« Home | Just in case... » | A telling reaction to Hamas » | Get ready... » | A quick riff on a Tory plan » | Holy bowouts, Batman! » | Liberals and NDP: fight to the death? » | A question about the CPC day care proposal... » | Far be it from me to advocate vandalism... » | That's what I like about the maritimes... » | Manley's out. »

Freedom sometimes means...

Listening to people saying things that you don't like.

I have not posted anything about this whole Mohammed cartoon thing because I wasn't sure what exactly I felt about it. Initially, I thought was it was hypocritical that it was okay in a freedom-of-the-press sort of way to insult Moslems, whereas I haven't seen too many European papers mocking Jews lately. But then, I got thinking that Arabic newspapers are probably doing that all the time (hell I would if I was Palestinian), so fairness is not the real issue here.

It was watching some of the images of the protest on CNN and reading a bit more that it dawned on me that these protesters really are calling for deaths as some form of compensation for their sleight. I have no doubt that much of this is an orchestrated anger - a politically motivated offense much like the Bush Administration using references to 911 to continue to stoke the victim mentality that allows the American electorate to condone maintaining a war footing. Yes, when I saw the placards calling for the deaths of these writers, I finally realized what it is that really bugs me about all of this.

Religion.

We need to have freedom from religion, and soon. I appreciate and applaude the efforts of the Canadian populace to maintain a true separation of Church and State, however I am starting to think that a pluralistic, egalitarian society is not possible if religions are given free reign. And yes, I see the contradiction in the statement, "an egalitarian society should not allow religion" and don't really know what to do about it. I think that somewhere in the back of my mind I have this idea that religions are cultural forms that we will eventually evolve out of or something. I have no idea if that's true or not, but I'm willing to entertain the idea. And hell, it's fun to just put the words "religion" and "evolve" in the same sentance now and then.

Religions are incompatible with true democracy becasuse a belief in the afterlife trumps misery in this one. When we elect members of parliament to represent us, when we pay our taxes, when we support charitable organizations, we attempt to help construct a better world for us and those around us. One purpose, I would argue the greatest purpose, of government is to provide services for the population that individually we could not support - we can't all have snow plows and doctors on call. Religion, through promises of a better afterlife, or a better next-time-around, or whatever, allows us to accept less in this life than we should, thus our government is let off the hook in ways that it shouldn't. "Oh, that poor little child died hungry in the street. God will look after him." No he won't and you should be ashamed to think foolishness like that lets you off of the hook.

We need freedom from religion now. Does it not bother anyone that the President of the United States, the man who has his finger on the button, believes that there is a coming Armageddon, and that it is a good thing?

And now we have Stephen Harper saying "God Bless Canada" after his speeches. That's a nice sentiment, Mr. Harper, but let's leave it at that, shall we?