11:15 AM
Admin
I'm currently in Los Angeles visiting the grandchildren so I'm a bit more exposed to American culture than normal. I watched several discussions on the Kansas anti-gay bill on television and one thing struck me as highly unusual.
For the sake of non-Americans, let's begin with a description of the bill passed by the Kansas House, which is dominated by Republicans. Here's what Bill 2453 says ...
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender: (a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; (b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or (c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.
In other words, if you are a bigot then the state will protect you from prosecution as long as you claim that your bigotry is based on religion.
The bill was expected to pass through the Kansas Senate and signed into law by a redneck governor. Fortunately for Kansas, the Republican-dominated senate decided that Kansas should drop out of the competition for most stupid state and they declined to pass the bill [Kansas Senate Comes To It’s Senses And Nixes Extreme Anti-Gay Legislation ].
That's not what I want to talk about. What I witnessed on the American TV channels was a debate over the legality of discrimination of gays. The discussion hinged on whether it was legal for an anti-gay bigot to refuse to serve a gay couple in a restaurant or whether an anti-gay bigot could refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Almost everyone I saw on TV agreed that it was perfectly okay for Americans to be anti-gay bigots, especially if their bigotry was related to their belief in God. The only serious question seemed to be whether there were legitimate times when anti-gay bigots could express their bigotry in public.
I read some newspaper articles, and some blog posts, that stated the obvious. It is totally wrong, all the time, to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preferences. If they use religion as an excuse then they should re-evaluate their religion. There is NEVER a time when an enlightened society should tolerate, let alone legalize, bigotry. I guess it's almost impossible to come out and say this on television, or maybe I'm just watching the wrong channels (mostly FOX and CNN).
I'm reminded of a statement by Winston Churchill about Russia; "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." That's the way I feel about the United States. There's such a huge difference between Boston and Texas that I wonder how they can both continue to exist in the same country.
9:27 AM
Admin
Today's version of the Toronto Star has several articles on kindness and empathy. The feature article appears on the front page of the "Insight" section. The title of the print version is "Kindness: A fledgling movement aims to instil empathy and make us a kinder, gentler, society." The online version is How to fight meanness? Try a bit of kind.1
The article is written by education reporter Louise Brown. The gist of the article is that we need to teach empathy and kindness2 and perhaps the schools should be involved. But the main teachers should be parents.
Read more »
9:02 AM
Admin
There's a debate going on in Canada over the so-called "Charter of Values" proposed by the government of Quebec. The fact that the governing party is a separatist party (Parti Québécois) makes the debate much more interesting. (That's Premier Pauline Marois in the photo below.)
The main issue concerns how public servants present themselves to the public. The new law proposes to ban outward signs of religion on the grounds that public servants should represent a secular government. What this means in practice is that Sikh men won't be allowed to wear turbans and kirpas and Muslim women won't be allowed to wear hijabs or niqabs. Christians can't wear large crosses. Atheists can't wear a large red letter "A" on their lapel.
Opinion in Quebec is pretty evenly divided but most of the rest of Canada sees this (mostly incorrectly) as an infringement on fundamental rights and freedoms.
Atheist groups are struggling with this issue. Here's what the Atheist Freethinkers say in today's press release: The Quebec Charter of Values: A major advance towards secularism.
Montreal, 17th September 2013 — Atheist Freethinkers (LPA-AFT), an association which promotes secularism and supports the rights of atheists, welcomes the intention of the government of Quebec to adopt a so-called Charter of Values which would formally establish the secular status of the Quebec state. The project is outlined on its website www.nosvaleurs.gouv.qc.ca.
The proposed Charter would formally declare separation of religion and state, the religious neutrality of the state and the secular nature of its institutions. It would impose an ethics of restraint and religious neutrality for public servants. It would prohibit obvious religious symbols in the public service. And it would establish clear guidelines for so-called “reasonable” accommodations. Furthermore, it would make it mandatory for any client of public services to have one’s face uncovered in order to be served. All of these measures go in the direction of formalizing the secular nature of the state and assuring the independence and autonomy of the state from religion. This is very good news.
However, like most who support the proposed Charter, we do so with some reservations. Firstly, the title “Quebec Charter of Values” is very badly chosen. What Quebec requires is a Charter of Secularism, a charter which expresses values which have universal, human import, the values of the Enlightenment.
Secondly, it has not been proposed that the large crucifix be removed from the wall of the Quebec National Assembly in Quebec City. This object was installed there in 1936 by the Duplessis government of the day, with the aim of consecrating its alliance with the Catholic Church. If the crucifix is a “Quebec value,” it represents the worst possible value in this context. Its presence in the most important venue of the Quebec state is a blatant violation of secularism, a glaring symbol of non-secularism! The Charter should stipulate its removal – to a museum for instance. To leave it in place would be totally inconsistent and expose the authors of the Charter to charges of hypocrisy. However, it is important to realize that keeping the crucifix in the National Assembly is not explicitly stipulated in the proposed Charter. In fact, this crucifix is not even mentioned there.
Thirdly, the proposed ban on state employees wearing religious symbols while on duty has been poorly formulated. The plan is to include an official dress code in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, this Charter is a quasi-constitutional document and should stipulate only the principle that public servants must exercise restraint – so that public services remains neutral with respect to religion – and establish a mechanism for the implementation of this principle. The dress code and other aspects of the behaviour of public servants belong to the implementation of this principle and should not be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself. In that way, the details and timing of the implementation would remain open to democratic debate.
The draft Charter was released barely a week ago and we continue to study it. Other aspects of the project may require critical analysis. Moreover, a completely secular charter would include several provisions not included in the announced project – such as cutting public funding to private religious schools; banning prayer at municipal council meetings; banning prayer rooms in government buildings; ending religious accommodations granted for ritual slaughter of animals; prohibiting mutilation of the human body without valid medical reasons and without the consent of the adult concerned; withdrawal of the Ethics and Religious Culture program from public schools; and removal of tax incentives to religious institutions and members of religious orders. These omissions remain to be addressed.
The organization Atheist Freethinkers commends the government for its courage. We note that the government is not responsible for the inflammatory and demagogic excesses of the exaggerated political opposition that arose against its attempt at secularization, even if such excesses could have easily been predicted. This project is not an exercise in identity politics. The numerous accusations of intolerance, xenophobia and even racism are extremely dishonest and even defamatory. Nevertheless, the government could have prevented the worst and minimized the damage by avoiding any measure which the opposition might use as an excuse. Excluding religious symbols is necessary in order to ensure not only the religious neutrality of the public service but also the perception of neutrality. By the same token, the government must not only avoid identity politics but also the perception of such politics. If the proposed Charter had specified the removal of the crucifix from the National Assembly, if its authors had chosen a title with more universal scope, if the plan for gradual removal of religious symbols had been better presented, then the intellectual vacuity of the opposition would have been obvious and that opposition would have been greatly defused.
Despite our reservations, we support the proposed Charter. It could serve as a model for other Canadian provinces and jurisdictions, each adapting the Charter appropriately and provided of course that the model is improved upon – in particular by avoiding the failings discussed above.
As atheists, we greatly value freedom of religion because atheists and apostates are often among the first victims when that freedom is violated. We know that freedom of religion is incomplete or even hollow if it does not include freedom from religion. Thus secularism is important not only for us as atheists but also for believers: it is essential that public institutions, i.e. state institutions, be independent of any religion and, at the same time, that total freedom to practice the religion of one’s choice, or to practice none, be protected in the private sphere and in the public sphere outside of such institutions.
9:59 AM
Admin
Alfred E. Neuman may not have had a care in the world but most of us worry about something. John Brockman of The Edge asks his bevy of followers this question for 2013: 2013: WHAT *SHOULD* WE BE WORRIED ABOUT?.
You'd think that most of the responses would be along the lines of global climate change, poverty, disease, crime, war, or the possibility that Earth might be destroyed by an asteroid impact. You'd think that the treatment of women in third (and second) world countries and the fanaticism of religious extremists might generate more than a few responses.
You would be wrong.
Here's what the best minds in the Western world came up with. I read most of them and I don't think I'll lose any sleep over any of these worries. I will, however, continue to lose sleep over women being raped in India and young children being shot to death in Connecticut.
Chinese Eugenics
What We Learn From Firefighters
That We Won't Make Use Of The Error Catastrophe Threshold
A Fearful Asymmetry: The Worrying World Of A Would-Be 'Science'
Misplaced Worries
We Are In Denial About Catastrophic Risks
The Disconnect
Unfriendly Physics, Monsters From The Id, And Self-Organizing Collective Delusions
Worry About Internet Drivel
We Don't Do Politics
The Black Hole Of Finance
The Opinions Of Search Engines
The Mating Wars
Computer-Generated Fascism
Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Words?
Data Disenfranchisement
The Patience Deficit
The Underpopulation Bomb
Big Experiments Won't Happen
"Smart"
What—Me Worry? by Craig Venter (one of the few decent responses)
The Promise Of Catharsis
I've Given Up Asking Questions
The Anthropocebo Effect
The Relative Obscurity Of The Writings Of Édouard Glissant
The Danger Of Inadvertently Praising Zygomatic Arches
The Loss Of Death
One Universe
The Rise Of Anti-Intellectualism And The End Of Progress
Applying Classic Science To Understand "Modern States" Shaped By Crime
Lamplight Probabilities
What Is Conscious?
Men
Science By (Social) Media
Unmitigated Arrogance
Technology May Endanger Democracy
"The Singularity": There's No There There
MADness
Blown Opportunities
The Power Of Bad Incentives
Quantum Mechanics
Are We Homogenizing The Global View Of A Normal Mind?
Science Publishing
Is The New Public Sphere... Public?
World As We Know It
Stress by Arianna Huffington, who is one of the important causes of stress
Science Has Not Brought Us Closer To Understanding Cancer
Losing Touch
The Human-Nature Divide
Are We Becoming Too Connected?
Putting Our Anxieties To Work
Incompetent Systems
Too Much Coupling
Power And The Internet
Close To The Edge
The End Of Fundamental Science?
The Paradox Of Material Progress
The Fragility Of Complex Systems by Randolph Nesse, worth a read
Rats In A Spherical Trap
Close Observation And Description
Global Greying
The Fourth Culture
The Coming Fight Between Engineers And Druids
Impact
The Complex, Consequential, Not-So-Easy Decisions About Our Water Resources
Children Of Newton And Modernity
The Teenage Brain
Augmented Reality
Where Did You Get That Fact?
Social Media: The More Together, The More Alone
Is Idiocracy Looming?
The Disconnect Between News And Understanding
Objects Of Desire
Say It Ain't So
Being Told That Our Destiny Is Among The Stars
Global Cooperation Is Failing And We Don't Know Why
Morbid Anxiety
Worrying About Children
A Synthetic World
The Death Of Mathematics
Losing Our Hands
Internet Silos
The New Age Of Anxiety
Does The Human Species Have The Will To Survive?
All The T In China
Neural Data Privacy Rights
Armageddon
No Surprises From The LHC: No Worries For Theoretical Physics
Losing Completeness
Worries On The Mystery Of Worry
The Growing Gap Between The Scientific Elite And The Vast "Scientifically
Challenged" Majority
Presentism
Metaworry
Do We Understand The Dynamics Of Our Emerging Global Culture?
The Loss Of Lust
We Worry Too Much About Fictional Violence
The Consequences Of Our Increasing Knowledge Of What Causes Disease,
And Its Consequences For Human Freedom
Natural Death
C.P. Snow's 'Two Cultures': The Nature-Nurture Debate
The Demise Of The Scholar
The Unavoidable Intrusion Of Sociopolitical Forces Into Science
Who Gets to Play in the Science Ballpark
Communities Of Fate
Working with Others?
Working with Others?
Super-A.I.s Won't Rule The World (Unless They Get Culture First)
Posthuman Geography
The Danger From Aliens by Seth Shostak, way, way down on my list
The Role Of Microorganisms In Cancer Is Being Ignored By The Current Sequencing
Strategies
Human Intuitions Will Stifle Technological Progress
Illusions Of Understanding And The Loss Of Intellectual Humility
The End Of Hardship Inoculation
An Exploding Number Of New Illegal Drugs
Superstition by Matt Ridley, important but not in the top ten
History And Contingency
The Triumph Of The Virtual, And Its Consequences
There Is Nothing To Worry About, And There Never Was
The Cultural And Cognitive Consequences Of Electronics
Failure Of Genomics For Mental Disorders
Crisis At The Foundations Of Physics
The Behavior Of Normal People
Democracy
Human Population, Prosperity Growth: One I Fear, One I Don't
Magic
The Rise In Genomic Instability by Eric J. Topol, gimme a break
Can They Read My Brain? by Stanislas Dehaene, who would want to?
A World Without Growth?
The Dangerous Fascination Of Imagination
Worrying
The Gift Of Worry
Not Enough Robots
Safe Mode For The Internet?
Life As We Know I
Unknown Unknowns
Our Blindspots
The Is-Ought Fallacy Of Science And Morality
The Loss Of Our Collective Cognition And Awareness
The Decline Of The Scientific Hero by Roger Highfield, what's a
"scientific hero"?
What Is A Good Life?
Digital Tat ...
Capture
Society's Parlous Inability To Reason About Uncertainty
Fast Knowledge
The "Nightmare Scenario" For Fundamental Physics
Homogenization Of The Human Experience
We Won't Be Able To Understand Everything by Clifford Pickover,
really? that worries you?
Systematic Thinking About How We *Package* Our Worries
The Real Risk Factors For War by Steven Pinker, yes, we should be
worried about war
Worrying About Stupid
The Belief Or Lack Of Belief In Free Will Is Not A Scientific Matter
Science Is In Danger Of Becoming The Enemy Of Humankind
Living Without The Internet For A Couple Of Weeks by Daniel Dennett,
not in my top ten
.JPG)
.jpg)
dbl.jpg)
