Thursday, 19 January 2012

Oh Good, It's A Boy! (Now We Can Keep Him)

My 4 year old says to me, "daddy, mommy's baby inside her tummy is alive and not dead". 
I said, "you are correct Alexis, our baby is alive". 

Notwithstanding incredible circumstances (mother or child is about to die, pick one to live or both will die...for example), how is choosing to end the child's life moral?  I get the evolutionary/atheist idea that morals can't be created ex nihilo from matter exploding causing billions of years of progressive chain reactions leading to human life.  Is it an evolutionary argument that abortion is not immoral?  What is the actual argument? 
The 'theistic' (Christian) argument is fairly simple;

God created the universe.
God Loves people and places a high value on people.
God asks us not to murder (declare unwarranted judgment over another person and end their life)
   Example of unwarranted judgment: ending the life of someone because they cheer for the Toronto Maple Leafs...murder.
    Example of warranted judgment and therefore not murder:  robber about to slash families throat, has knife out and is 4" from first victim and declares all in the house will die.  Cops 10 minutes away.  He placed himself in a position of being judged, therefore you stop him from killing your family.  The degree required to stop his actions were the ending of his life.  That is not murder according to God as he placed judgment on himself (Exodus 22:2-3).
Life begins at conception, therefore do not place unwarranted judgment to end the child's life.

What is the non-Christian perspective?  Sincerely asking...

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Religion/Education, 1 Brand Fits All?

I pointed out the silliness of this pic in the last entry. I will now extend my point to the absurdness of claiming it is possible to leave out religion in publicly funded schools.

Welcome to the planet Skittles.  We want you to weigh in on the religiously charged education war.

Meet Ted.  Ted is an active member of the Wax-Waz religion.  Ted believes that all children need 40 lashes for every test they fail in school.  This is so children will learn to do well in school, which is a critical element of pleasing "Hum-Ho"…the god of education.  Ted is furious. Despite 75% of the nation agreeing (from the Country Skittles) with the Wax-Waz religion and it's practices, there is a strong movement in the Skittles Education system to abolish all lashings for children who fail tests (1 government system for entire country).

Meet Lucy.  Lucy is an active member of the ListerBlue religion a clear minority in the land of Skittles (20% subscribe to this religion).  Lucy believes that lashing children is evil and advocates a zero tolerance lashing policy.  The ListerBlue's god of education condemns violence to children for failing tests and any violence on children brings the curse of the god upon the farmlands of the nation.  Lucy is protesting the existing education laws and leading the charge to abolish lashings.

Finally, meet Samantha.  Samantha is the leader of the atheist movement (the remaining 5% of Skittles).  She believes that religion should be separated from education and plans to solve the 'religious squabbling'.
It seems like Samantha has problem: how do you keep religion out of school when:

1. Children are in school representing all 3 belief systems of Skittles.
2. Children are either lashed or not lashed (True by definition)
3. Either religion A (lash children) or Religion B (no lash children) is 'held up' in school. (True from 1 and 2)
4. Samantha cannot say, 'don't lash children, and I am saying this for non-religious reasons', because 75% believe it's anti-Wax-Waz and pro ListerBlue
5. Samantha cannot say, 'lash children, and I am saying this for non-religious reasons', because 20% believe it's anti ListerBlue and pro Wax-Waz.
6. The atheists 'motives' is well and good, but clearly impossible to separate from the very grain of thought from either the Wax-Waz or ListerBlue clans. (from 5 and 6) 
7. There is no 'middle road'.  Either one religion gets their way, or the other one does.  Playing the 'religiously natural' card is logically impossible. (1-6)

It seems logically impossible to 'keep religion out of (taxpayer funded, 1 brand fits all) school' where we know the following:
 Two different religions claim truth in an area that impacts their children's education and those views are in direct conflict…(case in point above).  Therefore, in so much as issues arise and competing religions have views on such issues, there will always be religious involvement in education both on Skittles, and in Canada: necessarily.

Therefore, the question is not, 'how do we separate religion and education', but rather, what are we going to attempt to call 'neutral' and how do we play out the balancing act of a 1 brand fits all education when we know full well, we are actually choosing one religion over another? 

Monday, 16 January 2012

Another Try/Fail Swipe At Religion

So what exactly is the argument?
1. The religious right wants prayer in tax payer funded schools.
2. An incredibly small minority teaches hate (not love).
3. Therefore having prayer can be dangerous.

Or perhaps;
1. The religious right wants prayer in tax payer funded schools.
2. The right wants to impose their agenda on 'the rest of us'.
3. Imposing agenda's (especially through prayer) is dangerous.

Whatever #2 is (In Syllogism A or B), it seems the common points are premise 1 and the conclusion.  In essence, the religious right makes a request for prayer and that is dangerous.

The same 'logic' can be used to debunk the very position this artwork is depicting:

1. The non-religious left (stereotyping for sake of simplicity only) does not want prayer in taxpayer funded schools.
2. Prayer is a powerful force for helping the majority of people love, relate, learn and operate in humility.
3. Therefore not having prayer can be dangerous.

The non-religious left does not want prayer in schools
The left wants to impose their agenda on the rest of us
Imposing agendas (especially without the direction of learning to love through prayer) can be dangerous.

The photos do not say much of anything except the 'artists' inability to clearly articulate a meaningful position.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain