A Tangled Web We Weave

White sage smudge sticks.

Here’s a bit of a mess: a school in BC held a smudging ceremony, as a “reconciliation” measure to acquaint students with indigenous culture. Students were obliged to attend.

A local Christian parent objected, on the grounds that this was promoting indigenous religion, and forcing it on their child.

A court ruled it was permissible, because the ceremony was a part of indigenous culture, not a religious practice.

Now Convivium magazine is upset, on the grounds that this demeans indigenous spirituality by claiming it is not religious.

You can’t win.

For the record: we agree that smudging is not a religious practice. It is cultural. Christian Indians smudge. Just as an evangelical Christian might burn patcholi incense in their home, without intending thereby to venerate some Hindu goddess. If, during the ritual, the performers/participants called on some spiritual entity, then that is the problem. The school claims there were no prayers.

The confusion comes from a popular movement to elevate all manner of indigenous practices to the level of religion. Like the imaginary religious office of “elder.” Or claiming this or that natural landmark is “sacred.”

Convivium worries that the same logic might permit, say, the banning of the hijab, on the grounds that it is not really religious.

But that would be correct: the hijab is not a part of Islam. It is banned in many Muslim countries.

Convivium’s argument could as easily be used to force the authorities to allow female genital mutilation, on the premise that it is “required by Islam.” It is not; it is a cultural practice in some majority-Muslim countries.

The essential point of freedom of religion is freedom of conscience. To be protected, a cultural practice must be demonstrated as clearly required by some established faith on moral grounds.

Between the Crosses, Row on Row

The offensive image.

The US Supreme Court has just ruled that Maryland does not need to pull down a century-old WWI memorial because it is in the shape of a cross.

I am not a lawyer, but the initial demand seems to me another example of our social madness. And the reasoning of the USSC ruling is not reassuring. It seems they find the monument okay on the spurious grounds that the cross is not really religious in this context, but a recognized symbol of the war.

So symbols of war are okay on public lands, but not anything that suggests religion?

Is this not self-evidently mad? Is this not self-evidently anti-human?

The US Constitution, wisely, reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.” But this has apparently been reinterpreted to mean the government must be opposed to all religion. This new interpretation is in fact in direct violation of the constitutional provision: it amounts to establishing atheism as the state religion.

The government actually has a legitimate interest in promoting religion; promoting atheism is a violation of trust. Religion contributes directly to peace, order, and good government, their prime responsibility, at least according to the Canadian Constitution. Religion promotes morality and ethical conduct; it provides a social safety net, at no cost to the taxpayers; it offers a sense of belonging, and so community cohesion. It increases the general store of happiness.

All this is objectively true, whether or not you even accept the truth of religion. These are just byproducts. If it is right in its basic assumptions, of course, its value, and its social value, is beyond calculation.

And yet we are to tear it down? Why this urge everywhere now to destroy civilization?

The proper approach is obvious, and it is obvious what the Constitution means: the government treats religions equally, favouring none. The government fosters and encourages all religions, but does not erect or pay for monuments or structures that are specific to any one to the exclusion of others. If some private group, like the Knights of Columbus or B’nai Brith, or the American Legion, chooses to generously donate something, as in this case, to the government and the general public, and it is open and available to all, of course the government should gratefully accept.

Instead, we have what John Paul II called “the culture of death.”

The Great God Earth

Wherever you work in ESL, quite properly, you have to promise not to teach your religion. But then, wherever you work, you turn out to be required to teach someone else’s religion. And not that of the students. You must evangelize for environmentalism, if not feminism and so forth.

A case in point, a current lesson for my Chinese students includes the questions:

“What can harm Earth?”

and

“What are you going to do to protect Earth?”

The first question essentially treats “Earth” (sometimes it is called “the environment”) as a god. We do not ask “What can harm your house” or “What can harm a rock?” The word “harm” implies the Earth has personhood. We should say, “What can damage Earth?” But even this seems odd. Just what is supposed to be the Earth’s condition, and who decides? When we cut a rock into diamonds, say, do we say the rock was damaged?

It would make sense to speak of the wise or equitable use of limited resources—for the sake of our fellow man, now and in the future. We might or might not agree on the value of having the greatest possible diversity of species around us. But that is not what we are obliged to say. “The Earth” seems to be raised here to an importance above and apart from human beings, or other creatures.

And then the demand that the student and the teacher must not just agree with this, but claim to be doing something as a result. We must be making sacrifices to this god.

Aside from the violation of freedom of conscience and of religion, this stuff betrays a colonialist attitude. In the wealthy West, we have the leisure to trouble ourselves about things. And we can scold poorer countries like China for their greater pollution, and feel superior. This is inhumane. For many, the choice is to burn dirty coal, or freeze. To have a dirty factory in town, or have no job, and starve.

Cenk Uygur on Religion in America

In this amazing video, Cenk Uygur, of the Young Turks, actually argues that it is “obvious” that the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion prohibits free exercise of religion; and its prohibition of a religious test for public office requires a religious test for public office.

I guess our antennae should always go up when someone says a thing is “obvious.” Some things are obvious, but the claim is an “obvious” way of avoiding having to present an argument. Most useful, then, when you know you do not have one.

And, while advising his viewers to “just read the Bible,” he cites the Book of Daniel misleadingly, as if he has never read it, or hopes no one else will. He condemns Daniel for committing crimes, and says this is unacceptable and not to be permitted.

The laws Daniel broke were laws requiring him to worship the emperor as God.

Cenk considers this immoral?

He’d do well in Nazi Germany.

Bernie Sanders and M 103

Bernie Sanders’ recent hostile interrogation of Russell Vought for his religious views shows why the recent Motion 103 in the Canadian parliament was a dangerous precedent.

It is clear that the average person, even a well-educated person like Sanders, does not understand the difference between discriminating against someone because of their religion, and disagreeing with their religious views. To Sanders, Vought is unfit for public office because he believes Muslims “stand condemned” for not accepting Jesus Christ—presumably meaning that they will go to Hell.

This is, to be absolutely clear, not my view, nor the view of the Catholic church. But one has a perfect right to hold such a view.

Passing a motion condemning “Islamophobia” encourages this confusion.

It is wrong to discriminate against Muslims. It is right to discriminate against Islam—if you find it false. Indeed, it is one’s moral duty.

We must, therefore, be very careful to always distinguish the two.

Accepting the view of Bernie Sanders, and of M-103, ends freedom of speech, ends freedom of thought, and ends freedom of religion.

ChristianMingle

The Washington Times reports that “ChristianMingle.com,” an online dating web site, has just lost a lawsuit in the California courts for discriminating against gays. By not mentioning them. It must now change its interface and service to allow homosexuals to use it as well, and just as easily as heterosexuals: “men seeking men,” say, or “women seeking women,” have to be listed categories.

The ruling, the story adds, also applies to the company's companion sites, CatholicMingle, AdventistSinglesConnection, and BlackSingles.com. All must become fully and equally accessible to gays.

Wait a minute. Did you get that? BlackSingles is okay, but it must cater to gays. It is illegal to target a site to heterosexuals, but no problem targeting one by race?

This implies some kind of special privilege being extended to homosexuals, not any concenr with “equality.”

Indeed, what about the many exclusive sites for homosexuals for dating connections? It is also okay, it seems, to discriminate against heterosexuals, but not homosexuals.

Why all these special privileges for gays?

And why do gays—the ones who launched the lawsuit, at least—care? It is not as if, in a free market, anyone is particularly inconvenienced by a proprietor who chooses, for whatever reason, not to serve a particular clientele. There are always competitors who will—or if not, there's a beautiful business opportunity helpfully left wide open for some member of the excluded community.

So this thing, and this kind of thing generally, cannot be there to help gays—or blacks, or women.

It is there, and always there, to punish some other group; to discriminate against small business owners, or Christians, or heterosexuals. Some groups always MUST be served, other groups not. It aslo helps the ins stay in, and keeps the outs out, generally, by raising regulatory barriers to anyone entering a new business.

In this case, I presume the real point is to punish Christians for saying homosexual sex is wrong. They are quite pointedly, and in plain violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, taking away conscience rights from anyone with traditional moral sensibilities: Christian, yes, but also even Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, animist, or Confucian.

That's the First Amendment. As in fundamental. A fundamental human right. In favour of a newly-invented imagined human right to homosexual sex. And not just a right to homosexual sex, but to be generally aided and supported in its pursuit.

And behind that, the real subtext must be something else. Homosexuals are only about 3% of the population, by best estimates. Why are their concerns, even if legitimate, so prominent?

The real target is conventional morality itself. And what is generally offensive about conventional morality is its condemnation of casual sex more broadly. Hence, a Christian dating sight becomes a target.

The scarlet letter here, the real issue, is “A” – for Abortion.

It's Getting Pretty Bad in Canada

 University of Victoria censors Catholic Students' Association.

So much for freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Not to mention simple morality.

After all, it's not permitted to do so.