Catholicism vs. Secularism

Just a little post today dealing with the papal visit to the UK.


I'm not going to go into any of the recent controversy surrounding pedophilia in the priesthood, or the Catholic Church's denunciation and persecution of both homosexuals and condoms. Instead I want to hollow in on one particular comment he made in a speech today regarding atheism, in particular the problem he sees with a secular society. Below is the comment, 


"As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny'."


Now granted the "atheist extremism" he mentions, the actions and beliefs of Nazi Germany, are indefensible. I am in no way condoning the actions or ideology of that regime. BUT it should be remembered that despite its atheistic leanings, the Nazi's main anti-semitic rhetoric did in part stem from the anti-semitism which has flown out of the Vatican since the middle ages. Pope Pius XII condemned the Nazi's not because of anti-semitism, but instead for their anti-Catholic actions. 


As well it wasn't truly atheist as there was a large body of individuals in the Nazi party who were involved in pseudo-religious cults, aspects of the occult and neopaganism. So in reality what the pope calls "atheist extremism", is in reality simply non-catholic beliefs.


As for the second part of the statement, concerning the negative effects of secularism, he seems to not quite understand the position of the proponents of a society based on science and reason. Far from a "reductive vision of the person and his destiny", many atheists focus on the limitless potential of man. We continue to examine the universe around us to better understand it. We create new pieces of technology, new works of art, and new ideas not to limit our potential destiny but to push the boundaries of it.


His accusation is far more akin to the religious fundamentalists around the world, who's answer to different questions is simply "gods will". As science seeks ways to understand and possibly prevent horrible natural disasters and human suffering, religious leaders explain and excuse it as god's divine plan. Science places man firmly in the drivers seat of his own potential and destiny, while religion makes him sit in the back, a passive player in his own life under the watchful eye of a mystic force beyond his control.


While I respect that the Pope has the best of intentions, he simply cannot see the forest for the trees, and chooses to criticizes a lifestyle, and a worldview, he cannot understand. Far from limiting human capacity, secularism and atheism is a driving force for greater belief in the capacity of human beings not only to improve their world but also the lives of others, even those that choose to believe in a divine maker.


Here is the article if you wanted to know more about the Pope's visit,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/16/popes-visit-benedict-arrives-uk

Free Speech for Scientists!

Its a sad state when scientific facts have to be vetted by the government, but that is what the Harper government is all about now. The article below gives examples of how the federal government has been restricting scientists trying to do interview with journalists and other forms of media.

We got used to hearing about how the current PMO (prime ministers office) muzzled MPs and gave them strict speaking points to follow. Fair enough, that is politics, while you may not agree with it you can at least see the sense. Now though it seems that even scientist have to pass the scrutiny of senior government officials. You can read the article for the facts, it doesn't make sense for me to repeat them here, but I do need to comment about this really disturbing situation.

You could argue it makes sense, theoretically, to censor and tightly control the party message and what exactly MPs are spouting off about to the rest of the world. What doesn't make sense, and is to be blunt reprehensible, is trying to censor scientific "facts". The article makes reference to how "Orwellian" this situation is, and unfortunately it is right. This behaviour is more akin to what the Ministry of Truth would attempt, direct perversion and manipulation of facts, than what a modern democratic government should participate in.

This isn't even an issue of free speech. This isn't someones opinion, spouted off in an argument with no proof or verification available. This is fact, supported by a body of evidence. The goal of science is to enhance mankind's understanding of the universe, and while knowing a flood happened 13, 000 years ago isn't exactly crucial, it is still part of the process of understanding the wider world around us.

Now this may look like a bit of an over reaction to something which doesn't really seem like a big deal, but this isn't just about this incident, its about the growing trend of censoring science. Science is one arena where a chilling effect on speech should never be felt.

Trying to hide information and prevent people from gaining knowledge is wrong, plain and simple. Any government who tries to do this should be removed, because the minute scientists cant come forward with their findings is the minute we shrug off the progress of the past 300 years. We go back to the irrational mindset which dominated the thoughts of man when they burned Galileo, we reject the idea of rational, empirical evidence, for the kinds of constructed reality of a totalitarian utopia.

I know I don't want to live in a world like that, do you?

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ottawa+media+rules+muzzling+federal+scientists/3513960/story.html

For all of you who are tired of hearing about the not really real "ground zero mosque", blame the media and read this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life

The recent Gods and Politics conference in Copenhagen adopted the following Declaration on Religion in Public Life. The conference was the first European event of Atheist Alliance International, and was co-hosted by AAI and the Danish Atheist Society.

We, at the World Atheist Conference: "Gods and Politics", held in Copenhagen from 18 to 20 June 2010, hereby declare as follows:We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one's religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

• We submit that public policy should be informed by evidence and reason, not by dogma.

• We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

• We assert that the only equitable system of government in a democratic society is based on secularism: state neutrality in matters of religion or belief, favoring none and discriminating against none.

• We assert that private conduct, which respects the rights of others should not be the subject of legal sanction or government concern.

• We affirm the right of believers and non-believers alike to participate in public life and their right to equality of treatment in the democratic process.

• We affirm the right to freedom of expression for all, subject to limitations only as prescribed in international law - laws which all governments should respect and enforce. We reject all blasphemy laws and restrictions on the right to criticize religion or nonreligious life stances.

• We assert the principle of one law for all, with no special treatment for minority communities, and no jurisdiction for religious courts for the settlement of civil matters or family disputes.

• We reject all discrimination in employment (other than for religious leaders) and the provision of social services on the grounds of race, religion or belief, gender, class, caste or sexual orientation.

• We reject any special consideration for religion in politics and public life, and oppose charitable, tax-free status and state grants for the promotion of any religion as inimical to the interests of non-believers and those of other faiths. We oppose state funding for faith schools.

• We support the right to secular education, and assert the need for education in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge, and in the diversity of religious beliefs. We support the spirit of free inquiry and the teaching of science free from religious interference, and are opposed to indoctrination, religious or otherwise.

Adopted by the conference, Copenhagen, 20 June 2010.

Please circulate this as widely as you can among people and groups who advocate a secular society.

On Twitter

Hey guys,

Guess this is my inaugural post. I figured I would do a piece on my new favorite obsession..... Twitter, that delightful little bird which you cant seem to not hear about.

I was chief among the haters for a long time until, on a hilarious road-trip, one of us decided that all the stuff we had been laughing and joking about for the past little bit was hilariously funny and we should probably be sharing this with someone outside the car. Thus my twitter account was born.

Now after that trip I didn't touch it for the longest time, in fact I almost forgot about it until by chance I saw a "follow me on twitter" link on the website of a brilliant comedian, whom I just cant get enough of. I felt like the coyote when the road runner hits him with a road sign. While I had basically been sitting in a corner being a crotchety old man and muttering under my breathe about "new things", (twitter, in this example, although I probably do that more than I should) I had completely missed out on a growing phenomenon.

I had only looked at twitter through my cynical viewpoint, seeing only the idiocy of informing people what I had eaten for lunch (rice today) and not seeing it for what it truly was. A grand new form of social media and a brilliant way to connect with the world.

Once I dived into it I found that Twitter was like a Toys-R-Us..... something for everyone. I can get regular updates from comedians, giving me my daily dose of humor, or on the flip side get updates from serious newcasters and other sources of information (a la WikiLeaks). All in all while I may not add much to the chorus of tweets (I do my bit but lets be honest the majority of people only have limited amounts of information which deserves to be shouted out in a public forum) I can firmly see the benefit of it now, and full partake in the thoroughly entertaining creation that is twitter.

While I didn't write this for a purpose, I encourage you to give it a try. It functions more effectively as a form of communication than Facebook (no silly farming games) and can open you up to some truly interesting new things. So dive in,

DK