Monday, December 27, 2010

Logic 101-Logical Absolutes

"Logic 101" is a new series that will attempt to illustrate some of the logical fallacies that many arguments, especially those regarding religion, fall prey to during a debate. 

I feel that it is important when having a debate to have a solid grasp of logical principles. While some arguments may seem iuntuitively convincing, we need to understand the fallacies that are leading you from the path of reasonable claims to the field of irrational conclusions.

So many discussions get mired in stagnancy because people unknowingly violate logical principles. Those conversations can, therefore, never bear rational fruit because of that fundemental misunderstanding.  Further, I felt it was unfair to deride those claims as irrational unless I made an effort to demonstrate how to avoid those pitfalls beforehand.

Before I get into the discussion myriad of fallacies and how to avoid them, it is important to set the tone by mentioning the oft referenced but rarely understood "logical absolutes".

The first thing that we need to get out of the way is that these rules (especially the third one) applies only to formal logic where definitions in question have been clearly defined.

I can not emphasise this enough. 
Without clearly defined terms it becomes impossible to make any logical debate work within the cloud of logical uncertainty that misunderstood terminology will create.
Once these definitions are established, then these are the three tenets by which every argument MUST abide or else they will suffer from being self evidently wrong.

ALL claims must adhere to these three rules called the "Logical Absolutes":

1.  The Law of Identity -  Something is what it is, and is not what it is not.  Aside from the equivocation fallacy (which would be covered by clear definitions at the start) this is absolute.  Things simply are what they are, and are not what they are not.  They have a clear set of properties and a very specific nature.  Something can't defy its own nature.  That is a logical absolute.

i.e.- A rock is a rock, and not a fish.  Pretty easy to accept.

2.  The Law of Non Contradiction - Something can't be both true, and not true. 

 i.e.- A chair can't be entirely made out of wood, and yet made out of entirely NOT wood.  Again, this is pretty easy.

3.  The Law of Excluded Middle -  A statement is either true, or false with no middle ground.  It is often cited that paradoxical statements need to be excluded from this rule, but that is false.  Statements like "This statement is false" violate logical (LED) principles and are, therefore, NOT valid and logical statements.  Any proposition which asserts its own negation is not logically consistent.  This kind of statement is called the Liars Paradox.  We will exclude these arguments for the informal reader.

Very dry stuff but very necessary for any logical discussion.

So to summarize, every claim must:

  1. Clearly define terms;
  2. Ensure that we don't posit claims which violate the pre-defined nature or assert properties which are contrary to previously asserted properties of that claim;
  3. Don't make contradictory statements; and
  4. Don't ride a middle ground between true and not true.  Any statement that is a logical statement is either true or false. 
There is our argument box.  Clearly (and easily) defined.

Let's try to stay within it.

Next in Logic 101:  The Strawman!

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Rational Response- "Freedom From Religion"

In my last article I wrote that referred to a public freedom from religion, in order to enable a true freedom OF religion with respect to the term "Merry Christmas".

I received a lot of critical and sometimes hateful comments about how I was trying to deny people their beliefs, and how it was intolerant to take people's religion away from them or how it was the "PC movement taken too far". 

This is a clear misunderstanding of the term "Freedom From Religion"

So this month's "Rational Response" will deal with this term, what it means for everyone, and how it is the only way to allow the most freedom for everyone to practice their own religion without interference.

In its most simple terms, no one has a true freedom OF religion if they are required to adhere to the dictates, terms, and/or practices of another religion or even if they are required to "respect" them.

In removing all religious influences from official public discourse we allow people to practice their religious beliefs unfettered (except sometimes where those practices break pre-existing laws) and to follow the demands of our own conscience, whether they take a religious form or not. 

Let me give you a couple of examples:

Let's say that you want prayer in schools.  If the government allows this for one religion, then it must allow it for all religions.

You might be OK with the Jewish child (I will forget, for the moment, about the immorality of labelling a child with the religion of its parents) praying beside your child.  That is most likely because it is the same God, very similar beliefs and a related religion to your own, but what happens when the child is from satanic parents?

Are you still OK with that child praying out loud beside your own? 

Likely not, because it violates the precepts of your own beliefs. 

What about handing out religious pamphlets to children at Hallowe'en?

It's ok, as long as they are from religions that agree or are congruous with your own, but what happens when a Wiccan starts handing out pamphlets detailing moon rituals?

Still OK?

Likely not, because that goes against your Christian morality.

How about the Muslim who wants to bless the town hall meeting for everyone with a prayer facing Mecca?

Still OK?

Likely not, because you would feel your religious freedom was infringed upon by being made to pray in a manner that is diametrically opposed to your beliefs.

What about public funding of Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Druidic, and Satanic school boards?

That OK?

Most people would say no because some of those religions stand in direct opposition to their own.

What if a law was passed allowing nudity in public on solstice days?

Starting to see the big picture?

This is the issue.  The only way to truly have freedom OF religion is to have a public freedom FROM religion. 

Remove it from public policy altogether and make it a private issue.

It is only this separation of church and state that can allow the unopposed practice of an individual's religion without encountering the influence of other opposing religions.  In order to be free to act as our concience urges us to, we must be free of laws sanctioning and condoning the adherence to ANY religious dogma.

We like to file this thinking under "Political Correctness" but that is because the majority likes to think that it has the monopoly on the "one true religion" and respecting other religions is merely a matter of an uneasy tolerance of their existence as long as it doesn't interfere with their own.

People of one religion voluntarily accept the doctrines or standards of their own religion and they don’t expect to experience conflicts with government edicts or endorsement.

This is a failure of moral imagination:

These people are unable to imagine themselves in the shoes of those in religious minorities who DON'T voluntarily accept these doctrines or standards and, hence, experience an infringement on their religious liberties through governmental endorsement of religious concepts.

The fact of the matter is that even the majority can't be free to practice as they choose as long as religion is a matter of public concern.  It will always run into conflict with the beliefs of others through the problem of government sponsorship.

If you want to have full freedom to practice your religion, then keep it at home. 

Others will do the same, and then the chances of having your religious "rights" infringed upon by another religion are minimized.

No one is pushing for a total removal of religion within the confines of "Freedom From Religion", only for a removal of it in public discourse, lawmaking, and governmental policy.

No one is calling for churches to be torn down, nor for well wishes (like "Merry Christmas") to be eliminated, or even for bumper stickers to be outlawed, just a public separation from the official endorsement of, and adherence to religious dictates.

This way everyone can believe whatever foolishness they want, and not have to complain about how someone else's foolishness got in the way of your own.

Religion is like genitalia:

It's OK to have it,
Its even OK to be proud of it,
Just keep it to yourself, and out of the faces of our children.

No one says you can't HAVE genitals, just that you can't expect public approval when you pop it out and ask others to "respect" it.

You have to remember, that other people may not share your views on genitals and they wouldn't appreciate any law that would allow you to let it hang wherever you please!

Make sense?

It's the same with religion.

Separation is the only way to stand for the rights of everyone and to get the freedom that we all want, and that we all deserve.

I will leave you with this thought about standing up for EVERYONE'S religious rights.

They came first for the communists
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me (a Christian pastor)
                         and by that time no one was left to speak up.

- Martin Niemoller

*Picture is of Bono and it is called "Coexist"

Monday, December 13, 2010

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays??

It is once again the time of year for those who are used to feeling entitled and accommodated in their religious beliefs to come out in vitriolic response to the "Happy Holiday" sentiment.

They cry;

"It's Merry CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holidays" and that calling it anything different is simply going too far with the PC movement.";

"That X-Mas is forgetting that Christ is the reason for the season.";

"Its tradition that we call it Christmas";

And what I will mostly talk about in this post;

that "Office Christmas parties are going against tradition to be called anything but "Christmas Parties"."  (Like Holiday Parties, or Festive Functions)

My response to this might be unexpected to some.

I am about to speak out in defense of the Muslims, the Jews, the Pagans, the Scientologists (ugh) and the atheists all in the same breath.

It is NOT the Office Christmas Party, unless you are working at a Christian institution.

It just ISN'T.

To say that it is, is to disrespect every person of alternate faith that works there.  It is to force them to once again accommodate the Christian majority as the only religion with merit in the company's eyes.

At my wife's work there are even people who refuse to attend this "Festive Function" because it is not being called "Christmas".


Those are not the sort of people you want at an office function anyway.

They are the bigots who are used to having their beliefs accomodated in public forum and are not amenable to now having to accomodate the feelings and beliefs of others in return. They are those with the sense of entitlement that brings difficulty to any issue. They have had their beliefs pandered to for too long, and it is time that we respect each person from each religion with the same level of effort.

Imagine your work was holding an election night "liberal party" function to which everyone was invited and then having them say it was simply being too PC to call it anything else just to accomodate the conservatives and non political people in the company (unless you are working for a soley liberal institution of course).  Each conservative would feel less like he belonged to that company because the official political view was liberal. 

Or if to celebrate Fathers Day your workplace held a "Bring your Children to Work Day" and called it "Birth Fathers Day".

Imagine how out of place all of the adoptive fathers would feel.  They would feel like their perspective just wasn't as valued at the company and by his peers.

It is the same thing.

Freedom OF religion also means Freedom FROM religion. 
And in any society it must be so.

We can't give deference to one religion by excluding all others and then make them the outsiders in doing so, while at once complaining about the PC movement for its disingenuous safety from offense.  In asking that your religion be respected to the exclusion of all others, you fall prey to the same problem.  You ask that YOUR offense be guarded against at all cost.  This is the very definition of disingenuous "respect" for religion and belief. 

Why would we do this to our co-workers, our friends, and our relatives?

There is no reason for it.  And asking for your religion to be given special exception is simply asking your company or government to place your beliefs on a higher scale than those of other employees or constituents.

There is no "PC" here at all. 

Just respect during a respectful time of year (and yes I know....ALL times of year should be equally respectful, but you get the point).  To give deference to one, gives a lower place in the institution for all others, so by not deferring to any of them, we give them all equal placement. 

If you wish me "Merry Christmas", I will say

 "Thanks! And you too",

 the same as I would for a "Happy Hannukah" or a "Happy Eide", or even a " Joyful Solstice". But for the company for whom I work for to hold a function in the name of one of these occasions over the others is not only a complete lack of effort to represent all those who represent them on a daily basis but it is an active effort to have their beliefs raised above those of their peers thereby exluding all those who don't believe as they do.

It is the difference between observing our individual beliefs, and of the institution inserting one belief system over another as the accepted one to the exclusion of all others.

It just isn't representative of everyone in that company, or constituency.

This is a special time of year for all of us, for one reason or another.

For me it is about celebrating and visiting my family and friends, for others it is about their religion, for still others it is about the bounty of nature.

And although I may disagree with their ideologies, I DO agree that they have a right to celebrate it and not be made to feel as an outsider in their own workplace. 

So lets accept the "Happy Holiday" terminology without complaint in the workplace and in government. 

No one is stopping you from celebrating Christmas, or even wishing us a merry one.

Just don't force others to celebrate your holiday in their own office space, and they won't force you in return.

This time of year contains a lot of celebrations from a lot of different backgrounds.  Let's try to remember that.

Freedom from religion.

It allows us all to live as we see fit without others forcing their views on us.

Fair enough?

I am also going to take this time to tell my wife, that I respect her for the flack that she took for standing up for the religious rights of the people at her company who would be excluded by this.  The people who argued with her had no idea that her aruments protect their religious beliefs too.

They should be thankful for someone like you, who will even stand up for the rights of those whom she doesn't agree.

Well done baby!

To everyone else?

Happy Holidays, Seasons Greetings, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Eide but most of all I wish you...


Thursday, December 2, 2010

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Holiday Edition

Its "War on Christmas"?
No, its war on foolishness
celebrate reason
ps- have a great holiday season everyone (no matter your faith or creed!)

Monday, November 22, 2010

Top 5 Wierdest Things in the Bible

There are many bizarre and nonsensical stories in the bible, but these ones take the cake!  For a book loved and read by so many, it remains as crazy as Mel Gibson on a Sunday afternoon.

In the interest of fairness Atheist Evolution contacted God for an interview to give HIS take on each of these seemingly nonsensical passages in order that he might shed some light on them.

Lets take a look at the craziest stories that theists love to forget;

Number 5- Onan's fatal twist of conscience (Genesis 38:7-10)

Crazy Level- 1 Mel Gibson.


God kills Onan's brother, then his father commands him to have sex with his brother's widow so that the brother can have an heir (?!?), and while in the act, Onan feels guilt and pulls out before he "finishes" spilling his seed on the ground.  Onan has no issue having sex with his recently murdered brother's wife (nor with the logic that says the act will actually produce his brother's heir) but only that he might impregnate her and then be a "baby daddy".   God doesn't seem to have issue with murdering people, nor with adultery or incest, but SPILLING SEED?? That is too much, so God gets all killy on him too. 

Not only does God not seem to understand how "lineage" works, (and that Onan's priorities seem a bit ... off) but you would think that if God were writing his own biography that he might leave out the parts that make him look bad.

God's official interview response;
 "I don't mind putting down some killin' on wicked people, and I certainly don't mind not killing incestuous siblings getting some sweet sweet widow, but for Onan to ruin the money shot like that?  Unforgivable!!!  We can all agree that he had to die right?"

Is he on drugs?

Number 4- Ehud and his fatty felony (Judges 3:12-30)

Crazy level- 2 Mel Gibson's

The Israelites call out to God for him to free them from the tyranny of their King of 18 years, and he sent them Ehud, apparently a master ninja (Jewjitsu?).  What was his ninja skill?  Being left handed.  He would sneak his assassin sword in the palace because apparently no one would think to look on his RIGHT thigh, because that was pretty rare for a person to be left handed.  The problem?  His left thigh is, like, 8 inches away from his right.  HOW CAN THEY MISS THAT?

But I digress....

He is sent to kill the king, so kill him he does.  When he thrusts his well hidden (right thigh?  Really?!?) sword into the fat king's belly, the story makes more about all the gravy that spills out and how deep the sword went into his belly.  (it disappears completely)  Apparently the deeper it goes, the more evil the victim. 
The REALLY strange part?  His attendants don't check on him because they think that he is relieving himself.  They think he is relieving himself with his guest in the room with him???

They don't notice his blade because it is on his right side, and then think that their king is having a poo while his guest is giving him a gift?

They are not very clever assistants are they?

God's Interview response;
"Wow, he really was a fatty wasn't he?  I had a great time setting this one up.  I mean, clearly they had the forces to take the city without killing their king (as they did it shortly thereafter anyway) but I had made a bet with Jesus about whether the fat would just close up over the sword or not.  Clearly I won.  Omniscience, hello!"

Just a strange inclusion that goes on long enough about how fat the king was that it gets awkward.

Number 3- Elisha and Gods Righteous Wrath! (2 Kings 23-25)

Crazy Level- 3 Mel Gibson's

Elisha was an ancient superhero and generally was pretty full of awesome.  He was also bald, and from this passage we get that he was pretty sensitive about it.  In his travels we find this intrepid hero victim to a group of rowdy children's insults.  They call to him "Baldy!" and "Go on up, Baldy!"  and  "Go up that hill Baldy!" get the idea.  Mostly they called him Baldy with some other words thrown in for nonsensical measure.
They weren't very clever, but it DID get under his skin.  He called to God to smite them.

Smiting?  Really? Smiting children for being, well, children??

But God didn't really do it right?  NO, HE TOTALLY DID!

He sent 2 she bears to kill all 42 children.  Mauled them to death.

And then Elisha carried on his mighty way.

What could possibly be the message here?!?

God's Interview Response;
"Yea, it might SEEM like a disproportionate response, but remember it was a different time.  A time when people were used to getting mauled by bears for the most innocent of slights.  It was also a culture that really didn't appreciate being called "baldy".  That was the worst insult of the time, and since words are power, I knew that only MY magic could counteract the powerful words that those children had thrown at my prophet.  I mean how is he supposed to continue being so badass if he is always worried about how people see his bald head?  This guy killed GIANTS for me's sake!  Clearly I needed him.  Those kids got in the way.  Mans got to protect his homies!"

Silly yet bloodthirsty, Christians love to defend and explain away such bizarre oversensitivity and brutal response.

Number 2-Noah's Perverted Son (Genesis 9:20-27)

 Crazy Level- 4 Mel Gibson's

Having been out all day long working, Noah decided that drinking was the best way to end a hard day.  (I have to agree!) He passed out as very drinky people are wont to do.  Noah was obviously a strange little dude as his drunken binge was of the naked variety and when he passed out, he passed out in clear view of anyone who would enter his tent.

Completely uncovered.

This sound like penthouse forum yet?  Well here's where we change track....
He was discovered by his son.

Did his son cover up dear ol dad to save him embarrassment?  Nope, he went to tell his brothers so that they could see their wacky daddy in all his glory.

Not TOO strange yet, but Noah's reaction suggests that he did something else too.  What did he do?  Did he just stare?  Did he enjoy his "company"?  Did he rub cheese on his genitals?  Who knows, but it was serious enough that he sentenced his brother's son to slavery!

That's it.

The whole story.

God's interview response;
"I promised Noah that I would never tell.  What happens in a man's vineyard tent stays in a man's vineyard tent."

I can't even THINK of anything that this could be trying to teach.  It is just pure 200 proof nonsensihol.

How can the Bible top all this crazy?   There is one more, read on.....

Number 1- Wives Forbidden from Brushing against the genitals of ... Her Husbands Attacker! (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Crazy Level- 5 whole Mel Gibson's!

If a man fights with his countryman, and his wife comes to pull her husband out of the fray to save him from getting pummeled,  but she accidentally grabs his junk, the punishment mandated by God is that he show no mercy......TO HER!!!  He is to cut her hand off.


The price that she pays for defending her husband is having the hand that does it CUT OFF!!!

There is no rhyme or reason for this passage, it is just mere quakery!

Seriously this is nuttier than squirrel poo, and there seems to be no connection to anything else.  Just a random toked up passage from genital hating ancients (or woman hating, depending on how you see it)

God's Interview response;
"Oh, seriously?  Are you bringing THIS one up?  Ugh, I wrote that one very early on and was just answering the prayer of a man who was embarrassed by his wife grabbing his neighbours(very small) package during a perfectly reasonable fist fight.  I never thought it would come up again. She was left handed anyway, what's the big deal?  Ah, who are we kidding?  I am just trying to keep the apologists guessing.  It's fun to see how they try to make THIS one make sense!"

I have no answer to this one.  It is just too weird!

Bible?  Come on now!  Can't you just PRETEND to make some sense, at least SOME of the time??

Monday, November 15, 2010

Questions Asked- "Are Atheists the Arrogant Ones??"

Here is a question to all the Abrahamic religions today-

Just for a better concept of scale let me set the stage for it....

The universe is 14 billion years old.
There are 400 billion stars in this galaxy alone and over 100 billion other galaxies containing an equal amount.

That is a pretty big place!

How small are we?  How self important are the Abrahamic religions to think that we are the most important things in it?

How ridiculous is it for theists to continue to call we skeptics closed minded and arrogant for asking for evidence?


Only 22% is not covered by water on our planet and of that only  15% is actually habitable. So the entire universe is created for one species of creature among billions living on only 15% of one small planet in one small solar system in one small galaxy?   Egocentric?

You claim that all that time and all that space with all those hundreds of thousands of billions of stars was created for one mammalian species among millions on one small planet in one small solar system (just because you belong to that species) yet I'M the arrogant one for thinking the universe might be grander than that?

You claim to know the will and personality (let alone the name) of the being that created all that time and space yet I'M the arrogant one for asking for evidence?

You claim to be made in this perfect beings image yet I'M the arrogant one. You claim to be able to telepathically communicate with this being yet I'M the arrogant one for wondering?

You claim that you were born into the one religion or belief among millions of religions and that yours just happens to be the right one, and I'M the arrogant one?

You claim that the creator of the entire universe alters reality, controls minds, and pushes events to change merely because you think to yourself that it would be nice, and promise to love him (prayer) and I'M the arrogant one?  

While you are thinking about that....

Here is my last thought.

According to all the Abrahamic religions God created a universe of billions of billions of stars with many planets each, and that he is actually concerned about the sexual habits of one specific mammalian species on only 15% of one specific planet in one specific solar system in one specific galaxy and sometimes about the cloth (Hijab, yammukah, or headscarf) that they wear on their craniums? 


Pretty self important claims, yet I am the arrogant one?

I think that you might have some thinking to do.

Better get to it!

Monday, November 8, 2010

Targeting Children Makes you a Predator!......You listening Ray?

Don't these kids look like lying cheating little buggers?

A few days ago I heard a knock at my door, when I answered it I was met by a friend of mine with a glean of anger in his eye, and a story to tell.

I had no idea what I was in for.

He handed me 3 small business card like items and asked me to read them.
They were, at first glance, an example of the clever IQ tests that we have all seen at one time or another.  (Read the number of "f"s in the sentence, followed by the scientific explanation as to why most people can't correctly count them.  IE- here)  They can be fun to read, but these were different.  Not only did they NOT contain the explanation as to why you got the answer wrong (removing the interesting part of these exercises completely), but what they DID contain was a message of preaching and hell.

They spoke of how we are all liars, cheats, and adulterers, and how if we got the justice that was coming to us that we would all be rightfully going to hell.

I rolled my eyes and said "Ugh, I have seen this sort of thing before"

He replied "Keep reading"

These ones were particularly insidious.  They really pushed the idea of how we are all bad people, undeserving of love or "salvation", and how what we REALLY deserved was hell and torture for eternity.

How we are all liars if we have ever told even ONE lie, or cheaters if we have EVER cheated at anything, or adulterers if we have even THOUGHT about another woman with lust in our eyes.
They really couldn't say it too much that all we really deserved was to burn in torturous pain for eternity, and that although we didn't deserve it, Jesus would save us if we loved him enough.

It was an attempt to devalue good and decent people so that their perceived need for a "savior" would be increased.

Completely immoral, but nothing new.

It was the next statement that hit me in my heart.

"Guess where I found these?"

I had no idea

"My daughters Halloween bag"

I was instantly angry.  For someone to target children with this terrible message was unthinkable to me.

He continued to tell me about how she brought these mini pamphlets to him with fear in her eyes and a question on her lips.

"Am I a bad person Daddy?  Am I going to hell?"

This is a question that no child should be faced with, because it is a question of fear and self loathing.  (and a question that puts a lump in the throat of any daddy that would hear their child ask)

This is a concept that no child should be faced with, because it is a concept meant to terrorize people into blindly being "good".

Halloween is supposed to be about fun, costumes and candy, so it was beyond me to even consider that anyone would use it as a sneaky opportunity to target OTHER PEOPLES CHILDREN for their self loathing message of terror.

If you target children in order to terrorize them for ANY purpose, then you are a predator.

That is right.  You are a child predator.  Someone who preys on children with a message of fear, and threats of torture if they refuse to believe as you do.

There are not many things that are lower than that.

It makes me sad to think of my friends daughter scared on Halloween night for all the wrong reasons.
I just don't understand how anyone can feel it is OK to tell a child how terrible a person he or she is and feel good about doing it.  It escapes me how anyone could think of a child who is too young to babysit and then think that it is OK to threaten them with hellfire and torture.

I will say it again, people who use other peoples children to perpetuate their beliefs are predators.  It is made even worse if their goal is to make them feel like bad people at tender childhood ages.  As adults we are supposed to enable their sense of self worth, and to assist them in formulating the tools to be able to think for themselves.  It goes completely against everything that makes US good people to target children with messages of hate.

SHAME on whomever put this in that little girls bag, and in every bag they had held up in trust for candy that night.  SHAME on those people for taking advantage of a fun night to twist it to your own purposes.
SHAME on everyone who feels that it is up to them to teach other peoples kids their own version of reality and a DOUBLE dose of shame for those who feel that it is their right to tell ANY children how bad they are to the core.

Understand that if you are one of these people, then you have some serious introspection to do about how you attempt to get your "message" out.
Understand that if you are one of these people who prey on trusting children to tell them how horrible they are then I have something to tell you again;

You are a predator.

But wait, there's lots of blame to go around....

There was a web address at the bottom of the card

AH!  Now it makes sense!

"The Banana man" Ray Comfort is the man behind it all.

I DO NOT want to deflect any blame from the people who actually pervert the Halloween night of fun (or any day for that matter) in order to preach this message of hell-terror and self loathing to children, but it is important to note that there are other people involved.

Ray Comfort and his ministry are the ones who recruit and condone these actions, and who actually provide these awful cards to pass out to people.  He also provides an example as to WHO should be targeted.

His is a ministry which sets up booths at county fairs where children are asked to take a test to see whether or not they are going to hell.  The answer is always "yes".
His is a ministry that targets the sick and elderly to tell them that their time is growing short to avoid going to hell.

How immoral is that?!?

He makes a practice of targeting the weak, the ignorant, and the vulnerable.

Ray, here is my message to you;

Until now I have seen you as a bit of a sideshow.

I have seen you as an ignorant preacher talking about science that you have no idea what you are talking about, as a ridiculous debater (I know that was Kirk Cameron.  He is Ray's sidekick, and Ray was complicit in the design of that graphic and in making that ridiculous point) but up until now I have never seen you as a harmful influence.
Really Ray???

Now I see you for who you are.

A predator.

Not only do you target children with your hurtful and disabling message, but you target the terminally ill and the elderly with your message of fear and terror. 

You are a machiavellian predator who feels that the ends justifies the means when it comes to spreading your version of reality.

You have every right to yell to the sky all the outrageous and ridiculous things that you want, but to be sneaky and to target other peoples children for the purpose of ideological subterfuge is immoral and when you consider the emotionally disabling nature of those messages it becomes hateful as well.

Come on now Ray.......

Making little girls cry?

Targeting the elderly and sometimes dying people to threaten them with hell so that they will "get their affairs in order"?

I am sorry to be the one to tell you.....

You are a predator, and should be watched very carefully.

If you disagree, then lets see your next blog be about NOT targeting children with messages that they can't possibly understand.  I challenge you to write about how we should teach our children to possess all the intellectual tools that they need to succeed, and leave the ideologies until they are old enough to understand them.

Lets hear you say publicly how you won't target the vulnerable, the elderly, the sick, and the young with your self deprecating messages any longer.

Ray, step up, lets see you promise to keep the discussion (and threats) where it belongs, and not target people who are too young to know better, or too infirmed to be ethically involved by you.

Because if you don't, or if you can't, then we will all be able to see you for what you are........

Do I need to say it again?

Lead pic taken from here (oh the irony)

Monday, November 1, 2010

Atheist Haiku of the Month- Remembrance Day Edition.

Atheist or not
Soldiers fight for our future
Remember them all

Dedicated to my friend "Boots" and his family.
We miss you.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Shout out to Stupid-Clint McCance

This month’s "Shout Out" goes out to Arkansas School Board member Clint McCance and his public Facebook rant about homosexuals on Spirit day.

For those of you who don't know about Spirit Day, it was a day set aside for support of homosexuals who are victim to the bullying that leads to depression and suicide.  The support came in the form of wearing purple for the day, leading some of us to call it "Purple Day".

Here is his original post on his Facebook status;

"Seriously, they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We aer {sic} honoring the fact that they sinned and killed themselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE."

This was his response to people showing empathy for the victims of hatred.
This was his response to the plights of people who had fallen to the depths of despair because of the hatred they face each day that they end their lives..
This was his response to seeing people wear purple.

My mother used to say to me "When someone shows you who they are. Believe them"

Don’t make excuses, don’t apologize, don’t let their “I’m sorry’s” make you forget who they really are.
He couldn't just stay silent in his hatred of people who are different; he felt it necessary to show us all who he was.

This is a person who represents the interests of our children (some of whom may belong to the group about whom he expresses such vile intent).  A public official who feels that an entire segment of our population should kill themselves because they don't deny who they are so that they can conform to his beliefs can't possibly feel that he is sentinel to the interests of all his constituents.  
He just can't.

Not only does he proclaim to all who will listen (his settings are private, but like many of us his "friends" list is larger than just a cozy few)  that he would actually celebrate if all the "queers" would kill themselves, 

 "The only way im wearin it (purple) for them is if they ALL commit suicide"

but he actually BLAMES them for their own plight and pain.  

"They sinned and killed themselves because of their sin"

Remember, this is the attitude of a public and elected official.  Instead of sounding like the intelligent elected official he comes off sounding like every time he speaks there should be the banjo from the movie “Deliverance” playing in the background. 
Certainly not the empathic and understanding feelings of anyone I want having any effect on my child’s education or emotional development. 

Think that he can't get any more stupid? 
Any more hateful? 
Any more ridiculous?
I hope not, because you would think wrong.
  "I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off"

So much for unconditional love!

His hatred knows no bounds and his concern about how people have sex and who they have sex with is more important to him than even his children are!

His love for his children has limits, and they come in the form of who they want to love.  The very thing that most parents wish for their children is what he puts limits on.  I wish that my son would grow up to find the love of his life, and be happy basking in a healthy relationship. 
That is my fondest wish.
If it happens to be a man, then I am ok with that.

Let me rephrase, I don’t have a right to be “Ok” with it or not, just to be happy for him. 
But THIS man doesn’t care about that.  He will throw his concern for his own children out the window the very moment that he hears that they love someone of whom he doesn’t approve. 

If he will throw his OWN children away so easily, how easily will he dump on the rights of children that he DIDN’T bear?
I know that I want the people whom I trust with my son's future to have HIS interests and rights in mind, and not with conditions that ride on THEIR beliefs but on the statutes of law and the wishes of the parents.

This man has shouted out his stupidity to all of us, and told us everything we need to know about him….

…now it’s our job to believe him. 

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Books in Review- The Bible

There are very few books that can rival the historical and cultural importance of the Bible so I thought I might read it from cover to cover and see what all the fuss is about.

Honestly aside from the literal inconsistencies and the need for a deep seeded suspension of disbelief I thought the Bible was a quality supernatural thriller to the core and a fantastic allegory for mans ability to inflict suffering on himself.

The main character in the book (God) is cleverly disguised as the all knowing, all loving maker of man to the protagonist, but he is clearly established as villain to the reader within a few short pages.

His Machiavellian scheme to create man as an Orwellian plaything for his own cruel purpose is sheer genius of story writing. It is a tale akin to Frankenstein's monster, where the monster is man as he attempts to live up to the cruel dictates of a master who created him to be unable to do so. This is evident from the very beginning as the author shows us that man is created with no understanding of right and wrong (genesis) but is still punished for disobeying the edicts of his nefarious creator.

You can almost hear Gods villainous laughter over the manipulation of man whom he created to fall for these evil traps and you can't help but wonder how he will escape such tyranny with the odds stacked so heavily against him. It is in this portion of the story that Gods complex cohort, and double agent Lucifer, is introduced seemingly to help man in his plight. He is presented to the reader as the scheming villain while he reveals Gods adroit lie regarding the tree of knowledge but quickly we can see how he is Gods accomplice in his scheme to manipulate and humiliate man for own sick pleasure. Lucifer's right hand man, the snake, helps nudge Adam through Eve (the first members of our protagonist group, “mankind” that we meet) into the trap set for them by convincing them to defy the rules and eat from the forbidden tree. He persuades them to eat the fruit so that they too can be Gods, and not knowing right from wrong, they do it.


God’s cruel plan is fulfilled and they both settle back for a good laugh at mans expense.
We are left to chuckle to ourselves as we see the humour injected in the story of our creation as he punishes them for breaking a law that they never understood was wrong. Man is sentenced to hard labour for eternity, women are sentenced to have painful childbirth woven into their design, and for the agent of Lucifer a symbolic punishment was needed to maintain the illusion of opposition to god, so the snake was cursed to crawl on its belly for all its days. Clearly this is not really much of a punishment for a snake but it is the first good humour in the book to see the snake penalized in such an overtly favourable way. This humourous irony in consequence seems to show the collusion between the antagonists against man.

The double veneer and genius in manipulation continues without much subtlety for hundreds of pages. If you are squeamish in reading about murder, selling daughters into the sex trade, human sacrifice, war, plunder, genocide, rape, infant killings, and slavery then this book may not be for you as the bible can't seem get enough of it. The masterwork of this manipulation of man comes with the fact that he now knows what good is (the forbidden tree of knowledge gave him that skill), but God still is able to convince him to partake in these terrible, immoral and sometimes nonsensical things (do not wear clothes of many fabrics?!?) in the name of love and goodness. He is like a used car salesman in that he seems to be able to cover his motives for evil so well as to bring all of mankind to his cause and convince us to buy Kia for the same price as a Mercedes. This gives the antagonist much pleasure and helps to build our sympathy for a protagonist who is doomed to play the part as marionette to a wicked puppeteer in this tragic tale.

When Gods schemes become too great and bring the world to a state of toiling in its own filth, god kills them all to wipe all evidence of his crimes with a flood and starts all over with only a very naive Noah and his family to repopulate. (With clearly no knowledge of what "incest" means)

The book slows down from time to time with a bit of drudgery as the author seems to enjoy his genealogy, but it picks back up again with the story and all its violence and unprecedented lust (the song of Solomon is NOT for the prudish!) very shortly after.

I don't want to give away the whole story of manipulation and deception, but suffice to say that in the second book God tries a new and far more subtle tactic. The genius in this new approach is that when the reader begins to find the burden of suspension of disbelief too heavy to carry, and just when he feels like Gods immorality and violence is too much for man to continue believing that God is motivated by good, he changes his approach and sends his son with his message of “peace”.  Jesus takes an outwardly gentler hand that has us falling right back in line alongside man for a while. Jesus’ motivation is given away to the reader only when, after selling his message of peace, he surprises you by reinforcing all of God's old rules.  Now with the message of peace and the continued violence from the old laws, confusion begins to grow for man.

At the end of this tragedy all of the people that remain loyal to the cruel joke in hope of the reward that God promises are guerdoned with the "rapture".  This is the ultimate realization of the tragedy as the raptured are not rewarded at all for their loyalty to their tyrant god but instead sent to an alternate dimension to continue to toil in the ego of their tormentor's selfish entertainment for all time. Those who choose not to accept his conditional, “unconditional” love find themselves in a sadistic torture pit of his making. This is the terrible secret of the book that, with God in the picture, we lose either way.

It is certainly an epic in terror and genius in character development in its portrayal of man as the eternal victim of his own making. My only real issue are the constant inconsistencies. Dates are not the same from one chapter to another, numbers of generations counted are wrong from page to page, laws and rules contraindicate, and accounts of story vary greatly depending on the author of a given chapter (The apostles). I can forgive much of this in the name of poetic license but a greater hand could have been taken in the editing process.

In the end if you are looking for a book that will bring you to the edge of your seat with terror, lust to your loins for the unbridled sexuality, rage to the fore of your emotions for the injustice and to bring tears of sympathy for mans plight to your heart, this is the book for you.

Quite simply it has all the makings of a great Roman Polanski film. Murder, conniving schemes, a powerful villain, lust, sex, sacrifice, betrayal and the hope of redemption that never comes fill this book from beginning to end.

If you can see into the allegory for our own existence and our tendency as man to work against our own best interests and past the blood and gore, then this book is a great cautionary tale. A tale that warns us of our own self destructive tendencies (represented by god) and our ability to follow without thought the edicts of an absolute morality that we seem to crave.

I give it 3 out of 5 stars with a bonus star for historical significance for a total of 4 /5.

Now back to the reading and my next project, Dianetics!


Jesus dies on page 681......

(Published in American Atheist magazine's Aug 2010 Edition)

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Dear Christians....

thanks to seculagaytheist on twitter

Purple Day Message

I stand in support of Purple Day and in proud support of those who are victimized by hatred and cowardly bullying. 

I make an effort here at Atheist Evolution to take the rational approach and not infringe on the "rights" of anyone to believe whatever they want but this is different.

Usually I just ask for a person to present the evidence and then respond by merely refuting or agreeing, but this is different.

This IS different. Yes you are allowed to speak up, but if your words are hateful, discriminatory or harmful then that respect has to take a backseat to those that you harm.

If you believe that being gay is wrong, or that I am being offensive, then I say "FUCK YOU and your beliefs".

How dare you hide behind religion or "opinion" to spread hate and expect your beliefs to be respected.
How dare you pretend that speaking about those beliefs in public is your right and that it doesn't do harm.
How dare you sit on your moral pedestal and preach the wrongs and immoralities of another person's nature
How dare you defend your right to make baseless assumptions about people and project your OWN awkwardness with sexuality on others who already feel like outsiders.

What I am trying to say is that today, I do not call for you to defend your position.
Today I say FUCK YOU and your beliefs
To hell with your "right" to believe them

Today is about not allowing bigots to judge others because of their own sexual hangups.

Each time you speak your opinion about homosexuality you push another homosexual down into the mire of shame.
Each time you assume that you know about the nature of homosexuals you force another person to feel unnatural.
Each time you fight as though your life depends on it to ensure that two people are not allowed to choose as you can, you force another human being into segregation.

People are DYING because of your beliefs.
They are sitting alone and thinking about the different ways that they can end their LIVES because they feel so alone.

Brothers afraid to speak of their nature to brothers because of how YOU make them fear the response.
Sisters afraid of how their Dad will not love them because of how YOU make them feel abnormal.
Husbands living a lie because of the life into which your words have pigeonholed them.

This goes out to every one of you, even those who think that they harm no one, or that they "love the sinner but hate the sin", or who even just think it is abnormal but don't do anything about it.
For even those who are "moderate" in their hatred are providing the framework of normality for those who are not so moderate in their hate.

Each time someone feels the sting of hatred, is the victim of homophobic violence or, in extreme cases, commits suicide you SHOULD feel shame.

But do you?
No.  You don't.

You blame it on their "troubled lives" or how "mislead" they were.

So here is my message to all you people who think that it is your "right" to believe hateful homophobic things.

FUCK YOU, and your beliefs.

FUCK YOU, and grow up.  

FUCK YOU and understand that I blame each and every homophobic one of you for the pain, the shame, the isolation and the deaths of those who suffered because of your words and your immoral beliefs.

There have been hateful people like you throughout history->

We stood up to them too.

And for for each person who thinks that my language is more offensive than the crime of one more adolescent hiding in shame and considering suicide because of another persons hateful beliefs I have two words for you.


Its time that we were ALL offended by this.

My civility is reserved for those who need to know that they are NOT alone, and that they are as "normal" as any of us.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Rational Response- Evolution and the 2nd Law

A very common argument against evolution is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.  Now I don't want to conflate evolution with atheism, because atheism has nothing to do with evolution.  There are many theists who accept evolution just as it is possible to be an atheist and not accept it. Many creationists try to do equate one with the other though and argue against evolution and then cry to the stars that they have defeated the atheists and evolutionists.

So lets put this one to bed while trying not to overstep my laymans boundaries in the process.

I am going to start to respond to some of the false assertions that Creationists make about science and evolution in particular.

This one goes- "Since the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that everything goes from order to increased chaos or entropy, evolution must be false as it goes from chaos to a more ordered state.  This is impossible, and clearly goes against the 2nd law."

Let me just say first that I am incredulous that creationists would attempt to use solid science to disprove something when it is science that they have an issue with.  Science is OK when it seems to serves your agenda?  Hypocrisy.

In any case...

This argument fails from the beginning.  The 2nd law states that entropy which is not in equilibrium increases over time in an isolated system.    How does this differ from the creationist claim?

One phrase....

"Isolated system"

Evolution is not an isolated or closed system.  Energy is injected from outside systems in many ways.  Even sunlight adds energy to that system.  If there is even one source of energy that is not from that closed or cyclical system then their argument fails.

All of these are sources of energy that come from outside the human body, but yet there is more.

The next point is that it is a societal shift in the species and not an individual change per se.  Since evolution doesn't happen at an individual level, there are many individual systems to consider and therefor each single system wouldn't relate to another as far as the 2nd law is concerned.

Evolution is driven by the survival of individuals in a species that share an environment.  Eventually, if a random mutation happens (that assists in the passage of the allele by giving that individual a survival advantage) frequently enough, more and more of this mutation will appear in that society.  As that mutation helps each individual to survive, individuals with that mutation appear more and more frequently until it becomes the norm and the species no longer resembles what it once was.

This is speciation.

It is a process driven by a multitude of systems.  None of them closed.  So if no one single organisms "systems" can have an direct effect on the process, and the whole of the process encompasses not only open systems, but a multitude of open systems, then the 2nd law is left inviolate.

I hope that I have made it reasonably clear, from a layman's perspective, how the theory of evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I am not claiming to be an expert by any means, but it is pretty obvious that this argument is based on a fallacy, possibly even a lie since it is so clearly false.  

Please Creationists....I am not asking you to change your beliefs (because of this anyway) but I AM asking you to stop using false arguments against things that seem to contradict your dogma.

Science is how we progress and it is important to humanity at large.  I am not saying that you should accept it without thinking, but I AM saying that you should stop fighting it to the point of blinding yourselves to the consequences of confirmation bias.

You hurt yourselves
You hurt your children
You hurt our schools
and you hurt progress in our society.

Find a new battleground.  Preferably one that is supported by evidence.

When you find that battleground, then lets talk.


Sunday, October 10, 2010

Thanksgiving Thoughts

This is a day that is set aside in our culture for thinking about how fortunate we are.

Usually it is partnered with religious thought, but it needn't be, and I would say that it is more appreciative when observed in a secular manner.

Appreciate your wife, appreciate your family, appreciate your friends, appreciate any fortune that fell your way this year, but if you send those thanks to someone, send them to those who deserve them.

Who is responsible for your friends, your family, and your life?

Your friends, your family and YOU.

Love is compatibility made more intense by shared and positive experience.

Who made it positive?
Who got you that job?
Who made your life worth giving thanks?

YOU did.

Your friends did.

Your wife did.

Your children did.

Thank them and leave the omnipotent entities out of it, pretty sure he didn't control those people and make them love you and I am pretty sure he gets enough attention thrown his way already without stealing kudos meant for other people.

So don't ignore the important people in your life by giving thanks to someone you have never met for things he never did.


Take a bow for what you did, say "I love you" to those who love you, and enjoy the company of those who make your life fantastic.

Peace and Love


theist or not,

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Stand up Islam!

New Zealand’s Building Minister Maurice Williamson has landed himself in hot water with the Islamic community for cracking a joke about the practice of stoning during a speech at a building industry awards ceremony last month. The Federation of Islamic Associations New Zealand feels that they are unfairly characterized by such insensitive and stereotyping comments. 

My question is;

Where is the outrage at Islam being unfairly characterized by the large sect of the Muslims in fundamental countries who actually perform these terrible actions under the banner of Islam?

Why isn’t THAT the more heinous crime?

Why doesn’t Anwar Ghani (the Federations President) hear comments like the ones the minister made and think;

 “If only the fundamental Islamic countries would stop such immoral, misogynistic, and hateful practices we wouldn’t be so unfairly characterized by the world at large.”

Instead, he thinks;

 “The Minister is espousing religious intolerance by painting us all in a negative light for the actions of those who do such things.”

On the surface I can understand this thinking, but here is the problem.

The people who do, and support this sort of thing are not few in number. 
They are not from extremist sects.
They are not from the fringe of their religion.

They are from the fundamental countries that represent Islam on a world stage.
They are from the nations that gave birth to Islam, and from whom their religious dogma flows.
They are representative of the central and world wide Muslim community.

In short they are exactly the people that we should be garnering our impressions of their religion.

If Muslims feel that they are being poorly represented by such remarks, then maybe they should send a letter to the political leaders in the fundamental Islamic nations instead and decry the acceptance of such practices as “against the spirit of their faith” or just plain immoral.

Moderate Muslims from across the world should be standing up in protest against the terrible crimes that are being committed in the name of their religion.
They should be striving to escape the stereotypes by displaying utter intolerance for the evils that take place in Islam in the countries of it's origin.
They should be publicly saying "No" and examining the Qur'an to make the same excuses that Christians make about the evils of their book.
That it is a medieval book written by medieval men, and not to be taken literally any longer.
Their voice should be crying the loudest in opposition to the crimes committed in their name, instead of saving its volume to defensively cry "foul", "unfair", and "stereotype" when people across the world notice those crimes.

Wouldn’t this be more productive than merely asking offended people worldwide to ignore all the terrible things done in the name of their religion and let everyone live free of “unfair” judgment?

If they would express offense over the archaic rituals of the fundamental and central Islamic cultures first and with the goal of ridding the world of such terrible influences, then and only then, would they have a right to express offense at being “unfairly characterized”.

And really….

Who is characterizing Islam to a higher degree?

Is it Minister Maurice Williamson with an broad stroke and stereotyping comment about Islamic atrocities, or is it those Muslims living in the countries that gave birth to Islam and who allow, condone and perpetrate such evil acts?

I think that you know the answer.

Let’s hope that Islam discovers it soon too.

Cartoon found here

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Atheist Haiku of the Month-Halloween Edition

                                                    Costumes hide us from 
                                                    Monsters in the dark of night
                                                    God and faith create them

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Quote of the day- Tim Minchin

"If I...
Stumbled on a watch I'd assume it had a watchmaker,
That a muffin presupposes a baker,
So you must agree sooner or later,
That this proves that there's a creator.
So if I put my foot in a stinker,
You'd assume the existence of a sphincter,
Thus you don't need to be a great thinker
To conclude that God's a bum."

-Tim Minchin


Here's the link

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Beyond Belief News- 20 Sept 2010

A woman in Atlanta is showing her love for her child in a very strange way this week.  She is denying her infant the opportunity for doctors to save her life, and she is doing it to avoid angering her god.   Zayna Vamer knows what is best for her children.  She knows that she is right because she did the same thing with her daughters twin a year before.  One daughter turned out ok so it MUST be ok for the other as well.

The issue?  Doctors had to obtain a court order to force the surgery for her other little girl, and she is willing to continue to defy doctors until they force her again now.  
Her only fear is that placing her children in such consistent danger will result in them being taken away.

Read the story here

What a loving parent.

This is a time where freedom of religion should find its limits.
No one should have the right to endanger their children, or ANYONE else because of their personally held beliefs.

She SHOULD fear having her children taken away.  She is allowing personal and unsupported beliefs to endanger them.

That is abuse.

Even though she is well intentioned, her children are in danger.

Right now.

As we speak, she endangers them by being a modern day Abraham and risking her children for the love of her god.

If those are her priorities, then let her have her god.  And let someone else have her kids.

Someone who will love them and be proper parents to them.

As the parent of a beautiful 7 year old boy, I can tell you that nothing is more important than his health and safety.


Not a belief.

Not a god.

Not anything.

And these children deserve to be number one too.

Here is a message to you Zayna.


If your god asks you to risk your children's health, then he is not a god that is worthy of your worship or your obedience.

If God gave you these children, and made you love them as you do, then it doesn't make sense not to question instructions that might risk that love and those children.

Zayna, please!

Stop praying for them, and start thinking for them instead.

If you can't, then I hope that someone takes them from you before you do them harm that can't be undone.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Catholic School System- Time to go!

There is something fundamentally wrong with our school system.  It is
critically underfunded.

Is there anyone who would deny this fact? 

What people don't consider in the search for a problem is that we are
currently funding twice as many school boards as we need to or even
should be funding.

We currently fund the English Public school board, the french public
school board, the English Catholic School board and the French Catholic
school board. 

We only have a need and in fact a right, to the public school system.
A publicly funded  Catholic school board is not only extraneous, but
it is unethical and most of all expensive.

Conservative estimates are that the school boards share 500 million dollars or
more across Canada for administration costs that are duplicated in a multi school board system. (70 Million in BC alone)

Catholics will cry "foul!" and many others will not see the need, but
when we examine the Catholic school boards right to existence we can see
that a public funding of such a venture is politically unethical,
financially irresponsible, and a complete violation of separation of
church and state.
Even the UN has heavily criticized Canada for its obvious Catholic
favouritism in the school system.

We continue to ignore that international ruling.

By funding ONLY catholic religious schools we are ALL paying for
Catholic education even though many of us are not catholic.  Clearly
not a fair use of funds when we are all forced to put money into a
religious education that is not of our own religion (or lack of one).
I am not speaking out against catholic schools (although I would if
given the chance.  It is childhood indoctrination),
I am speaking out against a government funded religious program. 
I am speaking out against government endorsing a specific religion.
I am speaking out against the government spending that is clearly not
representative of desires of the population as a whole.

We are not a catholic nation.

If we are to give money to the Catholics in order to both be
representative of our population and to avoid the appearance of the
government endorsed religion being Catholic, we must give money to the
Muslims, the Jews, the Mormons, the Jainists, the Scientologists, the
Sikhs, etc......

That is a very onerous task to ensure that all faiths are government
endorsed and financed.

Why support any of them?

They are free to hold whatever belief they wish, no matter how irrational and crazy I might feel it is, but for them to command 500 million dollars or more in order for them to have government funded SCHOOLS to teach those unsupported and unshared beliefs to their children is asinine and unethical.

It is discriminatory towards the other religions.
It is financially irresponsible
It is unethical to present Catholicism as the only government endorsed
It funds employee discrimination as Catholic teachers as they can apply
to ALL schools where everyone else can only apply to the public school
system.  (Catholic schools only hire Catholic teachers)  That is
discrimination based on religion.
It also goes against the idea of separation of church and state, an
ideology that must be present in all modern governments in order to
function as the voice of a very diverse people.

It is time that we do away with this financially draining, unethical,
discriminatory, middle age example of government endorsed religion in
favour of a system that will give full attention to the school system as
a whole.

After all it is only the kids who benefit from a fully functional,
educationally focused, financially stable school system.

Open privately funded religious schools if teaching
your own children what you want them to believe is too much for you to do on your own, but
don't ask the government to provide what you are too lazy to give them.

In a system divided by religious fault-lines where everyone suffers from
critical underfunding, lets put all of our eggs in one basket.

A secular basket.

That is the only way to be fair to everybody and to truly represent the Canadian populace without discrimination.

Indoctrinating your children with your privately held religious beliefs is clearly not the governments responsibility and the children are suffering in a school system whose funding is divided.

Why not think of them, and do what is right?

One school system for all and everyone wins.

Cartoon found here