Freethought & Rationalism Archive

never been there · 03-16-2002, 06:08 AM

These articles both appeared in today's Toronto Globe and Mail. Neat juxtaposition.

First, the reactionary

Anglican Primate Michael Peers[URL too long for UBB - see below]

A less-evolved primate, I guess. A typical example of someone recruiting Jews & Muslims (and since they're so obviously open-minded, any other theists as well) to support public religion, ergo Jesus should be invoked at state events.

On the other hand, we have:

Former Anglican bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway

I wonder if he posts here?

(Note by Toto: the URL's are apparently too long for UBB, or the Globe has deliberately constructed them so you can't link directly to the article. Go to <a href="http://www.globeandmail.ca/comment" target="_blank">www.globeandmail.ca/comment</a>
and click on "Blaspheming Bishop" or search for Holloway or Peers

Trying to fix these links - Not being sucessful CF

Tried again - Toto (there were some extra spaces inside the URL)

Gave up - Toto - I think the Globe doesn't want you to link directly to articles.
[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: crazyfingers ]

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Toto · 03-16-2002, 10:25 AM

These are good articles, although it seems the Globe doesn't want you to link directly to them.

A snip from the Blaspheming Bishop:

Quote:

Religions need their heretics. Church leaders may prefer to burn them at the stake (the medieval solution) or ostracize them by press release (the marginally more charitable, modern alternative). But to survive in a secular world, even an orthodoxy needs creative dissent.

Richard Holloway has taken on the task of forcing Christianity to adapt -- which is to say that many in his native Britain regard him as a dangerous atheist. The announcement that the 68-year-old retired Anglican bishop of Edinburgh had been invited to host the BBC's Good Friday religious program led to charges that the BBC was deliberately persecuting Christianity.

Holloway doesn't come out and announce himself as a heretic, or even (almost as disturbing to obedient Christians) a prophet. But in two skeptical books about Christianity and its values, he plays those roles like they were made for him.

Just the titles of the two books are enough to make obedient Christians think un-Christian thoughts. The 1999 volume, Godless Morality,argues that the continued use of God in debates about pressing modern issues is an intellectual dead end.
. . .

The first article has the church state separation tie-in:

Quote:

My Canada includes God

Eighty-five per cent of Canadians define themselves as religious. Yet our state religion is non-religion. Why do we cage our own souls? asks Anglican Primate MICHAEL PEERS

By MICHAEL PEERS

Saturday, March 16, 2002 � Print Edition, Page A17

* * *

In 19th-century Upper Canada, two powerful leaders, Egerton Ryerson and John Strachan, struggled for the soul of what is now Ontario. Strachan represented the forces of religious establishment. Ryerson opposed special advantages for any religious group. Ryerson prevailed, and we live in a society largely defined by the egalitarian religious landscape that he championed.

What we have today, however, is something more sweeping. At a public memorial service for Swissair victims at Peggys Cove, N.S., Ottawa barred Christian clergy from invoking the name of Jesus. On Sept. 15, those responsible for expressing the collective grief of Canadians on Parliament Hill made no reference to any of the religious traditions to which the majority of Canadians turn in their own times of grief and loss. This is not the non-establishment Ryerson advocated. This is the establishment of non-religion as the official religion of Canada.

[ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Toto · 03-21-2002, 01:52 PM

<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?f=/stories/20020319/377932.html" target="_blank">A Canadian response to Peers article</a>

Quote:

Canada has no special advantages for any religious group?

Give me a break, padre.

The first sentence of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God" -- not Vishnu nor Buddha, but God -- and Section 29 of the same document singles out for protection the special rights enjoyed by denominational schools. Today, one such right is the public money pumped into religious -- overwhelmingly Christian -- schools in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

* * *

Canada's head of state, the Queen, is Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Feel like ringing your church bells in a residential neighbourhood? Go ahead. They're exempt from many noise pollution by-laws. Testifying in court? Don't forget to swear on the Bible. Of the 79,000 registered charities in Canada, almost half are places of worship.

Should non-believers take umbrage at all the ways religious symbols, holidays, schools, churches and Sabbath observation are favoured by our laws? It would be hard to take seriously some atheist objecting to the "D.G. Regina" written on Canadian coins because it stands for "Dei Gratia" (by the grace of God). But not all religious perks can be laughed off so easily. The United Nations has condemned Ontario, for example, over its discriminatory policy of funding Roman Catholic schools but not other religions'. Even if the provincial Tories stay in power long enough to phase in their education tax credit -- which would partially subsidize other faiths' schools -- it won't really end the favouritism.

Someone who rejects the teachings of Canada's mainline churches, it seems to me, should still respect them. The work they do with the handicapped, the needy, many charities, is humbling. But however one feels about mingling the sacred and the political, it is simply incorrect for Christian leaders like Peers to claim that our politics in any way involve "the establishment of non-religion as the official religion of Canada." However inadvertently, such statements invoke a rhetoric of discrimination on behalf of a group already favoured by government -- often in the name of justifying further preferential treatment. Canada would be better served by church leaders openly admitting that when it comes to the relationship between politics and religion, they occupy a position not of victimhood but conspicuous and long-standing privilege.

never been there · 03-21-2002, 06:54 PM

I'm in agreement with something printed in the National Post? <<shudder>>

Still, while I think it's worth reminding Canadians that there's something not quite modern about public funding of RC schools, it's in the constitution as a promise that was once necessary and if anyone keeps promises, it ought to be the government (yeah, call me naive). Supporters of a single public school system must try to convince RCs to volunteer to give up this right.

The problem is that other faiths are saying that if the RCs get government money, they should too. The RCs support them to keep the heat off their schools. Newfoundland and Quebec have both eliminated sectarian education. Quebec promised that religious education would still be available within the public schools, but last year switched from an 'opt out' to and 'opt in' system. Like pay-TV, the latter gets a lot fewer buyers.

As a kid, I grew up with some weird ideas about RCs. I could understand separate schools for English- and French-speaking students just for practical reasons, but my imagination ran wild trying to come up with a reason for religious segregation that was equal to not speaking the same language. I have no trouble understanding how people can be led to believe in Masons sacrificing virgins or the blood libel.

never been there · 03-21-2002, 06:55 PM

P.S.: Thanks, Toto for trying to fix the links. I thought I had posted the complete URL as text for people to cut and paste but I have a bad habit of forgetting to click the 'add reply' button.

03-16-2002, 06:08 AM	#1
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	two bishops These articles both appeared in today's Toronto Globe and Mail. Neat juxtaposition. First, the reactionary Anglican Primate Michael Peers[URL too long for UBB - see below] A less-evolved primate, I guess. A typical example of someone recruiting Jews & Muslims (and since they're so obviously open-minded, any other theists as well) to support public religion, ergo Jesus should be invoked at state events. On the other hand, we have: Former Anglican bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway I wonder if he posts here? (Note by Toto: the URL's are apparently too long for UBB, or the Globe has deliberately constructed them so you can't link directly to the article. Go to <a href="http://www.globeandmail.ca/comment" target="_blank">www.globeandmail.ca/comment</a> and click on "Blaspheming Bishop" or search for Holloway or Peers Trying to fix these links - Not being sucessful CF Tried again - Toto (there were some extra spaces inside the URL) Gave up - Toto - I think the Globe doesn't want you to link directly to articles. [ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: crazyfingers ] [ March 16, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2002, 06:54 PM	#4
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	I'm in agreement with something printed in the National Post? <<shudder>> Still, while I think it's worth reminding Canadians that there's something not quite modern about public funding of RC schools, it's in the constitution as a promise that was once necessary and if anyone keeps promises, it ought to be the government (yeah, call me naive). Supporters of a single public school system must try to convince RCs to volunteer to give up this right. The problem is that other faiths are saying that if the RCs get government money, they should too. The RCs support them to keep the heat off their schools. Newfoundland and Quebec have both eliminated sectarian education. Quebec promised that religious education would still be available within the public schools, but last year switched from an 'opt out' to and 'opt in' system. Like pay-TV, the latter gets a lot fewer buyers. As a kid, I grew up with some weird ideas about RCs. I could understand separate schools for English- and French-speaking students just for practical reasons, but my imagination ran wild trying to come up with a reason for religious segregation that was equal to not speaking the same language. I have no trouble understanding how people can be led to believe in Masons sacrificing virgins or the blood libel.

03-21-2002, 06:55 PM	#5
never been there Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB Posts: 2,144	P.S.: Thanks, Toto for trying to fix the links. I thought I had posted the complete URL as text for people to cut and paste but I have a bad habit of forgetting to click the 'add reply' button.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.