All the arguments made against Sharia law in Canada are compelling. As an atheist and Canadian, I thought I might share some additional thoughts:
Canada does not have a \”wall of separation\” between church and state, like what supposedly exists in the States. An historical quirk of our constitution is the fact that it guarantees a Catholic education for whoever wants it, a clause inserted to accommodate Quebec many years ago. Despite this, Canada is a very secular country which is suspicious of religious intrusions into politics (when it came out that a former leader of the federal opposition party believed in Young-Earth Creationism, he was mocked endlessly). Ironically, this is especially true in Quebec, which follows a strictly secular Napoleanic civil code, and where the Catholic church has suffered its worst declines.
Compare this to the situation in the States, where no politician can get elected without mentioning God, where the President can call evolution \”a stretch,\” and where the religious right can own all three branches of the government and still imagine themselves as some persecuted minority.
Some have commented that the separation between church and state exists mainly to protect the church, not the state. Following this logic and the Canadian experience, some people who would like to see religious influence disappear in society might be quite happy to see Sharia law \”accommodated,\” Canadian-style.
PZ Myers is rightly embarrassed that the University of Minnesota is a willing partner in this hokum. So is the Hospital where I work in Minneapolis. I\’ve tried to get the \”Integrative Medicine\” program to apply scientific standards of evidence, and I\’ve tried to persuade them that it\’s immoral for a hospital to bill for hand waving — but to no avail. We\’re long past the point where people are so \”open minded\” that their brains have fallen out.
Led to your website by an art newsletter I have to say huh? So then I turned to find the mission statement for this website. Still I have to say huh?
I just don\’t get the point. I am sure the article is very clever in some circles but to understand its many references to many people I have not read I find it has little or no impact. Is the article defending Elitism? I don\’t know what the author thinks Elitism is. However one strong emotional reaction to this essay is that it is elitest and tell to many insider jokes and you lose the audience. You lost me.
Fighting fashionable nonsense? My, there is so much of that. The time and money costs to actually do verification or proofs on truth statements is considerable and since so many of them will turn out to be false.
Certainly if the world was flattened we would have new elites arising within days. Whether or not Shakespeare would be conserved in that set of new elites is just so… uninteresting.
He added: \”I am extremely disappointed by Ofcom\’s decision. Freedom of expression should never be sufficient reason to attack the values of any section of the community and this particular programme appeared to set out to do this to people
This is one of the silliest things I have ever read.
There is a barrier between my water and my mouth, a barrier of of glass. Theres a barrier between myself and my wife, a door! Heavens forbid. How much better if I was squatting on the Kalahari, drinking water from a puddle….barriers are stifling me, frustrating my freedom….
All the arguments made against Sharia law in Canada are compelling. As an atheist and Canadian, I thought I might share some additional thoughts:
Canada does not have a \”wall of separation\” between church and state, like what supposedly exists in the States. An historical quirk of our constitution is the fact that it guarantees a Catholic education for whoever wants it, a clause inserted to accommodate Quebec many years ago. Despite this, Canada is a very secular country which is suspicious of religious intrusions into politics (when it came out that a former leader of the federal opposition party believed in Young-Earth Creationism, he was mocked endlessly). Ironically, this is especially true in Quebec, which follows a strictly secular Napoleanic civil code, and where the Catholic church has suffered its worst declines.
Compare this to the situation in the States, where no politician can get elected without mentioning God, where the President can call evolution \”a stretch,\” and where the religious right can own all three branches of the government and still imagine themselves as some persecuted minority.
Some have commented that the separation between church and state exists mainly to protect the church, not the state. Following this logic and the Canadian experience, some people who would like to see religious influence disappear in society might be quite happy to see Sharia law \”accommodated,\” Canadian-style.
PZ Myers is rightly embarrassed that the University of Minnesota is a willing partner in this hokum. So is the Hospital where I work in Minneapolis. I\’ve tried to get the \”Integrative Medicine\” program to apply scientific standards of evidence, and I\’ve tried to persuade them that it\’s immoral for a hospital to bill for hand waving — but to no avail. We\’re long past the point where people are so \”open minded\” that their brains have fallen out.
Regarding your piece on elitism in hte arts – I think you might like this small, but growing E-zine: http://www.artslut.com Enjoy!
Concerning your article about elitism.
Led to your website by an art newsletter I have to say huh? So then I turned to find the mission statement for this website. Still I have to say huh?
I just don\’t get the point. I am sure the article is very clever in some circles but to understand its many references to many people I have not read I find it has little or no impact. Is the article defending Elitism? I don\’t know what the author thinks Elitism is. However one strong emotional reaction to this essay is that it is elitest and tell to many insider jokes and you lose the audience. You lost me.
Fighting fashionable nonsense? My, there is so much of that. The time and money costs to actually do verification or proofs on truth statements is considerable and since so many of them will turn out to be false.
Certainly if the world was flattened we would have new elites arising within days. Whether or not Shakespeare would be conserved in that set of new elites is just so… uninteresting.
-Mark
re: christian groups wonder about free speech
He added: \”I am extremely disappointed by Ofcom\’s decision. Freedom of expression should never be sufficient reason to attack the values of any section of the community and this particular programme appeared to set out to do this to people
of Christian faith.\”
Fair\’s fair, mate. Stop proselytizing me, and I\’ll stop criticizing you.
Cheers, Elliott
Re Wallification
Ophelia: this is a beautiful article. But please do not do this sort of thing too often or it will rot you brain.
Re: Wallification.
This is one of the silliest things I have ever read.
There is a barrier between my water and my mouth, a barrier of of glass. Theres a barrier between myself and my wife, a door! Heavens forbid. How much better if I was squatting on the Kalahari, drinking water from a puddle….barriers are stifling me, frustrating my freedom….
Re: Wallification
See http://www31.brinkster.com/yewtree/resources/resistentialism.htm – les choses sont contre nous!