[WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS DISTURBING DETAILS OF A CRIME AGAINST A CHILD]
I hesitate to write this post because I don't agree with the excessive amount of media attention given to psychopaths who do very evil things. I think that school shootings and the like are massively over-reported in the media and I think that the exposure is likely a contributing factor that leads to them in the first place. Disturbed young people often seek attention. If they feel powerless and empty in their life, they may feel that, no matter how destructive their actions are and no matter what the long-term consequences are, some media glory is worth it. And, in the case I am about to write about, this seems to be the case. This case has been over-reported in the Canadian media and the perpetrators, in my opinion, should disappear from the public eye forever.
In April 2009, a little 8-year old girl was walking home from school in Woodstock, Ontario. She was abducted by an 18-year old woman, Terri-Lynne McClintic, and taken to a waiting car in which sat 28-year old Michael Rafferty. McClintic pleaded guilty to first degree murder and is serving a life sentance (which in Canada means no chance of parole for 25 years). Rafferty was recently found guilty of first degree murder by a jury of his peers and was sentenced by a judge to the same fate. Rafferty in particular is unlikely to ever be released from prison.
McClintic is not the kind of girl you want your son to bring home to meet mom. She was a drug abuser, violent, and had a criminal history. Rafferty seems even worse, a predatory psychopath who "dated" (i.e. had sex with) over a dozen women, including McClintic, in the spring of 2009. His extensive sexual escapades appeared insufficient, however, and he desired to have sex with a child. He downloaded child pornography, and eventually determined that he needed to actually go through with his fantasy of pedophilia and so convinced McClintic to help him abduct poor innocent little Tori Stafford. McClintic convinced Tori to get into the car, and then Rafferty drove them to a hardware store to buy a hammer and garbage bags for the gruesome murder that they planned with forethought for poor Tori. McClintic and Tori waited in the car while Rafferty went in and bought the murder weapon.
They drove Tori to a secluded spot 100 km from her home and Rafferty repeatedly raped her while she pleaded with McClintic to make him stop. Then, one or the other or both of McClintic or Rafferty repeatedly hit Tori in the head with the hammer and killed her. They put her body in the garbage bags, covered it with some rocks in a field and left it there.
For three months Tori's parents, family, and friends wondered what had happened to her. For three months they went through every parent's nightmare of not knowing what happened to their child. Then, eventually, a police officer got a lead and found Tori's remains.
I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but this case certainly had me re-thinking my position. I don't think Rafferty or McClintic are capable of rehabilitation. I don't think they've shown the slightest sign of any remorse. I'm not convinced they even acknoweldge to themselves that what they did was wrong. I am convinced that if they were given the chance to do something similar again, they would. These two individuals have no place being free in our society. The judge, when sentencing Rafferty, called him a monster. I would agree. Were I Tori Stafford's father, I would have probably dedicated my life to finding a way to kill the man. Even now, I would probably dedicate myself to finding a way to kill him if he is ever released from prison. That's just a natural fatherly instinct. No scumbag deserves to live after doing that to your little girl.
Now to the point of this post. As I say, I hesitate to even write this post because people like McClintic and Rafferty deserve to spend the rest of their miserable lives in anonymity in prison. Never again should their names appear in the media. They should spend 24 hours in a cell contemplating their evil deeds.
With one little caveat. I believe it is worth studying these types of psychological monsters. As a society we do need to understand where these types of people come from. What makes a person like McClintic or Rafferty? Are they born that way or do they develop that way through some terrible combination of personality and upbringing? I think these are questions worth knowing so that we can identify others in the same boat and try to offer them the help they need before they do similar evil things in our society. Wouldn't it be a great small positive note to this tragic, horrible story if a psychologist finally broke through into McClintic's psyche and understood where she went wrong and then some parent somewhere recognized the same destructive path in their child and fixed it? Wouldn't it be great if we could use this case to prevent another child like Tori Stafford from suffering the same fate?
I am not promoting rights for the perpetrators. I am not promoting a public examination of these monsters, or providing them with the publicity they probably will want once they are serving their sentences. What I am suggesting is that we need to find a way to understand what causes an 18 year old woman and a 28 year old man to go so completely off the rails that they would be capable of destroying an innocent life. Most of us cannot imagine performing such incredibly evil and horrible things. Just saying: "Lock them up and throw away the key" isn't going to prevent the next one. Instead I say: "Lock them up and throw away the key, and at the same time let's spend some effort on understanding what created such monsters."
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Whatever you Believe, Don't Waste Your Life
Recently, in Nova Scotia, a teenaged high-school student was told he could not wear a T-shirt to school with a slogan that read: "Life is Wasted Without Jesus." The story developed some more from that with the teen insisting he would only come back to the school if he was wearing the shirt. Eventually the school board relented and allowed the teen to wear the shirt, but it seems that some sort of tolerance discussions were included to help students understand diverse points of views in terms of relgions, politics, etc.
Judging by the comments on many of the news websites on this story, initially there was a public outcry that the teen should be left alone and that wearing the T-shirt was his right in a country with freedom of religion. A few dissenting voices pointed out that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but in my opinion the public perception was overwhelmingly in support of the boy's right to wear the shirt. I didn't have particularly strong feelings about it. If I had seen a teen wearing a shirt like that in public (or in a school) I wouldn't have been offended, but I would likely have felt sorry for them. However, I do feel that the shirt is potentially more offensive than it could be since it openly states that you are wasting your life is you don't have a particular religion. This is quite different than a shirt that states something along the lines of: "I love Jesus" or "I choose to follow Jesus" or something along those lines. The difference, of course, lies in the finger pointing towards someone else being wrong and wasteful of their life. This part of the story could probably be argued back and forth. I don't consider it a huge deal. As I say, I probably wouldn't be offended by the shirt, though I do feel that it is out of place in a publicly funded educational institution.
The problem emerges when we see the follow-up story about the boy's father pulling the teen out of school. All of a sudden we realize we are not dealing with a peaceful, loving family that simply wants to have their religious beliefs respected and tolerated, and who are also willing to respect and tolerate the diverse beliefs of others. Instead we get this father driving up to the school, refusing to engage with the public or answer any questions, making his own statement with Bible in hand, and taking his son out of school because they are engaging in "extra-curricular" activities that are not "good old fashioned academics" such as reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. Clearly the father has no idea what education is, to begin with, and he also is a very intolerant man. He isn't interested in a society that respects diverse points of view. This is not about having a society in which there is freedom of religion, it is about having a society in which he can display his own religious point of view but is not open to hearing (or allowing his son to hear) others' points of view. Part of education, a big part, is learning about the world we live in and how other people think. Learning about other cultures, poltiical systems, and religions, is a genuinely valuable part of education. Education is much more than simply learning the Three R's. This school board has gone out of their way to accomodate a potentially explosive issue. They have taken what I believe to be a mature and respectful approach in allowing the teen to wear his shirt, but to include some education on tolerance and religion to help deal with the diverse opinions involved. But this father has specifically rejected this tolerance and education by taking his son out of the school saying essentially that he will only bring his son back to school if they allow his son to wear his religious billboard without having to hear anyone else's point of view.
This seems to be a classic case of what I was writing about when I wrote about shining religious lights in society. I prefer my dark light.
Judging by the comments on many of the news websites on this story, initially there was a public outcry that the teen should be left alone and that wearing the T-shirt was his right in a country with freedom of religion. A few dissenting voices pointed out that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, but in my opinion the public perception was overwhelmingly in support of the boy's right to wear the shirt. I didn't have particularly strong feelings about it. If I had seen a teen wearing a shirt like that in public (or in a school) I wouldn't have been offended, but I would likely have felt sorry for them. However, I do feel that the shirt is potentially more offensive than it could be since it openly states that you are wasting your life is you don't have a particular religion. This is quite different than a shirt that states something along the lines of: "I love Jesus" or "I choose to follow Jesus" or something along those lines. The difference, of course, lies in the finger pointing towards someone else being wrong and wasteful of their life. This part of the story could probably be argued back and forth. I don't consider it a huge deal. As I say, I probably wouldn't be offended by the shirt, though I do feel that it is out of place in a publicly funded educational institution.
The problem emerges when we see the follow-up story about the boy's father pulling the teen out of school. All of a sudden we realize we are not dealing with a peaceful, loving family that simply wants to have their religious beliefs respected and tolerated, and who are also willing to respect and tolerate the diverse beliefs of others. Instead we get this father driving up to the school, refusing to engage with the public or answer any questions, making his own statement with Bible in hand, and taking his son out of school because they are engaging in "extra-curricular" activities that are not "good old fashioned academics" such as reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. Clearly the father has no idea what education is, to begin with, and he also is a very intolerant man. He isn't interested in a society that respects diverse points of view. This is not about having a society in which there is freedom of religion, it is about having a society in which he can display his own religious point of view but is not open to hearing (or allowing his son to hear) others' points of view. Part of education, a big part, is learning about the world we live in and how other people think. Learning about other cultures, poltiical systems, and religions, is a genuinely valuable part of education. Education is much more than simply learning the Three R's. This school board has gone out of their way to accomodate a potentially explosive issue. They have taken what I believe to be a mature and respectful approach in allowing the teen to wear his shirt, but to include some education on tolerance and religion to help deal with the diverse opinions involved. But this father has specifically rejected this tolerance and education by taking his son out of the school saying essentially that he will only bring his son back to school if they allow his son to wear his religious billboard without having to hear anyone else's point of view.
This seems to be a classic case of what I was writing about when I wrote about shining religious lights in society. I prefer my dark light.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Insecurity: The Unifying Theory of Humanity?...Part II
I've written previously about how I theorize that insecurity drives human behaviour. When you look around society, much of the behaviours you observe are largely driven by a need that people have to be percieved as important, or to add some value to their lives. At the most basic level, one can look at a young man driving a muscle car and ponder what he is compensating for. (Indeed, Pontiac Trans Ams and Chevy Camaros used to be called "penis extenders" in honour of this theory). You can go into many gyms or fitness centres and watch young people spend hours and hours of their lives trying to get just a bit "better looking". Young men and women who don't realize that they already have virtually flawless bodies will spend hours of time trying to get even thinner or even more muscular. It is an absurd phenomenon, but it is easy to comprehend when you understand that those young people are deeply insecure about themselves and their actions are largely driven by their insecurity about how people percieve them.
Observing and understanding the obsessive behaviour of gym rats or muscle car enthusiasts is one thing, but what about world leaders? Do you look at Barack Obama, David Cameron, or Stephen Harper and think much the same thing? Likely not. You may even be tempted to look at a man like Barack Obama and admire his incredible self-confidence. He might seem like a fulfilled man who is on a mission in life to make the world a better place. But is he?
I think that many politicians go into politics because they want to make a the world a better place. Or, to be more accurate, they go into politics because they think they want to make the world a better place. There is an important distinction. Many politiicans go into politics because they genuinly think they want to make a difference and they think they have some ideas about how to make the world a better place, but the actual driving force for them to act out on those ideas is insecurity. Deep, deep inside, most people want to feel good about themselves because they are deeply insecure about how they are perceived. If Barack Obama was completely secure and confident in who he is, why would he be motivated, at the most raw of human motivations, to get up and give speech after speech about how the world should be? He wouldn't. He's simply go on with his life, trying to make a difference, but needing no recognition for his contribution to this world. No, most politicians need that public recognition that they are doing the right thing.
Now most politicians may not be inherently evil people who want to go off to war and kill thousands of people. But what happens when almost everyone who goes into politics does so because they are deeply insecure about themselves? You have a pool of people, from whom the leaders emerge, all of whom have this deep insecurity about themselves. The most insecure ones are the most driven for acceptance and recognition by the world and therefore are the most likely to end up as the leaders of parties or of countries. As a result, the prime ministers and presidents of this world are mostly deeply insecure men in dire need of penis extension. Narcisists and megalomaniacs, who suddenly have access to billions of dollars and lots of military equipment, and faced with crisis after crisis around the world. Married to this insecurity is the genuine belief that they can make the world a better place, so off they go to do so, even if the path to a better world is very bloody. George W. Bush is the classic example of what I'm talking about here. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to undersand the deep insecuriteis that Bush Jr. suffered from. One can see his longing for paternal approval and recognition. And the whole world witnessed and suffered the results.
So who is the opposite of this model of political leader? Perhaps the Dalai Lama. Though I am an atheist and I think many of the Dalai Lama's beliefs are preposterous and baseless, you have to admire his peaceful approach to life that seems to be rooted in a very secure feeling about himself. He doesn't strike you as the kind of bloke who, if given the nuclear codes and the keys to all the military might in the world, would go on a mission to liberate Tibet by force. I don't get the feeling that the Dalai Lama has a deep seeded need for societal and historical recognition.
I'm not finished with this post but, after letting it sit for a couple of days, I have nothing further to add at this point. So, I'll leave Part II here and come back to my theory in the future.
Observing and understanding the obsessive behaviour of gym rats or muscle car enthusiasts is one thing, but what about world leaders? Do you look at Barack Obama, David Cameron, or Stephen Harper and think much the same thing? Likely not. You may even be tempted to look at a man like Barack Obama and admire his incredible self-confidence. He might seem like a fulfilled man who is on a mission in life to make the world a better place. But is he?
I think that many politicians go into politics because they want to make a the world a better place. Or, to be more accurate, they go into politics because they think they want to make the world a better place. There is an important distinction. Many politiicans go into politics because they genuinly think they want to make a difference and they think they have some ideas about how to make the world a better place, but the actual driving force for them to act out on those ideas is insecurity. Deep, deep inside, most people want to feel good about themselves because they are deeply insecure about how they are perceived. If Barack Obama was completely secure and confident in who he is, why would he be motivated, at the most raw of human motivations, to get up and give speech after speech about how the world should be? He wouldn't. He's simply go on with his life, trying to make a difference, but needing no recognition for his contribution to this world. No, most politicians need that public recognition that they are doing the right thing.
Now most politicians may not be inherently evil people who want to go off to war and kill thousands of people. But what happens when almost everyone who goes into politics does so because they are deeply insecure about themselves? You have a pool of people, from whom the leaders emerge, all of whom have this deep insecurity about themselves. The most insecure ones are the most driven for acceptance and recognition by the world and therefore are the most likely to end up as the leaders of parties or of countries. As a result, the prime ministers and presidents of this world are mostly deeply insecure men in dire need of penis extension. Narcisists and megalomaniacs, who suddenly have access to billions of dollars and lots of military equipment, and faced with crisis after crisis around the world. Married to this insecurity is the genuine belief that they can make the world a better place, so off they go to do so, even if the path to a better world is very bloody. George W. Bush is the classic example of what I'm talking about here. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to undersand the deep insecuriteis that Bush Jr. suffered from. One can see his longing for paternal approval and recognition. And the whole world witnessed and suffered the results.
So who is the opposite of this model of political leader? Perhaps the Dalai Lama. Though I am an atheist and I think many of the Dalai Lama's beliefs are preposterous and baseless, you have to admire his peaceful approach to life that seems to be rooted in a very secure feeling about himself. He doesn't strike you as the kind of bloke who, if given the nuclear codes and the keys to all the military might in the world, would go on a mission to liberate Tibet by force. I don't get the feeling that the Dalai Lama has a deep seeded need for societal and historical recognition.
I'm not finished with this post but, after letting it sit for a couple of days, I have nothing further to add at this point. So, I'll leave Part II here and come back to my theory in the future.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
What is Atheism VI: Believe it or Not, We Don't Believe God Exists
Many, perhaps most, Christians seem to think that atheists are grumpy, selfish people who are angry with God and who have gone off in a huff to spend their lives as they wish in some sort of mimicking of parent-child relationship gone wrong. This perception stems from the fact that Christians have a very difficult time understanding the point of view that atheists have towards God: that he simply doesn't exist. The parent analogy is a good one because everyone has or had a mother and father at some point. Even if your parents have passed on, they did exist. If you chose not to relate to them, it doesn't change the fact that they existed. So the common habit of applying the father figure role to God leaves Christians unable to appreciate the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. My relationship with my own father is not great. Cue the amatuer Christian psychologists who will undoubtedly think they've stumbled upon the reason for my rejection of God. But that is just the point. I have not rejected God. I have rejected the very idea that God exists. I don't go around with a grudge towards God, and hope that I can punish him for my indoctrinated childhood by pretending he isn't there. I actually don't believe he is there. That is the fundamental difference.
This crucial point about understanding atheism is very, very difficult for Christians to grasp. Their whole life they have been told that God is with them in every thought, action, word, every moment. To grasp this notion that someone else does not believe God exists, is more than difficult.
Sometimes I think in sarcastic terms about what some Christians must think my position on religion is. I assume it goes something like this:
I know that God is there. I know that he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, so I know that he sees everything I do and think. I used to be a Christian and I know the Bible well, so I know that there is a heaven above us and a hell below. I know that Satan exists and he is constantly trying to tempt me to sin. Ultimately, Satan would love for me to reject God completely and follow his ways. I know that Jesus existed, was born of a virgin, grew to adulthood and was crucified. I know that he rose from the dead, and that his sacrifice was made so that I might not have to pay the ultimate price for my sins if I decided to accept his gift of life. I know that this life is relatively short, and that an eternity of bliss awaits me if I accept Jesus as my saviour. I don't even have to live a perfect life, I just have to accept him in my heart and try to live the way that I think he would want me to live.
I know all of this, and yet...I reject it all. I prefer to just do what I want for the next forty or fifty years of life that I have left. I'm OK with giving up an eternity in heaven just so that I can tell Jesus to get stuffed and so that I can do what I want in life without consulting him in prayer. Even though my day to day life wouldn't change that much if I accepted Jesus in my heart, I still don't think it is worth it. I could probably keep the same career, the same family, continue to live in the same neighbourhood, continue to do the recreation I enjoy. I might have to go to church, though that, of course, is not necessary for salvation. All I have to do is believe in my heart that Jesus is my saviour and accept him. I'm a smart man, I have a lengthy education. I plan my finances carefully. But I'm too short-sighted to think that this commitment is worth it. I'd rather trade in all eternity just to have my own way for a few decades.
Is that what Christians think? Is that really what they think my position is?
No. I don't believe that God exists. I think the whole thing is man-made. Religion in its entirety is a human fabrication that developed out of fear of death combined with the benefits of primitive groups of people working together more effectively by believing they were different than everyone else. That they had some common belief. That, and their complete inabilty to explain the natural world around them.
We can do better. We can explain much of the natural world around us. Though there is much knowledge left to be gained about nature, we at least know that superstition is false. We at least know that sitting down, closing your eyes and thinking and speaking a certain way to a deity in the sky has absolutely no effect on the outcome of anything.
I'll say it again in case anyone doesn't quite get it yet. In case someone reading this still thinks I am running away from God and choosing my own path:
I don't believe that God exists.
This crucial point about understanding atheism is very, very difficult for Christians to grasp. Their whole life they have been told that God is with them in every thought, action, word, every moment. To grasp this notion that someone else does not believe God exists, is more than difficult.
Sometimes I think in sarcastic terms about what some Christians must think my position on religion is. I assume it goes something like this:
I know that God is there. I know that he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, so I know that he sees everything I do and think. I used to be a Christian and I know the Bible well, so I know that there is a heaven above us and a hell below. I know that Satan exists and he is constantly trying to tempt me to sin. Ultimately, Satan would love for me to reject God completely and follow his ways. I know that Jesus existed, was born of a virgin, grew to adulthood and was crucified. I know that he rose from the dead, and that his sacrifice was made so that I might not have to pay the ultimate price for my sins if I decided to accept his gift of life. I know that this life is relatively short, and that an eternity of bliss awaits me if I accept Jesus as my saviour. I don't even have to live a perfect life, I just have to accept him in my heart and try to live the way that I think he would want me to live.
I know all of this, and yet...I reject it all. I prefer to just do what I want for the next forty or fifty years of life that I have left. I'm OK with giving up an eternity in heaven just so that I can tell Jesus to get stuffed and so that I can do what I want in life without consulting him in prayer. Even though my day to day life wouldn't change that much if I accepted Jesus in my heart, I still don't think it is worth it. I could probably keep the same career, the same family, continue to live in the same neighbourhood, continue to do the recreation I enjoy. I might have to go to church, though that, of course, is not necessary for salvation. All I have to do is believe in my heart that Jesus is my saviour and accept him. I'm a smart man, I have a lengthy education. I plan my finances carefully. But I'm too short-sighted to think that this commitment is worth it. I'd rather trade in all eternity just to have my own way for a few decades.
Is that what Christians think? Is that really what they think my position is?
No. I don't believe that God exists. I think the whole thing is man-made. Religion in its entirety is a human fabrication that developed out of fear of death combined with the benefits of primitive groups of people working together more effectively by believing they were different than everyone else. That they had some common belief. That, and their complete inabilty to explain the natural world around them.
We can do better. We can explain much of the natural world around us. Though there is much knowledge left to be gained about nature, we at least know that superstition is false. We at least know that sitting down, closing your eyes and thinking and speaking a certain way to a deity in the sky has absolutely no effect on the outcome of anything.
I'll say it again in case anyone doesn't quite get it yet. In case someone reading this still thinks I am running away from God and choosing my own path:
I don't believe that God exists.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Re-Thinking Charitable Status in Canada
I heard an interesting interview with Greg Oliver, President of the Canadian Secular Alliance, on the radio yesterday about the charitable status of religious organizations in Canada, and the effect of that status on tax revenues. Given the most recent federal budget in Canada, with a whopping budget deficit not expected to be in the black for another 3 - 4 years (no one can really accurately predict these things given the wide swings in global economic activity), every billion dollars of federal revenue and expenditure seems fairly relevant.
In Canada, to qualify as a charitable, an organization must fall within one of four categories of work: 1) the relief of poverty, 2) the advancement of education, 3) the advancement of religion, or 4) other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable, according to an 1891 ruling in the United Kingdom (Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel). Number three certainly seems to stand apart from the others, and given that this definition is based on a British court ruling from over 120 years ago, perhaps it is time to revisit this definition. The other three categories seem fair enough. When asked to define charity, most people would probably say something about giving to the poor. The advancement of education is one very specific and effective way of reducing poverty and advancing society and so logically belongs in the definition of charity. In a country such as Canada with a Common Law system, the rulings of the courts are what ultimately determine much of the law. Therefore the fourth definition of charitable status (as defined by the courts) is inescapable. But the advancement of religion? Should we use tax revenue to support that cause? Surely not.
As pointed out by the host of the interview I was listening to, religious organizations do much poverty relief work and as such should qualify for charitable status. Certainly so. Any organization, religious or secular, which performs work aimed at reducing poverty should retain its status as charitable. There are many organizations which straddle more than one of the four definitions above, and their status as charitable should remain based on whichever of the other three apply. But what about organizations that have the sole purpose of promoting religion? We do realize what this means? An organization that supports young indoctrinated men and women coming to your door to disturb you at dinner time while they launch into their sales pitch for Mormonism is supported by your tax dollars. Does that seem right?
The financial side of things is perhaps as important as the rationale. The total tax revenue lost to Canada as a result of organizations that are defined as charitable based solely on definition three above is about $1.8 billion per annum. So, any religious organization that mixes their proselytizing with some poverty relief or education is not included in that figure. In other words, if the federal government would recognize that the advancement of religion, alone and not in conjunction with any other benefit, is not an activity it wants to support financially, Canadians would now be $1.8 billion closer to eliminating the deficit.
The current conservative government in Canada sold Canadians on its abilities to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit (which they created while a minority government one should point out) during their five years in office. Canadians bought what they were selling. Canadians bought into the fear that said that we needed a strong hand on the tiller in this global economic storm. Yet, the government won't shore up an easy $1.8 billion along the way because they believe that the advancement of religion is an activity that is worthy of financial support by every tax payer in Canada. Just so we're clear on the dollar amount here, every single Canadian citizen pays over $50 per year specifically to promote religion. Not to help religious organizations alleviate poverty or educate children, but solely to promote religion in society.
Shame.
In Canada, to qualify as a charitable, an organization must fall within one of four categories of work: 1) the relief of poverty, 2) the advancement of education, 3) the advancement of religion, or 4) other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable, according to an 1891 ruling in the United Kingdom (Commissioners for Special Purposes of Income Tax v. Pemsel). Number three certainly seems to stand apart from the others, and given that this definition is based on a British court ruling from over 120 years ago, perhaps it is time to revisit this definition. The other three categories seem fair enough. When asked to define charity, most people would probably say something about giving to the poor. The advancement of education is one very specific and effective way of reducing poverty and advancing society and so logically belongs in the definition of charity. In a country such as Canada with a Common Law system, the rulings of the courts are what ultimately determine much of the law. Therefore the fourth definition of charitable status (as defined by the courts) is inescapable. But the advancement of religion? Should we use tax revenue to support that cause? Surely not.
As pointed out by the host of the interview I was listening to, religious organizations do much poverty relief work and as such should qualify for charitable status. Certainly so. Any organization, religious or secular, which performs work aimed at reducing poverty should retain its status as charitable. There are many organizations which straddle more than one of the four definitions above, and their status as charitable should remain based on whichever of the other three apply. But what about organizations that have the sole purpose of promoting religion? We do realize what this means? An organization that supports young indoctrinated men and women coming to your door to disturb you at dinner time while they launch into their sales pitch for Mormonism is supported by your tax dollars. Does that seem right?
The financial side of things is perhaps as important as the rationale. The total tax revenue lost to Canada as a result of organizations that are defined as charitable based solely on definition three above is about $1.8 billion per annum. So, any religious organization that mixes their proselytizing with some poverty relief or education is not included in that figure. In other words, if the federal government would recognize that the advancement of religion, alone and not in conjunction with any other benefit, is not an activity it wants to support financially, Canadians would now be $1.8 billion closer to eliminating the deficit.
The current conservative government in Canada sold Canadians on its abilities to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit (which they created while a minority government one should point out) during their five years in office. Canadians bought what they were selling. Canadians bought into the fear that said that we needed a strong hand on the tiller in this global economic storm. Yet, the government won't shore up an easy $1.8 billion along the way because they believe that the advancement of religion is an activity that is worthy of financial support by every tax payer in Canada. Just so we're clear on the dollar amount here, every single Canadian citizen pays over $50 per year specifically to promote religion. Not to help religious organizations alleviate poverty or educate children, but solely to promote religion in society.
Shame.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
What If I'm Wrong?
The question inevitably exits any religious person's mouth in conversation with an atheist, usually when every other argument has failed. Typically it is presented as a variation of Pascal's famous wager. "What if you are wrong?" Then, the insinuation goes, you will burn in a hot hell for all eternity while your Christians relatives prance around on cool green grass in heaven and refuse to even dip their finger in water and moisten your lips to relieve a bit of the agony. Surely that thought is enough to get you to change your mind and accept Jesus as your personal saviour?
But, it is worth really examining that question. Richard Dawkins has been asked this question in public and more or less makes fun of the sincere but simple questioner in the audient. (See video here). That is certainly one approach, and probably after being asked the question a thousand times, and with limited time to respond, I might take the same such approach. Really, though, there are two main issues to consider: 1) what if the atheist is wrong about there being no God; and 2) what if the Christian is wrong about there being a God. It is only fair to ask the Christian to consider the same question.
Firstly, what if atheists are wrong and there is a God? Pascal's Wager is very illogical, of course, mostly because it assumes that if you decide to bet on the fact that there is a god, then you have to pick which one you believe exists. If you're wrong on that one, then you're no better off than if you didn't pick one at all. (This is the general approach that Dawkins takes in the video: he asks the Christian audience member to consider what happens if some other god turns out to be the one true one). But let's assume for a second that we're talking about the Biblical God. Let's ignore the thousands of other gods that humans have created and focus on the Christian God. If I, as an atheist, am wrong, then yes indeed I will go to hell. I will surely regret my decision and life on earth because a few decades lived as a Christian would be a small price to pay to avoid an eternity of hell, no question. But, what is really important is not that simple arithmetic, but the plausibilty of me being wrong. Consider what the Christian God would have to be like in order for that to be the case. The character presented by modern Christians as the loving father is not possible. What loving father could possibly sentence his own children, often through their own ignorance rather than simple disobedience I might add, to an eternity of suffering. I'd hate to see my own son suffer for five minutes, let alone all eternity. Of course, the standard Christian response to this is that God gives us free will, but not without consequence. Again, what loving father would give his child unlimited free will to decide whether to love him and to be obedient, and then when the child decides to follow his own path in life would shrug with an attitude that says: "Oh well, I tried to warn you, it's your problem if you suffer all your life as a result of being disobedient."? Only a monstrous father, selfish, vindictive and petty, would behave that way. Consider, in addition, that in the case of the fatherly Kingdom of Heaven, he knows all along what the outcome is. So, before you are ever born, indeed before he ever created the universe, he knew I was going to be an atheist and decide not to follow him, as are billions of others in human history. Yet, he decided to go ahead and set up this system that permanently punishes his disobedient children for all eternity. And all just so that he could create some children that have free will to decide if they want to relate to him or not, because he only likes the company of humans who have decided of their own free will to hang out with him. Petty hardly seems a strong enough word for this type of approach, does it? Insecure, immature, petulant, vindictive, mentally insane, evil, are all terms that we might use to describe a man who approached parenthood in such a manner. So, if I am wrong, then yes I will go to hell, but it will be because the god that Christians worship is nothing of loving father that they claim. What would an eternity of heaven in the presence of such a control freak paternal figure be like?
Secondly, what if Christians are wrong and there is no God? Well, this one might be a bit more simple. They are missing out on the one life they will ever have. At first they may not feel that they are missing out. Every Christian I've ever met always insists that they love their Christian life and that they would still be a Christian even if there was no afterlife. Yeah, right. Both of those statements ring very false. Christians love their Christian life yet walk around full of guilt. They walk around choosing ignorance over science and wonder. They prefer the simple non-explanation of how nature came into being and how it works over the amazing and wonderful truth. They prefer to share their guilt with others by poniting out that we are all born miserable and worthless sinners. (Again, what parent could possibly look at their new-born baby and actually believe this?). Christians may not think they are missing out on life by living as a Christian but they are. I know. I was a Christian through my young life, and it warped my sense of reality big-time. It caused me to live life in a specific way that I never would have done had I believed there was no god. I never would have felt the constant burden of sin and guilt, occasionally "washed away" by the blood of The Lamb. I never would have shunned science and had a superior attitude towards people who actually knew far more than I did about reality. I looked down on people who had spent their entire lives collecting knowledge on topics. I looked down on them because I figured they didn't really have the truth. They were at a disadvantage because they didn't know God. What a pathetic and wasteful way to go through life. I can't count how many relationships I missed out on because of my own arrogance and ignorance, how many friendships were superficial because I dismissed potential friends as too "wordly".
If you are a Christian, I challenge you to really think about this question: What if YOU are wrong? What are you missing out on in life? What attitudes are you going through life with that are entirely wrong and inappropriate? How much of this wonderful, complex, and beautiful world are you dismissing because you are so focused on serving a figment of your imagination?
Firstly, what if atheists are wrong and there is a God? Pascal's Wager is very illogical, of course, mostly because it assumes that if you decide to bet on the fact that there is a god, then you have to pick which one you believe exists. If you're wrong on that one, then you're no better off than if you didn't pick one at all. (This is the general approach that Dawkins takes in the video: he asks the Christian audience member to consider what happens if some other god turns out to be the one true one). But let's assume for a second that we're talking about the Biblical God. Let's ignore the thousands of other gods that humans have created and focus on the Christian God. If I, as an atheist, am wrong, then yes indeed I will go to hell. I will surely regret my decision and life on earth because a few decades lived as a Christian would be a small price to pay to avoid an eternity of hell, no question. But, what is really important is not that simple arithmetic, but the plausibilty of me being wrong. Consider what the Christian God would have to be like in order for that to be the case. The character presented by modern Christians as the loving father is not possible. What loving father could possibly sentence his own children, often through their own ignorance rather than simple disobedience I might add, to an eternity of suffering. I'd hate to see my own son suffer for five minutes, let alone all eternity. Of course, the standard Christian response to this is that God gives us free will, but not without consequence. Again, what loving father would give his child unlimited free will to decide whether to love him and to be obedient, and then when the child decides to follow his own path in life would shrug with an attitude that says: "Oh well, I tried to warn you, it's your problem if you suffer all your life as a result of being disobedient."? Only a monstrous father, selfish, vindictive and petty, would behave that way. Consider, in addition, that in the case of the fatherly Kingdom of Heaven, he knows all along what the outcome is. So, before you are ever born, indeed before he ever created the universe, he knew I was going to be an atheist and decide not to follow him, as are billions of others in human history. Yet, he decided to go ahead and set up this system that permanently punishes his disobedient children for all eternity. And all just so that he could create some children that have free will to decide if they want to relate to him or not, because he only likes the company of humans who have decided of their own free will to hang out with him. Petty hardly seems a strong enough word for this type of approach, does it? Insecure, immature, petulant, vindictive, mentally insane, evil, are all terms that we might use to describe a man who approached parenthood in such a manner. So, if I am wrong, then yes I will go to hell, but it will be because the god that Christians worship is nothing of loving father that they claim. What would an eternity of heaven in the presence of such a control freak paternal figure be like?
Secondly, what if Christians are wrong and there is no God? Well, this one might be a bit more simple. They are missing out on the one life they will ever have. At first they may not feel that they are missing out. Every Christian I've ever met always insists that they love their Christian life and that they would still be a Christian even if there was no afterlife. Yeah, right. Both of those statements ring very false. Christians love their Christian life yet walk around full of guilt. They walk around choosing ignorance over science and wonder. They prefer the simple non-explanation of how nature came into being and how it works over the amazing and wonderful truth. They prefer to share their guilt with others by poniting out that we are all born miserable and worthless sinners. (Again, what parent could possibly look at their new-born baby and actually believe this?). Christians may not think they are missing out on life by living as a Christian but they are. I know. I was a Christian through my young life, and it warped my sense of reality big-time. It caused me to live life in a specific way that I never would have done had I believed there was no god. I never would have felt the constant burden of sin and guilt, occasionally "washed away" by the blood of The Lamb. I never would have shunned science and had a superior attitude towards people who actually knew far more than I did about reality. I looked down on people who had spent their entire lives collecting knowledge on topics. I looked down on them because I figured they didn't really have the truth. They were at a disadvantage because they didn't know God. What a pathetic and wasteful way to go through life. I can't count how many relationships I missed out on because of my own arrogance and ignorance, how many friendships were superficial because I dismissed potential friends as too "wordly".
If you are a Christian, I challenge you to really think about this question: What if YOU are wrong? What are you missing out on in life? What attitudes are you going through life with that are entirely wrong and inappropriate? How much of this wonderful, complex, and beautiful world are you dismissing because you are so focused on serving a figment of your imagination?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
The Kony Effect
Everyone who had an internet connection in March was probably aware of the Kony2012 campaign going "viral". One day no one had heard of Invisible Children, Joseph Kony, or Jason Russell. Seemingly the next day everyone had watched and "liked" his short documentary somewhere on the internet, outraged that children were conscripted unwillingly as child soldiers.
Then, as we all know, the backlash happened. Within a day or two of the Kony2012 message going viral and thereby undoubtedly exceeding Russell's dreams of publicity, the critics wrote their critiques and basically destroyed Kony2012. They say there is no such thing as bad press, and at first you might be tempted to think that all the criticism simply furthered the cause of Invisible Children. But, the opposite is actually the case. In order to be successful in bringing Joseph Kony to justice, there needs to be sustained political pressure, not simply a 24-hour awareness by the Facebook generation and then a quick move on to watching the Oscars. By heavily criticizing Russell and the Kony2012 campaign, the majority of viewers seemed to switch off and move on. The political pressure never mounted, and Kony will almost certainly remain at large until he dies of some natural cause in a shack somewhere between Uganda and Tanzania.
Some of the criticisms were valid. It is possible or even probable that Invisible Children could be more financially responsible. It is likely that the West doesn't have all the answers to the problem of child soldiers, and if Kony were arrested then another man would likely pop up to replace him. But does that mean we should simply move on and forget about Kony? Absolutely not. Even if someone else does pop up and replace Kony, a message will be sent that eventually justice will be served. If we then go after then next war criminal, and the next, and the next, then I propose that we can change this world for the better.
Some of the criticisms were out to lunch. I read one critique in which the writer said he was tired of westerners thinking they have all the answers and tired of us coming in and splashing money around trying to solve complex problems. "Ugandans know what is best for Uganda", was a common criticism of the Kony2012 movement. Really? Then why are Ugandans allowing their children to be conscripted into being soldiers who then turn on their parents, sometimes being forced to murder them? I don't really see this as a debatable morality that is OK so long as Ugandans are OK with it.
Ultimately, the Kony2012 effect in early 2012 was an illustration of the instant hero / instant villian society we live in. Culture in the west is largely driven by media (increasingly by social media). Generations of westerners have been raised on television shows in which a handsome, likeable character turns out to be the despicable villian, all within 46 minutes (while they are also persuaded in the other 14 minutes of the hour that one gas-guzzler is actually more efficient than another). Life is not that simple. Not everyone is either a hero or a villian. We are all humans, complicated and full of both heroic and villainous traits. How many of us actually like to be judged by people in a few seconds? Would you like to be permanently written off as a villian just because you cut someone off in traffic once and it was caught on an iPhone and published to YouTube? Probably not. Would it be a fair analysis of your entire life and character? Definitely not.
Yet that is what happened to Russel and the Kony2012 campaign. Instant hero one day. Everyone on Facebook and Twitter and even in the mainstream media was all over him with praise for trying to make the world a better place. Then, seemingly hours later, the whole package was villified and thrown out because it wasn't quite as shiny as originally percieved.
Welcome to the new world of instant judgement and hero/villian status. You better have your ducks in a row and make sure every one of them is squeaky clean before you ever go public with anything.
Then, as we all know, the backlash happened. Within a day or two of the Kony2012 message going viral and thereby undoubtedly exceeding Russell's dreams of publicity, the critics wrote their critiques and basically destroyed Kony2012. They say there is no such thing as bad press, and at first you might be tempted to think that all the criticism simply furthered the cause of Invisible Children. But, the opposite is actually the case. In order to be successful in bringing Joseph Kony to justice, there needs to be sustained political pressure, not simply a 24-hour awareness by the Facebook generation and then a quick move on to watching the Oscars. By heavily criticizing Russell and the Kony2012 campaign, the majority of viewers seemed to switch off and move on. The political pressure never mounted, and Kony will almost certainly remain at large until he dies of some natural cause in a shack somewhere between Uganda and Tanzania.
Some of the criticisms were valid. It is possible or even probable that Invisible Children could be more financially responsible. It is likely that the West doesn't have all the answers to the problem of child soldiers, and if Kony were arrested then another man would likely pop up to replace him. But does that mean we should simply move on and forget about Kony? Absolutely not. Even if someone else does pop up and replace Kony, a message will be sent that eventually justice will be served. If we then go after then next war criminal, and the next, and the next, then I propose that we can change this world for the better.
Some of the criticisms were out to lunch. I read one critique in which the writer said he was tired of westerners thinking they have all the answers and tired of us coming in and splashing money around trying to solve complex problems. "Ugandans know what is best for Uganda", was a common criticism of the Kony2012 movement. Really? Then why are Ugandans allowing their children to be conscripted into being soldiers who then turn on their parents, sometimes being forced to murder them? I don't really see this as a debatable morality that is OK so long as Ugandans are OK with it.
Ultimately, the Kony2012 effect in early 2012 was an illustration of the instant hero / instant villian society we live in. Culture in the west is largely driven by media (increasingly by social media). Generations of westerners have been raised on television shows in which a handsome, likeable character turns out to be the despicable villian, all within 46 minutes (while they are also persuaded in the other 14 minutes of the hour that one gas-guzzler is actually more efficient than another). Life is not that simple. Not everyone is either a hero or a villian. We are all humans, complicated and full of both heroic and villainous traits. How many of us actually like to be judged by people in a few seconds? Would you like to be permanently written off as a villian just because you cut someone off in traffic once and it was caught on an iPhone and published to YouTube? Probably not. Would it be a fair analysis of your entire life and character? Definitely not.
Yet that is what happened to Russel and the Kony2012 campaign. Instant hero one day. Everyone on Facebook and Twitter and even in the mainstream media was all over him with praise for trying to make the world a better place. Then, seemingly hours later, the whole package was villified and thrown out because it wasn't quite as shiny as originally percieved.
Welcome to the new world of instant judgement and hero/villian status. You better have your ducks in a row and make sure every one of them is squeaky clean before you ever go public with anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)