Richard Dawkins’ morality

Posted on by
7

Is Richard Dawkins trying to protect children in his current efforts to arrest the Pope? Probably not; in this talk with Peter Singer, Dawkins declares that, in the right circumstances, he favours infanticide:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWkJ6cZ0FY8]

In another section he nods happily as Peter Singer expresses his approval of eating human roadkill – as long as the unfortunate’s relatives agree:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWGVCtGgqIA]

For those who might complain that I have extracted these comments and placed them out of context, go here to subject yourself to the whole bizarre exchange.

Dawkins’ rather primitive concept of morality seems to hinge on a few assumptions: suffering is bad; humans are mere animals. Consequently, depending on the degree of sentience of the animal, killing animals can be as bad as killing humans; animal suffering can be as bad as human suffering; killing someone – including a child – to end their suffering is good; cannibalism is equivalent to eating animals.

This is the man who is attempting to assert himself as a moral authority over the Catholic Church.

The Anglican Church of Canada: filthy capitalist

Posted on by
1

It has a Sears catalogue:

The Anglican Church of Canada is pleased to announce the launch of Acts of Faith; A Guide to Supporting the Ministries of the Anglican Church of  Canada.  The gift guide is a joint initiative of the Departments of Philanthropy and Communications and Information Resources, and represents an unprecedented collaboration amongst all of the partners and charitable entities within the national church; bringing them together in one fundraising vehicle for the first time.

Numerous schemes to persuade you to part with your money:

Gift Planning means finding a way to make an important gift to a cause you believe in while still getting the best tax benefits possible and achieving personal financial goals.

And recently added corporate sponsors:

The Anglican Church of Canada is pleased to announce that for the first time in its 117 year history, General Synod is offering religious based organizations and affiliates the opportunity to support its triennial national convention through a variety of unique sponsorship initiatives.

The information below will help you better understand the opportunities in sponsorship of the upcoming General Synod meeting in Halifax.

I am looking forward to the ACoC peddling its wares in an infomercial. I have a suspicion Fred Hiltz already uses this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GeF7A05zQ8]

Bill Maher: Palin envy

Posted on by
Reply

What I would really like to see is the MSM’s reaction to Bill Maher calling Michelle Obama a MILF. Sadly, that isn’t going to happen, and the fact that he used the epithet about Sarah Palin has been largely ignored because – well, anyone can say anything they want about Sarah Palin. According to Maher, she is a moron. A moron who made 12 million dollars in less than a year; Maher’s net worth is only $13M. Perhaps he is envious.

Ugh. Obnoxious comments from “Hardball”‘s Chris Matthews and “Real Time”‘s Bill Maher, who were discussing Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann on TV. Matthews said, “They showed up together looking — well, they’re attractive ladies.” And then Maher added: “I think you’re right. You hit on something there. They’re attractive, especially to the Republican Party which is not known as the party that does really well with the opposite sex. Usually they’re doughy white men. I think they look on Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin as, you know, MILFs … and I agree. They’re morons I’d like to forget.” Hey, guys? It’s still sexist — and unprofessional — when liberals say it.

Arrest Christopher Hitchens for supporting an illegal war

Posted on by
4

As it happens, I supported – and still support – the Iraq war, but this is considerably more sensible than Hitchens’ crusade to arrest the Pope:

It should also be remembered that Hitchens was an outspoken advocate of the 2003 Iraq War which some international lawyers deemed illegal. A case could arguably be made, therefore, to have himself brought to the ICC for war crimes on the grounds of being a leading cheerleader for an illegal war. After all, he now seems to be a keen proselytizer for international law, at least when it suits his ideological goals.

The latest danger to Christians wearing a cross

Posted on by
7

Apparently it’s the horror of being mistaken for a rabid fundamentalist.

Ruth Gledhill, who identifies herself as a liberal Christian, has become aware of this ever present danger:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnWS8QE64Sc]

I believe some of what Ruth says here about persecution is spot on: Christians in the West are more inconvenienced than persecuted – although we seem to be heading in the direction of persecution.

As for the rest: well, I think I am going to have to start wearing a cross so that I can have the pleasure of being easily identified as someone with extreme right-wing fundamentalist views.

Anglican Diocese of Montreal supports the burka

Posted on by
6

A Canadian Muslim, Tarek Fatah, agrees with the banning of burkas in Quebec government offices, schools, and other publicly funded institutions. He cites numerous reasons; this is among them:

I have no reservation in stating categorically that the burka is not just a piece of clothing, but is a symbol of Islamofacism and a rejection of the West as well as our cherished value of gender equality. The cruel reality is the burka castigates women as a source of evil (A’wra), condemning them to a life of isolation away from the gaze of men. Once veiled, they are marginalized, denied equality and made subservient to men. This leads to economic dependency, intimidation, violence and emotional abuse. Under the veil, the woman has no civic or secular identity. Her rights to make civic and political decisions are controlled and usurped by men, and by extension the hierarchy of the organized groups.

None of this deters Anglican Bishop of Montreal Barry Clarke though, who, after plumbing the depths of his Islamic savoir-faire, announced support for the burka:

MONTREAL – A bill that would bar a woman wearing a face veil from receiving government services is an attack on women’s rights in the guise of defending equality of the sexes, say the Anglican diocese of Montreal and the Simone de Beauvoir Institute.

In a statement approved Monday night by local clergy and Bishop Barry Clarke, the diocese said the bill erodes freedom of religion guaranteed under the Quebec and Canadian human-rights charters.

The local church body added that Bill 94 also unfairly targets women, since there are no men who wear the niqab, a veil with slits for the eyes worn by a small minority of Muslim women in Quebec.

“Obliging women to choose between the free exercise of their Charter right to freedom of religion, and the exercise of their rights to participate in society is odious,” the diocese said.

Also undeterred was the Simone de Beauvoir institute which has as its mission:

The Institute strives to stimulate the investigation, understanding and communication of the historical and contemporary roles of women in society, and to encourage women to develop their full creative potential.

There’s nothing that develops a woman’s creative potential quite as effectively as wearing a burka.

Skull crushing

Posted on by
4

Every so often one comes across a headline that induces stomach heaving revulsion. What sort of civilisation that deserves the epithet would even need such a thing to be banned:

ND measure would ban ‘skull crushing’ in abortions

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A proposed ballot measure supporters say is intended to restrict abortions in North Dakota would make it a felony to decapitate or crush the skull of a fetus.

Secretary of State Al Jaeger said the proposed initiative petition was turned in to his office late Tuesday. He has until April 22 to review the measure and approve it for circulation.

North Dakota’s constitution gives residents the right to put state laws directly to a vote if they can muster enough petition signatures. Backers of the measure will need signatures from at least 12,844 voters to put the proposal on the ballot.

The proposal seeks to ban the use of “any instrument or procedure to grasp the skull or neck” of a fetus in order to decapitate it or crush its skull. Any doctor who did so could be prosecuted for a felony that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

In the same vein, Nebraska is to limit abortions that cause foetal pain:

Nebraska to limit abortions because of fetal pain

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) – Nebraska lawmakers on Tuesday passed a groundbreaking bill banning abortions at 20 weeks based on assertions that fetuses feel pain then. Gov. Dave Heineman planned to sign it into law in the afternoon.

If upheld by the courts, the bill could change the foundation of abortion laws nationwide. Current restrictions in Nebraska and elsewhere are based on a fetus’s ability to survive outside the womb, or viability.

Viability is determined on a case-by-case basis but is generally considered to occur at 22 to 24 weeks.

The Nebraska bill was partially meant to shut down one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, Dr. LeRoy Carhart. He attracted attention after his friend and fellow late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was shot to death by an abortion foe in Kansas last year.

The Free Anglicans in Hepworth

Posted on by
4

Are a group of about a dozen independent Anglican Christians in Hepworth Ontario who do not worship in an Anglican Church of Canada parish Add an Imagebecause of the ACoC’s increasingly rapid drift away from Biblically orthodox Christianity. A priest, Father Robert Mansfield, from the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCoC) visits once a month to administer Communion.

The congregation is presently meeting in the Hepworth Community Centre. Up until 40 years ago, the community centre was an Anglican Church; it still has stained glass windows, altar rails and the church bell – on display on the front yard – still rings even after being exposed to decades of Ontario winters.

The building is over 100 years old and in need of repair; the town Add an Imageis now considering whether to demolish or sell the building. The congregation is willing to raise funds to assist in paying for the repairs, but is too small to completely pay for them.

The congregation has asked for prayers and, for those who may be interested in assisting in helping to preserve this building for its intended use of glorifying God, they can be reached here and at 519-374-4371.

The town is holding a public meeting about this on Wednesday April 14th and can be reached here.

Another anti-Pope diatribe from Dawkins

Posted on by
15

Richard Dawkins is still at it:

The pope should stand trial.

Why is anyone surprised, much less shocked, when Christopher Hitchens and I call for the prosecution of the pope, if he goes ahead with his proposed visit to Britain? The only strange thing about our proposal is that it had to come from us: where have the world’s governments been all this time? Where is their moral fibre? Where is their commitment to treating everyone equally under the law? The UK government, far from standing up for justice for the innocent victims of the Roman Catholic church, is preparing to welcome this grotesquely tainted man on an official visit to the UK so that he can “dispense moral guidance”. Read that again: dispense moral guidance!

A few obvious questions:

  • What law is the Pope supposed to have broken?
  • Assuming he has broken an international law, where is the presumption of innocence for the accused?
  • Much of what Dawkins writes in this article is based on the Kiesle letter which appeared to imply that the Pope favoured the Church’s reputation over exposing an abusive priest. This contention has been refuted convincingly enough to introduce at least a reasonable doubt here. Where is Dawkins’ scientific detachment in all this?
  • If, as some claim, the predominant problem turns out to have been one of homosexual priests in the Catholic Church, would Dawkins approve of a ban on homosexual priests before or after admitting that the sun revolves around the earth?

Dawkins and Hitchens, for all their moralistic posturing, have no basis for their self-appointed positions as ethical arbiters of how the Roman Catholic Church should cope with the child abuse scandal. As atheists, not only can they not appeal to moral absolutes, but the principles that fire their affected indignation are not even their own: they were derived from the very institution they are out to destroy, the Christian Church.

Atheist says he has converted to Christianity after listening to Christopher Hitchens

Posted on by
3

After being a hard atheist for 8 or 9 years, the speaker from the audience at the University of Florida says he has converted to Christianity having seen Satan himself – in the guise of Christopher Hitchens – on stage.

Obviously the speaker is not serious, but the reaction of some of the bystanders is interesting – they want to shut him up.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Diur7B5GI&]