Until a few days ago, former Prime Minister Paul Martin was still Catholic, Stephen Harper was affiliated with the Christian Missionary Alliance and the late MacKenzie King used to be a slightly unconventional Presbyterian. Then, this information mysteriously vanished from Wikipedia. A quick online search revealed that the sudden disappearance of information concerning the religious affiliations of Canadian politicians-both dead and alive-was a haphazard editorial decision taken after a brief online discussion between the likes of DoubleBlue, Ducio1234 and Skeezix1000, thus confirming the worst misgivings that so many have about Wikipedia.
In a single swoop, denominational information concerning former prime ministers John Diefenbaker, Lester B. Pearson, Louis St. Laurent, R.B. Bennett, and all others starting from September 25, 1926–when Prime Minister Arthur Meighen left office for the second time–was removed. Perhaps this was a watershed moment in Canadian religious history that I had not known about, maybe DoubleBlue and friends discovered something entirely new about our country’s past, or perhaps they simply have not gotten around to deleting Meighen’s Presbyterianism yet.
h/t Gregg
Sorry, lookout, but if someone wants me to believe something (ANYTHING), then they’re going to have to present some actual evidence to back them up. Since “See, it says right here in my little magic book” doesn’t count as evidence, that leaves all religions/superstitions as being equally insupportable, no matter how much you want to hope otherwise.
To those who argue that Christianity gave us science and progress, it should be pointed out that Christians heavily damaged the library of Alexandria, contributed to the downfall of the Roman empire, and held back scientific progress for hundreds of years. It hasn’t all been sunshine and rainbows. Without religious fanaticism on the part of both Christianity and Islam we could have built on the amazing advances of the Greeks and Romans, instead of losing it all and only rediscovering it more than a thousand years later.
In this person’s put down of me, Skip said, “I happen to concur with SDC that ALL religions are exclusive in their moral certitude.”
Problem is, Skip, that’s not what I objected to in SDC’s comments because that’s not what (s)he said. (Language processing problems, perhaps?)
SDC and Alex—there’s a moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam (for free thinking, you’d likely be stoned by now, Alex)—I think you must have been in some of the grade seven classes I’ve taught: full of p*ss and vinegar, period.
Grade: Level 1. (Do not pass GO, do not collect $200 until you know what the h*ll you’re talking about.)
Right, because Christianity has always been SOOO full of respect for free thinking! Let’s ask Hypatia about that, shall we? What your fellow co-religionists did to her makes Islamic beheadings look like a cheerful picnic in comparison.
I don’t suppose that the phrase “false dichotomy” would mean anything to you, so I’ll try and explain with smaller words: I don’t need to chose between Islam and Christianity. They both suck. I don’t give a damn that Christians are today better than Muslims – it doesn’t make you “good”, only “less bad”. Nor does it in any way change the fact that Christianity and Islam have both historically been a regressive influence on society, and continue to retard our progress as a species.
Also, while I thank you for your kind suggestion, let me make one in return: please do not post on here while under the influence of alcohol. Your comments are irrational at the best of times; your obvious inebriation only makes them even more foolish.
Lookout, what part exactly of my original post do you not understand? The Muslims claim that someone who does not believe their particular superstition cannot be “a moral person”, just as YOU apparently claim that someone who does not believe YOUR particular superstition cannot be “a moral person”. Therefore, my point stands. Since both superstitions take “the word of GAAWD” as their end-all and be-all of morality, yet neither can show any evidence even for the EXISTENCE of their particular “god”, neither superstition has anything to offer to show that they are true. Now, if you have a PARTICULAR gripe to pick with what I wrote, by all means, share it with us all.
SDC says of me, “YOU apparently claim that someone who does not believe YOUR particular superstition cannot be ‘a moral person'”.
I categorically deny that I have EVER said any such thing. SDC, it’s up to you to prove your point.
Alex, no comment.
(Folks, after nearly four decades in the classroom, this is the kind of rubbish the entitled knuckle draggers now spew on a regular basis. As no one has—or will take—the authority to bell these ignorant and self-referential cats, they think they really know what’s what. They don’t. And, how dare I say it?)
Then what was supposed to be the meaning of your “you’ve got it” comment to OWG, if not a comment that Christians have some sort of monopoly on morality? It’s a little too late to try to dig yourself out of that particular hole, no matter how much you try to backfill now, and it’s YOU that are coming across as the ignorant one, thank you very much.
Logic 101:
old white guy’s statement, “When we decide to drop the 10 commandments then morality slides down the drain. christian beliefs and values are the underpinning of our law and society. dismiss them and you lose.”
DOES NOT TRANSLATE TO
SDC’s “This assumes that someone cannot be a moral person unless they choose to believe in your particular religion . . .”
What utter rubbish. old white guy’s statement—not mine, BTW—assumes no such thing.
In fact, many non believers are followers of the Ten Commandments, as were countless pre-Christian civilizations, because the Ten Commandments encapsulate those universal rules necessary for the survival of any civilized society. Remove such rules and there’s chaos. C.S. Lewis called this universal moral code “The Tao”. So, as some people’s ability to inference is obviously not up to snuff, I’ll now state, unequivocally, that many non-Christians—probably countless millions at this very moment—are, indeed, moral people. (And I’d hazard to say there are more of them in countries whose foundations have been Judeo-Christian and democratic than those that are not, e.g., let’s say, China—think lack of manufacturing standards that regularly jeopardize lives—and Muslim countries, where life—even that of their own children—is considered cheap and expendable.)
I will go on to say, however, that as the West jettisons its Judeo-Christian heritage, our societies are becoming less civilized and more selfish and barbaric by the minute: from close, personal, long-time observation, both in the classroom and out, I have experienced a precipitous decline in mores and manners: in short, a serious absence of concern for the dignity of oneself and the other. This same trend can also be seen all over the West, documented daily in our MSM and on the internet.
(As C.S. Lewis’s Professor says, at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, “Bless me, what DO they teach them at these schools?”)
By your own writing above, you admit that the “Christian” religion has nothing to do with morality, and that true morality is based in the principle of “live and let live” (something that ALL religions, including the “Christian” one, have shown a remarkable lack of); the prospect of someone such as yourself shoving your particular superstition down the throat of children is no more appetizing to me than the thought of any other zealot doing the same.
Good grief!
I admit no such thing.
You, SDC, are, indeed, a puffed up idiot, who presumes to, apparently, read my mind—not the clear sense of the words I write—and totally misinterpret them. You are free to think your own thoughts, but please keep such jumbled, truncated, plainly false, and bigoted solipsisms a good distance from what I think.
Over and out.
You are a self-important ass, who presumes to believe that you, and you alone have some sort of insight into what it is that makes a person “moral”; that puts you on exactly the same plane as the mullahs who claim that blowing up women and kids in the name of “gawwd” is a ticket to paradise. As I said before, I really don’t CARE which particular myth someone chooses to elieve in, just so long as they keep it to themselves and don’t try to force it on anyone else. That goes for you just as much as it goes for any other self-important ass that claims to speak for their imaginary “god”.
Wow! Amazing watching from the sidelines, but each SDC, Lookout and Alex have sensible points when they care to not name call and regress!
How come none of YOUS GUYS are laying out a sensible logical line of thinking that may be respected and understood by others?
Yes and faith alone does not convert people lookout, why should they believe you? After all they are neither sheep nor inherently stupid.
Neither is lookout wrong if you step inside her life’s experience. (But she needs to explain it, or not).
Knight 99, I’m not into the equivalence thing you’re proposing. Sorry.