rwmtest

Many people will already know the connection between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Until recently I hadn't given it much thought. I grew up in a Christian family.  My father was Seventh-day Adventist, my mother Catholic, and they then moved together to a United Church. I live within a Christian Country -- meaning that the Government promotes and includes Christianity within it, not that every Canadian is Christian. When I was a child and told about Judaism, I was told that they were in some way wrong. I was too young to question, so I took it on faith along with everything else I was taught as a Christian. Later in my youth when I was finally told about Muslims, I was told they were dangerous. I was told that "we" fought the crusades against "them" so that "they" would not kill all of "us". As a young adult I was told I should have Judeo-Christian values, suggesting that the underlying values of Judaism and Christianity are the same and ...

When I think of religion and its impact on politics, I look at a few criteria: Is the religion hereditary, or does it increase membership through conversion. How aggressive is the conversion, and how do they treat people who don't convert? Is it an example of spirituality, or does it contain a hierarchical political force?  Does that political force have state aspirations? How populous is the religion, and thus how much influence can it exert on global politics? Only 3 religions (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism) currently have populations above 10%, and thus those are the religions that concern me the most. While it is fortunate that none of these religions have achieved 50% of the global population, it would be incorrect to think of any of these religions as minorities.   Consistent with my antiracism reading this year, I remain focused on systems.  I don't think about individual practitioners, where they live, or where their ancestors came from (and thus skin melanin)....

I have noticed a specific example of the association fallacy  in the discussion of Quebec's   Bill n°21 : An Act respecting the laicity of the State  ( Official Status legislation ). This bill discusses which subset of persons providing provincial services must offer that service with their face uncovered, and a further smaller subset that must do so without wearing religious symbols. I invite people to read the bill, as much of what is being said about the bill in the media and by opponents is misleading. The logical fallacy is this: since Premier Francois Legault has been unable to recognize systemic racism in Quebec, then a bill respecting the laicity of Quebec must be racist. Mr. Legault's failure is a common one.  It is discussed by Robin DiAngelo in White Fragility .  Whites and white societies (like colonial Canada) have tunnel vision because of their adherence to individuality and objectivity, two pillars of white privilege. Until they remove t...

While the "very fine people" meme about Trump isn't entirely accurate , it is accurate to suggest Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is guilty of worse.  Trudeau tried to suggest false relevancy when he offensively included the suggestion that "freedom of expression is not without limits" when discussing a teacher being beheaded as an act of terrorism. Suggesting that the teacher who was murdered had any fault at all is more dangerous than negotiating with terrorists, and grants power to that terrorism. This should not be tolerated, and I am glad that many people are condemning Justin Trudeau for this.     My position on tolerance of religious influence on governments and politics has been clear.  I am a strong supporter of secularism , which is the separation of church (the threat) from a democratic state (what needs to be protected). My beliefs aren't tied to any specific religion, but on how hierarchical and powerful a political structure exists, and...

Albert Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." While I couldn't articulate why, I have been skeptical of movements such as eco-capitalism and eco-socialism for a long time. I have even been skeptical of the potential effectiveness of the Green New Deal. With my recent anti-racism training I believe I've figured out an important missing piece in my own thinking.   I was stuck inside the bubble of a "western worldview", and could not figure out any way to effectively solve environmental problems within that bubble.   Bob Joseph, author of a few books I would recommend , provides a simplified summary of some of the differences between indigenous peoples worldviews vs western worldviews . Those differences that are not directly related to our relationship with our environment have come up in other materials I've read/watched relating to anti-racism. Indigenous worldviews (I) vs Western worl...

This is based on something I wrote as feedback after listening to a Canadaland episode . I was cringing during parts of your discussion with Former Executive Director of the World Sikh Organization Jaskaran Sandhu.  I thought I would offer a different perspective. The term secularism has been co-opted recently by those with a very specific political viewpoint that differs from the secularism movement. They are suggesting that secularism is the separation of state from church , meaning only that the state doesn't intervene in the church. The term is more broadly understood to be the separation of church from state , meaning that it was understood that over humanity's history that it is the church that is the aggressive entity that needs to be removed from any attempt at fair/impartial governance infrastructure. Some shortformed it by saying " separation of church and state ", to include both the times when the state was the aggressor as well as the more common situatio...

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.” - anonymous judge. It has always been the case that rights cannot be treated as absolute, and that one right must end where exercising that right infringes upon someone else's rights. This debate is in full swing in Canada as it relates to the religious rights of employees providing provincial services and the sometimes conflicting rights of the public that receives these services. On June 16, 2019 Quebec passed Bill n°21 : An Act respecting the laicity of the State  ( Official Status legislation ), which discusses which subset of employees of provincial services must offer that service with their face uncovered, and a further smaller subset that must do so without wearing religious symbols.   The idea is simple:  when employees are within specific positions they have an additional duty of impartiality, and must not only be impartial but be seen by those receiving the service to be impa...

I've commented on the political right and center , and will offer some personal comments on the federal Canadian left. As I mentioned with the first posting, I don't vote along party lines.  My vote for a candidate nominated by a party, or even a financial contribution to a candidate, is not in any way an endorsement of the party.  I believe nearly every party has great candidates (some of which I hope become or remain MPs), and they also have horrible candidates (who I hope don't get re-elected or elected).  Party affiliation alone doesn't mean anything to me. New Democratic Party I have donated hundreds of dollars to NDP nominated candidates because I wanted them to continue to sit in parliament, and I have donated to the campaign of an NDP nominated candidate who was the most likely candidate to oust a bad candidate (who happened to be nominated by the Liberals). Of the parties long-term parties that nominate candidates where I live (PC which morphed into Conservati...

The following is an edited version of a comment I added to a National Post story:  Liberals called it ‘incomprehensible,’ but professor flattered his formula was used in electoral reform debate The Gallagher Index only measures the disproportionality of an electoral outcome based on presumed support for political parties. It assumes support for parties that doesn't always exist on a ballot that doesn't separate parties from candidates, it doesn't measure a voting system only estimates of the parliament potentially formed by a voting system, and it doesn't measure any other type of disproportionality. Imagine you believed in secularism and someone came up with an index based on religious beliefs.  You would likely be quite offended by the index. This is how non-partisans, people who don't vote along party lines, will feel about the Gallagher Index. It appears to be being wielded not as one tool among many in a toolbox, but as a sword to disenfranchise non-partisans...