into Christian evangelism — it’s an ethnic issue, and Youth for Christ knows it.

The Christian youth centre in a primarily aboriginal neighbourhood stirs up thoughts of historical assimilation, some First Nations leaders told councillors.

Nahanni Fontaine, director of justice for the Southern Chiefs Organization, an advocacy group for First Nations people in southern Manitoba, said giving public money to the project would be like contributing to the contemporary version of residential schools under the guise of helping youth.

“[We] saw religion used as an abusive and violating mechanism in which to assimilate aboriginal children into Euro-Canadian mainstream,” she said.

“Aboriginal people were assured that these sort of infringing practices and strategic policies would never occur again.”

Approving this proposal would just be sanctifying a “more contemporary form of the residential school experience,” Fontaine said.

That is serious stuff. People seem to have forgotten what we, Canada and the US, were doing a bit over a century ago: we were actively ripping children away from their native parents and boarding them up in schools where they were taught the White Man’s Ways, which usually involved religion in some way or another. My own university (which is celebrating its history this year) had its beginnings as a native American boarding school, run by an order of Catholic nuns. That’s not something to be proud of, but a stigma to be overcome. Why would Winnipeg want to be afflicted with a new racist black mark on their history?

Bob Marshall backpedaling, unsuccessfully

Marshall, the awful little Republican who claimed that disabled children were God’s punishment on women who got abortions, is now trying to claim he never suggested any such thing, and that his remarks were misinterpreted. Fortunately, he was caught on video:

He has also said many other odious things.

It’s worth noting that Marshall has a history of saying offensive things – or being “misinterpreted.”

He said this about abortion in the case of rape: “[T]he woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman.”

And he said this about contraception: “[W]e have no business passing this garbage out and making these co-eds chemical Love Canals for these frat house playboys in Virginia.”

I think it’s his political career that has become a toxic waste dump.

They don’t really care about the children

About 20 clergy, representing the very best of Christian theology, of course, and various Republicans gathered in Virginia to protest the existence of Planned Parenthood—they want all state funding, about $35,000 a year, stopped. They claim that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization because it provides abortions (which I consider a necessary and brave service, given the violence of anti-choice lunatics) and contraceptives, ignoring the fact that they also provide reproductive health care for women. In a just and rational world, Planned Parenthood would be regarded as a heroic organization, helping to make this a better world.

Not in the minds of these pious zealots, though. Bob Marshall voluntarily exposed the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the protest with a few choice words.

The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.

In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.

He’s lying. There is no evidence that abortion imposes long term risk of any kind on women or their subsequent children. He’s confusing what he wishes were true with what is actually true.

I despise his imaginary, wrathful, poisonous, child-torturing god. This is what these kinds of Christians hold as just: that an omnipotent monster would wreak vengeance on children for a mother’s actions, and furthermore, that a handicapped child is a punishment for the parents. That’s simply twisted. A suffering child is loved no less by a sane parent, and our hearts are wrenched by the troubles of even our healthiest children. Think about what this dumb wretch has said to every child who is less than perfect in this world (which includes all of us, of course): we are his god’s instrument of torture for our parents. God is the psychopathic bastard who forces failings on us to make our mothers suffer a little more.

God must really hate Bob Marshall’s mother, then, to inflict such a demented fuckwit on her.

You can write to Bob and let him know what you think of his deity. And Virginians — I don’t care whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, conservative or liberal, but could you please stop putting evil, narrow-minded little pissants like Bob Marshall in positions of power? Let him be an affliction to his own family, and leave the rest of us alone.

A few additions:

Angie the anti-theist is getting an abortion — good for her for being bold enough to put a human face to the issue.

And here’s a weird twist. For all their protestations about equality, somehow they think blacks are a different species?

i-e97e51cd07f9122f78f7d12a299d202c-black_species.jpeg

Libertarianism defined

Uh-oh, the libertarians are getting noisy again. I have not expressed myself clearly enough, I guess. I will remind them all of my previous commentary about anti-environmentalists and libertarian nut-cases, and I will also cite with great approval a passage from one of my favorite authors.

It has been revealed that I’m a fan of Iain Banks. On my last long flight, I read his latest, Transition(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which is a SF novel about people who can shift to alternate streams of reality, and who choose to meddle. One of the heroes of the story, Mrs Mulverhill, is explaining to another character about the various bizarre forms of government they find in alternate time-lines, and she defines one of the more freakishly weird.

“Libertarianism. A simple-minded right-wing ideology ideally suited to those unable or unwilling to see past their own sociopathic self-regard.”

That is perfectly in line with my own sentiments. Libertarianism isn’t so much a political and economic movement as it is a widespread pathology.

As for the book itself — not bad. It suffers a bit from odd expectations, since he writes his SF Culture novels as “Iain M. Banks” and his less genre-specific (and often more disturbing) books as “Iain Banks”, and this is an M-less book that isn’t about the Culture but is definitely SF. It’s a fairly mainstream SF novel without the level of perversity and weirdness I love most about Banks’ stories, but still recommended.

That sneaky, nasty blasphemy law

Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland made a few more videos of me babbling before I left, and has posted them to the website. I’m terrible in them — no fault to Michael, I was just worn out and burned out on the last night of my trip. You can poke fun at me if you want.

The interesting thing about them, though, is that they were made in the Oonagh Young gallery in Dublin, which is currently hosting an exhibit of blasphemous art, in blatant defiance of the blasphemy laws. Everything in there is offensive to someone; the exhibits mock religion and religious beliefs with words and pictures.

The Garda aren’t storming the place.

That’s the evil of the blasphemy laws: they make everyone a criminal, and are not being enforced, but they have the potential to be selectively enforced. That’s a very useful tool in the hands of the state; an art gallery exhibit which defies the law can be overlooked, but if someone starts really shaking up the establishment, it will be another convenient truncheon to silence dissent. I personally felt no risk at all in traveling to Ireland, because I’m just an outsider with no power, and can be safely ignored. I’d worry more if I were part of an organization with some political influence that was growing and had some shot at helping to secularize Ireland, because right now critics have the tool to break the back of such organizations with strategically applied accusations of violations of the official blasphemy laws.

It’s a very Christian approach. We’re all sinners, therefore God is justified in any action he takes against us. We’re all blasphemers, and give the state the power to condemn a common behavior, and they can be justified in the arbitrary exercise of the law.

Rise up, Texans!

Grassroots action can do wonderful things. Voters in Don McLeroy’s district in Texas are organizing an ad campaign and are looking for contributions to help air radio ads opposing McLeroy’s candidacy: as they say, “The ads will target moderate republicans who realize that to compete globally in the 21st century Texas needs smart students who are well educated, critical thinkers,” which is exactly the right approach to take. We need to mobilize the sensible conservatives and get them to realize that their continued entanglement with raving nutbags has been a formula for short-term electoral success and long-term disaster.

I don’t know which way I want this poll to go

Some guy named Gerard Alexander has an opinion piece in the Washington Post titled “Why are liberals so condescending?” I will say one thing in its favor: it gets to its point quickly and clearly in the first few sentences.

Every political community includes some members who insist that their side has all the answers and that their adversaries are idiots. But American liberals, to a degree far surpassing conservatives, appear committed to the proposition that their views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while conservative positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological and unworthy of serious consideration.

Unfortunately, it’s downhill from there. He does demonstrate nicely that many liberals do categorize many conservatives as idiots, but he doesn’t seem capable of addressing the question of why they think that. It’s mostly a lot of waa-waa about the tone and how this attitude is an obstacle to politics.

He doesn’t consider the obvious explanation that many conservatives are amazing idiots pursuing idiotic policies.

Seriously. Sarah Palin.
Conservatives defending Palin’s stupidities. Republican candidates for the presidency who are certain that the earth is only 6000 years old. A Republican party dominated by the religious right.

Years ago, I would have considered Alexander to have a good point: that on some policies, such as economics, conservatives had something to contribute. But then they elected Reagan and Bush and the crowd of clowns in congress, and any claim to being a serious political party went out the window. They are the silly party now, and where they do the most damage is when pompous wankers demand that we treat them seriously simply because they are the conservative party we’ve got. No, we shouldn’t: we should laugh them out of office until they come up with candidates who aren’t stupid shills.

So I’m divided on the poll accompanying the article.

Who is more condescending?

They’re both impossible 12%
Conservatives 22%
Liberals 66%

It’s really just an attempt to tar liberals with another insult — ironic for an article that is so condescendingly disparaging liberal tone — but it’s also true. We are more condescending. Because most conservatives are so deserving of condescension.

Ms Palin, you fail

Sarah Palin gave a $100K speech to a convention of teabagging wankers, she faced a few pre-screened, prepared questions, and what did she need? She had to have the answers written on her hand ahead of time!

Here’s what gets me the most, though. She didn’t have a cheat sheet of wonky little details, stuff that would be hard to keep straight and important to get exactly right. No, she had to write down the three most important goals for a conservative majority. What, she’s shaky on that?

i-7e2b24560f05951e69ab5ed144092b80-cheater_palin.jpeg

Energy
Budget cuts
Tax
Lift Americans
Spirits

Man, next time I go off to give a talk, I’m going to get a sharpie and write “Science. Evolution. Anti-creationism.” on my left hand, in case I get asked what I’m going to talk about. ‘Cause I might forget, you know.

And then I’m going to ask for a few thousand dollars. And the presidency. All right, I’m not going to be greedy — the vice-presidency will do.

Now petition Obama to recognize Darwin Day

Go sign this petition, too: it asks Obama to recognize Darwin Day on 12 February. Who knows, he might be willing!

A Proclamation

Charles Darwin was the first to propose the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection. On Darwin Day, celebrated on the anniversary of Darwin’s birth on February 12, 1809, we celebrate the life and discoveries of Charles Darwin and express gratitude for the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity.

It is sobering to imagine where the human race would be today without advances in science. Science has helped us to live longer by enabling us to find cures for diseases and alleviating pain and suffering. It has allowed us to travel before unimaginable distances, to interact with and understand people of other cultures and recognize what makes us similar as well as what makes us unique. It has allowed us to understand and maneuver in our world and has provided us insight into the complexities of life.

Charles Darwin recognized the importance and power of scientific discovery, and perhaps no one has influenced our understanding about life on earth as much as he. Darwin was an English naturalist, who on his legendary five-year voyage on the HMS Beagle made important observations about the geological and zoological diversity of the lands he visited, which helped spark his theory of evolution by natural selection. Most of what we understand about the diversity of life and the process by which it has adapted and changed has come from his profound insights, and his contribution to the canons of science cannot be overstated.

On this anniversary of Darwin’s birthday, it is important to recognize the contributions he has made to the advancement of science. It is also important that we continue to educate future generations about evolution by natural selection in our science classrooms. We must not water down the significance of Darwin’s theory, nor the breadth of evidence supporting it, and we must at every turn challenge efforts to undermine science so that we can keep alive in our children and grandchildren the wonder of discovery and the eagerness to obtain knowledge.

Now, Therefore, I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim February 12, 2010, as Darwin Day. I call on all Americans to recognize the importance of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection, to endeavor to preserve scientific discovery and human curiosity as bedrocks of American society, and to commemorate this day with appropriate events and activities.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this twelfth day of February, two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.