The war at home
Canadian troops are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, in part to prevent the return of the Taliban, a minority who would impose their faith, in particular, an uncompromising brand of Islam, on an unwilling population.
Should it come as a surprise that the same fight is being fought at home?
By defiantly ending speeches with the words, "God bless Canada," [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] affirmed the sentiment expressed in our national anthem and on our coinage, and subtly but unmistakably held up a prominent middle finger to those who are trying to what might be called "atheize" the country.
They complained.
In one poll, 65% of Canadians told him to keep on doing it.
There is a battle being fought in this country against a minority who would impose their faith, in particular, an uncompromising brand of atheism, on an unwilling population.
Canadians generally are not uncomfortable about religious faith. Not deep down. But several decades of imposed atheism supported by the State (often under the guise of multiculturalism) has allowed a minority -- primarily liberal arts academia and their offspring, the media -- to cast Canada as a place where expressions of faith, especially Christian faith, is as welcome as public vomiting.
Here's an example of what they think of "God bless Canada!":
I hadn't realized until recently that Stephen Harper was using "God Bless Canada!" as a tagline for his speeches. Some may think this a harmless, or even beneficent, expression for a politician to use, but for those with knowledge of history, nothing could be a more frightening.
<snipped out all the requisite George W Bush comparisons>
Religion does not belong in public life, and Stephen Harper's efforts to drag it in says a great deal about him to those choosing to listen. This principle is as much a defense of freedom of religion as anything else: millions of Christians have been slain by other Christians over subtle differences of belief.
Religion in politics violates Canadians' traditional political civility. While God may be understood as a translation for Allah or Jehovah, the name is completely unsuitable for those embracing Buddhism or Hinduism or Humanism or no religion at all. This usage opens wounds where none need exist.
[emphasis added]
Got that? Religion is not to be seen, because it is the antithesis of civil behaviour. Note also that one problem is that Buddhists and Hindus would be offended. But then their offense would be a religious expression in of itself, would it not? Isn't being offended by someone's religious expression also a form of religious expression?
Well, Stephen Harper is one person who understands the absurdity of that position. And he won't kowtow to the absurd, no matter how many layers of postmodern bafflegab it gets wrapped up in.
But what is most interesting is that he has allies. A majority of the population who understand that suppressing religious expression is suppressing free speech. Indeed, it is probably the most precious form of free speech we enjoy -- the freedom to perceive the universe and our place in it as we see fit, and to not be embarrassed or persecuted for having and sharing that perception.
Will the forces of militant atheism ever understand that? Not likely, given that they'll never be able to separate the notion of free speech that I'm talking about from their visceral hatred of all things conservative:
"God Bless Canada" is a symbol of the coming realignment with US values. And it doesn't matter if a majority disagree with this shift. In the US, 30 per cent of the population are hard core believers who vote in large numbers and with the Republicans. No other group is so numerous and so united. While in Canada, this group is much smaller, they are getting a historic opportunity to govern as the Liberals and NDP split the shrinking center-left vote.
However, the new Conservatives aren't Tories, but smooth-talking serpents who have slithered out from underneath Prairie rocks to claim their new found dominion. Their wave has been a long time in coming, so we are finally seeing their breakthrough in this election with the United Right swamping the dying Liberal Party.
Ironically, the "smooth-talking serpent" analogy is one of the most ancient and powerful Judeo-Christian images of evil we have. I wonder of "ceti" realizes that he just offended a bunch of Buddhists and Hindus whose culture does not include the story of Genesis. Indeed the Hindus celebrate the Naga Panchami, the festival of snakes. The snake is seen as a symbol of immortality, not of duplicity and temptation.
No matter. The battle is being fought for freedom for Christians and Hindus both, and all people of faith, and it appears that the tide is turning. I expect the counterattacks to be vicious, even violent.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
I'm sick and tired of the certain inhabitants of this country taking away MY rights and freedoms to promote their own. Welcome to Canada, but park your beliefs at the shorelines. This is Canada and we are a Christian country. Don't like it? Please stay at home where you can practise your religion freely.
Posted by: Ken at May 28, 2006 12:20 PM
Ken, I would point out that I have no issue of people coming to this country (legally) and practising their religion. But Christians should be able to practise theirs. If we ask new immigrants anything, it is to understand that in this country all religions may be practised openly, which might not be the experience they had at home. Also, that religions are allowed to offend each other and be offended, and that the State will offer no special protection against offense for any chosen religion. If they can live under those rules, they are welcome.
Oh yes, and that historically, this country was always overwhelmingly Christian, and that historical reality is reflected in our statutory holidays, our coinage, our anthem, etc. Another thing they just need to accept (or at least not reject with violence).
I don't want people to be told that religion is something to be practised at home with the curtains drawn. To be told that religion is an embarrassment to be tolerated by those more enlightened, and that they are expected to become more enlightened, and if not them, their children. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case...until now.
Posted by: Steve Janke at May 28, 2006 12:36 PM
the whole issue would be laughable...
if it wasn't so insiduous
Posted by: Paul Hansen at May 28, 2006 12:59 PM
...some questions/remarks I once told a refugee who didn't like how things are done here ("we always did it this way").
1. Well, why don't you go back then?
2. Uh, how many wars have we had here?
3. Can I lift my hands to freely worship over there?
Posted by: tomax7 at May 28, 2006 02:49 PM
Ken the first nations were the first peoples here and they were not Christians. As with all indigenous peoples in North and South America they were forcibly converted to Christianity by torture, war, brutality, etc. So get your facts straight. As for pronouncing one or more gods valid, well we live in a secular pluralistic society, without need to refer to diety. You can worship whatever diety you want, I will take my oaths by affirmation thank you.
Steve methinks thou protest too much when you claim you expect to be attacked violently....
Posted by: Eugene Plawiuk at May 28, 2006 03:07 PM
The war for hearts and minds is coming home in the form of Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera Network Extra Sharp Extra Clever
Josh Rushing is the new Washington anchor for the new Al Jazeera broadcast studio to come on stream soon.
Josh is an ex-marine corps captain. He was a spokesman for US government information services and decided to decline his commission.
His contacts with Al Jazeera caused him to form the impression they were trying to be an unbiased news reporting agency.
Josh says Al Jazeera ticks off both the East and the West and so can been seen as *impartial*.
He says that the network is actually four mini networks.
I found that to be interesting. Four mini networks, soon to be five. Decentralizing is a sure fire way to insure survival. No knocking out of *head office*.
Al Jazeera has been a powerful weapon to leverage the cartoon protest riots and to further other Jihadist moves.
If the powers behind Al Jazeera are pro-fundamentalist, and I have reason to believe they are, then this expansion into the west with Josh as Washington rep, is an ominous manouver.
Ominous because Josh is an extremely intelligent and assuring type. The type who can calmly explain why Hamas websites that encourage children to become martyrs by wearing a bomb vest to a shopping mall is really not so bad, and having *liberals* accept the logic.
I wonder if the oil rich backers have given Josh an offer he just can*t refuse?
A world recognized news reporting network is in fact a very effective weapon. This is how hundreds of millions of Muslims will be swayed and motivated on all continents eventually. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 28, 2006 03:19 PM
Pressed for time or I would have given a link or two. Check the Canadian Bucholic Corp.
An interview with Josh before noon. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 28, 2006 03:22 PM
The Rense link by Chapman is on drugs or worse
This is what`s in his web page key words - see below the line
Draw your own conclusions if he speaks for anyone else than dope smokers watching the Martians make crop circles
--------------------
MP3, 911, flying saucers, aliens, Tesla, UFOs, ufo, Harry Potter, spacecraft, mpeg, mp3, jpg, pix, freedom, liberty, justice, 911, pics, images, pokemon, dragon, ludacris, spears, christianity, search, search engine, ufo, ufos, health, mpeg, jpg, domains, alternative health, health products, wtc, free, mpeg terrorism, conspiracy, conspiracies, aliens, the end of
the line, jeff rense, talk radio, weapons, secret weapons, nwo, new
world order, aids, aids exposed, viruses, crop circles, tapes
Posted by: 54th BN on the Front lines at May 28, 2006 04:12 PM
Steve,
Am I to conclude then, that you don't mind State sponsored religion, so long as it is Christianity?
When Stephen Harper speaks, it is as the top representative of the Government of Canada. His "God Bless Canada" cannot be seen as simply a statement of personal beliefs -- as head of the country, he speaks for the country. This, in no way, is preventing him from practicing his religious beliefs -- there is no dictate for Christians to end speeches with "God Bless our Nation."
I suppose my question is, if we had a Muslim Prime Minister, would you also support him ending his talks with "Allahu Akhbar, Allah bless Canada"? Or, if that isn't "historical" enough for you, would you mind if we had an Indigenous Canadian who was Prime Minister who started and ended each speech with a sweetgrass ceremony?
Posted by: Bob at May 28, 2006 04:16 PM
Politicians like the NDP Socialists and Stalin supporters love to preach about separating religion for the State.
That of course, is only until they discover that the "Thou shalt not kill" moral value would have to be removed from our Courts as a base for Crminal sentencing in murder cases.
Ask any lawyer why Murder is illegal and then sit back and see if they trace it back to a Social value stemming from a personal faith.
Don't fall for the "Because it's wrong" PC answer that Liberals love to hide behind.
Posted by: at May 28, 2006 04:30 PM
Politicians like the NDP Socialists and Stalin supporters love to preach about separating religion for the State. That of course, is only until they discover that the "Thou shalt not kill" moral value would have to be removed from our Courts as a base for Crminal sentencing in murder cases.
Right, because it is impossible to "moral values" that are non-religous. Give me a break.
Posted by: at May 28, 2006 04:42 PM
To make it a bit more personal, if Edmonton Strathcona Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer (who is Muslim) were to become Prime Minister, would it be appropriate for him to end his Government of Canada speeches with "Allah Bless Canada"?
Some of your fellow conservatives seem to think not:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/05/the_war_at_home.html
Of course, they also appear to think that he shouldn't be allowed to live in Canada, so it is tough to take them very seriously.
Posted by: Bob at May 28, 2006 05:44 PM
The first line from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"
I would think PM Harper has that right to say "God Bless" to whomever he wants...
Posted by: Xena at May 28, 2006 05:49 PM
Let*s not confuse the supremacy of God with that of religion.
Religion is a man made club wherein a number of people agree on rules that permit a mutually supportive way of life.
God is one name among several that we use to refer to a supreme being or spiritual entity.
I believe in a supreme entity but no religion seems to be free of human bias.
The Bahai who meet Saturdays in each others homes seems fairly reasonable. They do have a temple somewhere in the Eastern states.
It*s a live and let live philosophy but it is still a human based club. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 28, 2006 06:22 PM
That’s actually a good question about Rahim. The short answer is yes he can say whatever he wants as long as he shows tolerance towards others. But the incongruence here is that the jury is out as to the Muslim religion’s tolerance towards other religions.
But the very question makes it clear that there is a flaw in the multi-culti relativism of the left. More on that later, but first …
My guess is that Rahim is a Muslim-atheist and he may or may not know that he is technically an atheist. Because atheists are essentially what Moderates are. That’s the case because they haven’t yet gone through their civil war or reformation, Muslims by definition don’t believe in secularism nor in tolerance toward other religions nor in the equality of women. That’s the scary thing; true Muslims want the Caliph to rule and rule not just Muslims, everyone.
I’m sure Rahim, whom I’ve met but don’t know, is tolerant of other religions and believes in the equality of women. Therefore is he a Muslim? Or is he a Moderate-cultural-Muslim who’s really an atheist?
Even before the Reformation, Christianity had instilled secularism in its Testament “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God, that which is God’s”.
That significant distinction of Christianity is not acknowledged by the postmodernist relativism spewed out of our universities. However, history and tradition do have meaning and enable us to predict where “God bless Canada” might lead to; whereas “"Allahu Akhbar, Allah bless Canada,” predicts a very different direction on the tolerance that we’ve enjoyed since 1867.
But let’s get practical, Rahim isn’t going to say “"Allahu Akhbar, Allah bless Canada". Nor is an aboriginal going to have a sweetgrass ceremony after every speech because that takes a lot more than 3 seconds to perform. So these questions are just red herrings.
Besides, we all know that Jane Taber and Puffy would grill Rahim down the gauntlet as they would a First Nations candidate for PM. These candidates could never get by the tough questioning on secualarism and tolerance by these left-wing postmoderns relativists in the MSM (sarcasm off).
Posted by: nomdenet at May 28, 2006 07:16 PM
For Rahim to say Allah bless Canada would be the equivelent of PMSH saying Yahweh bless Canada not God bless Canada. God is a generic term for a higher usually spiritual being not a religious specific God. Allah is the Muslim God, Yahweh is the Jewish/Christian God Vishnu is one of the Hindu Gods.
Posted by: Joe at May 28, 2006 07:43 PM
Rahim Jaffer, it appears, is a member of the Ismaili branch of Islam. That is about as close to being “reformed” or liberated as you can get within the Muslim faith. I have acquaintances in that faith and they strike me as being very tolerant of other religion and women are equal as far as I can tell.
In fact one Ismaili mentioned to me that they felt a bit like the Jews once did , caught between a rock and hard place. This is because the more traditional Muslims frown on the liberated Ismailis and some people not knowing that Ismailis are liberated still treat them with the same suspicion as more extreme Muslims.
The Muslim religion really does need to undergo some revolutionary change, just as Judaeo-Christians did centuries ago.
Posted by: nomdenet at May 28, 2006 08:44 PM
My guess is that Rahim is a Muslim-atheist and he may or may not know that he is technically an atheist.
Maybe you should send him an email to let him know that he isn't really a Muslim -- since you apparently know more about his faith than he does himself [/sarcasm]. What arrogance.
Muslims by definition don’t believe in secularism nor in tolerance toward other religions nor in the equality of women. That’s the scary thing; true Muslims want the Caliph to rule and rule not just Muslims, everyone.
It's bad enough when Bin Laden the Taliban hijack Islam to promote an extreme version without non-muslims doing their best to help them along. There is no such thing as a "true Muslim". Like any other Religion, there is a broad spectrum of beliefs -- as you yourself admit in reference to Jaffer's Ismaili faith.
Posted by: Bob at May 28, 2006 09:09 PM
Atheism isn't a left-wing position. Those leftists who condemn the Prime Minister for saying 'God Bless Canada' aren't doing it becuase they're rational atheists, they're doing it because they hate everything about the West and have an irrational xenophillia.
Christianity is a left-wing position. You can't be a faithful Catholic and an ardent capitalist. Afterall, this is your church:
"She [the Roman Catholic Church] has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor"
source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm
And as for the injunction against murder, theft, rape et al. originating in the bible - all I can say to that is, those Jews must have been one rotten, theiving, murderous, idolatrous, pork-loving rabble before they got the ten commandments. Your god should have dropped those ten commandments on their heads if they were truly that shi#@y (as they must have been without HIS laws set out for them).
Getting back to the original point about the PM saying God Bless Canada - we live in a Christian country. Our consitution says that the country is founded on the rule of law and the supremacy of God - not 'a god' but 'God' - proper noun i.e. some guy's name and not a broad category that can include yahweh, vishnu, or allah. Saying the PM is violating 'Canadian values (TM)' is willfully ignorant.
Plus, where were all these so-called atheists of the left when the NDP was kicking out a candidate for practicing Wica? Where were they when the NDP demoted Svend Robinson for tabling a pro-atheist motion in parliament?
There's only one party in parliament that punishes members for their religion or lack of it - coincidentally the only party that was founded by a Christian preacher.
Posted by: Robert at May 29, 2006 12:53 AM
I dispute that all or even a majority of atheists are left-wing. Where is the evidence--scattered comments from blogs. Please!
You have to distinguish between what atheists might decry as inappropriate under current law (which to some degree recognizes separation of Church and state, or at least nnon-preference among belief systems), and what atheists would like (and may argue for), the end of religions based on super-natrual beliefs. (Many atheists, such as Nietzsche, are all for religion as a system of hygienic rituals and practices.)
One also has to distinguish freedom to practice relgion and freedom of speech in public space, with separation of church and State. As some have noted, the "substitution" test is good guidance. Would be be appropriate for Harper to end his speeches, "We are responsible because there are no gods." Just freedom of speech; just Harper exercising his freedom to practice his belief rituals and affirmations. If hearing that offends you, then perhaps you should rethink the "God Bless Canada" ritual at the end of official government speeches.
It seems many of the attacks on Harper, though, are indeed left-wing and anti-Alberta rants. However, a right-wing Albertan can object to Harper's incantations a head of state without being fussed about right-or-left or Alberta issues.
Posted by: murray at May 29, 2006 05:49 AM
As long as PMSH sticks to the principle of separation of church and state, I don't mind his "God bless Canada".
And, Steve, your statement
"I expect the counterattacks to be vicious, even violent"
is just ridiculous. Which atheist or true liberal can you name that plans anything like that?
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 29, 2006 06:09 AM
At last count, statscan showed that some 80% of Canadians claim to be Christian. Multiculturalism aside, that's just the way it is. Any attempt to say different is at least misrepresentation and more often outright Goebels style propoganda. Many atheists that I know are not militant and are not upset by others that believe in God, or for that matter Harper saying 'God bless Canada.' Past Liberal governments have lied about the true cultural makeup and beliefs of the majority of Canadians, and in doing so have given extra resolve to a radical type that want the Christian God expunged from public life.
History = Culture = Destiny.
A disconnection to our past is what radical 'progressives' are really after, to their own secular, if not Christian/Western hating ends.
'God bless Canada.' Three words are like hot coals on their heads. How very odd.
Posted by: Irwin Daisy at May 29, 2006 06:43 AM
Or perhaps you're talking about a violent counterattack by Christians?
(Very strange in that case, but, on the other hand, consider the rethoric of some Catholics in reaction to DVC.)
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 29, 2006 07:21 AM
Until we remove the line about the "supremacy of God", no public figure is out of bounds in invoking his or her deity's blessing under the generic term, rather than one specific to any particular faith, such as Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, etc. Until we change the Constitution, this is not a purely secular country.
Good luck mustering the votes for that change.
Posted by: Occam's Carbuncle at May 29, 2006 08:20 AM
I'm trying to figure out how state silence on religion is supposed to be equivalent to state-enforced atheism. Your argument seems to require that. I have no problem with your view that people should be able to express content that involves religious beliefs, and I have no problem with public officials doing this. What I don't think is right is grounding that view on the treatment of the opposite policy as atheism. It isn't. It's silence. State atheism would enforce the denial of God, as the Soviet Union did. Canadian atheists who want enforced silence on the part of government officials (at least insofar as they are in their public role) does not amount to state-enfoced atheism.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at May 29, 2006 08:24 AM
"If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion." (Durkheim, 1912)
Somehow "Canada bless Canada" just wouldn't have the same ring to it. You go Harper.
Posted by: LynchMob at May 29, 2006 09:12 AM
...you know, Christianity is the only faith that had their main figure die, rise again, and practice forgiveness? Then preaches have hope, faith, and love towards Himself and others the same.
Even more "silly" is how this faith is the only one a known Deity entrusts the full responsiblility of continuing His teachings unto a bunch of somewhat social outcasts for future generations.
Imagine, dedicate your whole life, soul, and body to teach love and forgiveness in a military and religious suppressed society. Have the very people who were suppose to be an example of God's love (religious leaders) drag you before the courts to have you condemned to death.
Heck have one of your best friends deny knowing you three times under pressure.
Think of the logic, would you trust the future of mankind to a bunch of rag tag misfits and other no names?
Talk about faith.
Christianity is the only faith (notice I don't say 'religion') to allow freedom of thought and not require rituals to follow it.
Believe or not belive, your choice.
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax7 at May 29, 2006 09:15 AM
Eugene,
Thanks for the lesson in blatant reductionism--and the post-colonial nonsense that permeates academia. European Christians built hospitals and schools, and provided other nations with technologies to enrich their lives. Yes, there was abuse, but First Nations people have also warred with eachother--and a major reason for their demise was due to their inability to handle disease (small pox etc). Their culture was stagnant; they were content to be at harmony with the earth, whereas the Judeo-Christian ethic is built upon the physicality of our relationship with the world--that we are to use it and harness its resources. I guess you would have preferred that the Europeans allow the Aztecs continue to cut out hearts, for example. How about technology and medicine? Do we not "destroy" the cultures by not giving them that either? Left wing hack jobs like yourself wouldn't know much about real history, except the revisionism and reductionism that passes as "scholarship."
Posted by: Richard Romano at May 29, 2006 09:27 AM
I don't think the debate s advanced much by focussing on past atrocities or accomplishments. Plainly Judeo-Christian values have been a positive influence in many respect. The great technological advances, however, I would attribute more to science (against which the Church fought) and the industrial revolution lead, among other things, by the common law tradition in England that provided conditions necessary for capital growth and technological innovation at an accelerating pace.
The genius of Judeo-Christianity has been to transform itself time and time again, to become less harsh and doctrinaire. After burning Bruno at the stake (tongue gagged) as an example (he not only taught the world was not the centre of the universe, but that there were uncountably many suns), the Church relented and has more or less left science alone. Even the Vatican, now, is conceding the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but leaving open the jump to homo sapien as an intervention from God.
The separation of Chruch and state should be seen as the latest step in the Church's self-reformation. I hasten to add that it is Judeo-Christianity capacity for self-reformation that mkaes it stand apart. Other religions do not have such a stellar track record.
Posted by: murray at May 29, 2006 09:48 AM
The OLD rule:
Never discuss politics or religion!
The NEW rule:
Well Ok, dicuss away, but only via internet, well out of fists range.
Vive le Blogosphere. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 29, 2006 10:49 AM
TG how true, but at least the blogs allow people to engage the brain before opening their mouths...
Sometimes...
Posted by: tomax7 at May 29, 2006 11:21 AM
Its time Conservatives, who are defending the God position, be honest with themselves. The nation of Canada, a member of the commonwealth, formerly a British colony, with a parliamentary style government, was founded by Christians who were raised and educated by Christians. Its time to honest with ouselves that we are Christians, whether we go to church or not, and we don't want to lose our way of life.
Yeah I know, you'll say I'm no better than the Jihadists.
Posted by: Matt at May 29, 2006 12:56 PM
I think many liberals don't understand is that part of the freedom we enjoy (and the multi-culturalism they adore) is the freedom to believe. I am Jewish, and my faith is very important to me, just as I'm sure the Prime Minister's Christian faith is important to him. Let's not forget that those who built this country were also people of faith. Tommy Douglas who was voted the Greatest Canadian was a baptist minister. Our Charter of Rights and national anthem both have references to G-d. So why is it that Stephen Harper can't ask the almighty to bless this great country?
I never understood why some Athiests believe they are so much smarter and are so condecending towards religious people. In fact the Athiests I have met are some of the most intolerant people I know.
Posted by: Andrew Smith at May 29, 2006 04:15 PM
Spirit Online: Buddhism: Is There a God? A Buddhist Perspective
Spirit Online: Buddhism: Is There a God? A Buddhist Perspective
By Rev Taitetsu Unno
IS THERE A GOD?
Yes, but a proper Buddhist answer requires some clarification. In the depth of human awareness is a supreme reality who is boundless in compassion and immeasurable in wisdom and who is involved in the endless activity to enlighten all existence.
Amida Buddha is this fullness of compassion, and his sole concern is the expression of unconditional love to every form of life.
Posted by: Russ at May 29, 2006 09:37 PM
Andrew Smith, I like what you say. Seems to make good sense to me .
I can never understand where Athiests get the stainless steel certainty that they base their atheism on.
TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at May 30, 2006 12:20 AM
Athiests, simply put, are fools. Not stupid, or dumb as I respect many as they are quite educated and degreed and were my prof's, but they are simply blind fools.
Well that's what God calls them (Ps 14:1).
So I'm not going to argue with my imaginary Person, who I can't prove, see, or meet with for coffee so to speak. Guess in the Athiest's minds I'm the greater fool.
How true.
Talk about imagination, some Fella died for me, a guy He never met, saw, or could prove that I would exist 2000+ years later to clean my heart from all the bitterness and hurt I garnished over 21+ years.
And God is love.
Imagine that, like love, something you can't prove, see, or meet with.
How foolish love is then, and how true.
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax7 at May 30, 2006 10:53 AM
God or should that be the Gods in all their forms must have one hell of a laugh at us mere mortals. I wonder what the betting line is in God`s world today.
Posted by: at May 30, 2006 11:25 AM
Not all athiests are fools or liberals. There are reluctant athiests who look around and can't believe a supreme being could exist capable of doing nothing more than observe the carnage. I also understand we are where we are because of organized religion and the resulting rule of law in western culture. Finally, when men the caliber of George F. Will and William F. Buckley maintain a passionate belief, one has to think long and hard about one's own lack of spirituality. At the end of the day, I enjoy "W" blessing the country as much as I enjoyed being blessed while attending a Catholic school. Who knows? There might be something to it.
Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at May 30, 2006 02:56 PM
There seems to be some misunderstanding:
"I can never understand where Athiests get the stainless steel certainty that they base their atheism on."
Atheists are (for the most part) doubters and skeptics.
Religious people, on the other hand, have (for the most part) complete faith in the truth of their particular religion.
Or, as Russell once said "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
Posted by: Johan i Kanada at May 31, 2006 08:30 AM
An atheist has faith--just not faith in the existence of super-natural entities or an after-life (other than as food for worms). An atheist will presumably have degrees of confidence based on experience, but ultimately must act on faith. As to confidence in the non-existence of God (as described by religions), an atheist feels as confident about that as he feels confident that Santa Claus is not a real entity, except in the "Yes, Virginia..." sense. Sure, an atheist cannot "prove" there is no actual Santa Claus who lives forever and speeds around at midnight, but he can be confident enough that it is a wishful (but useful) fabrication to live as though it were not true.
As for Americans saying "God Bless America!"--the expression is hackneyed and but sentimental enough to perpetuate. Atheists, after all, say things like "Thank God I'm Atheist!" It's become part of the language.
Posted by: murray at May 31, 2006 11:28 AM
You can*t possibly be an athiest. You would have to base that upon the absolute certainty of spiritual nothingness.
A depressing assumption and impossible to verify.
Thousands have seen UFOs. I was not one of them, yet I suspect it more likely that they exist rather than not.
No law against being an optimist. TG
Posted by: TonyGuitar at June 1, 2006 03:05 AM
I vehemently dislike 'God Bless Canada' as a tagline.
NOT because I disagree with referencing personal faith or a higher power. I don't.
NOT because I am personally not a Christian. I'm not, but that's ok.
NOT because it gives me creepy chills in observing yet another similarity between Harper and W. It does, but that's irrelevant.
I disagree because 'God Bless Canada' (as does God Bless America) implies that we are right, have the Lord on our side, and can therefore justify all manner of sins (bombings, invasions, manufacturing a culture of fear) in the name of some Greater Good to which we alone can lay claim.
It's a copout on the facts, a total misuse of the higher awareness/enlightenment/peace that connecting with God (whatever you call him/her/it) is supposed to bring, and it makes us look ridiculous and arrogant.
If he's looking to bring a blessing or invoke some kind of purer/higher form of thought and/or make a statement of his personal faith, how about 'God Bless us all'? 'God help us all to understand each other'? 'God, please teach us to dwell less on our differences'? 'God bless us and help us find peace'?
I personally would like nothing more than to see Harper ending his speeches with something that sounds a little more like a prayer, and a lot less like a battlecry.
Posted by: Ejdl at June 12, 2006 08:30 AM
 
|
|
