Anti-Gay Activist Charles McVety: Extraordinary Claims Campaign “hateful”
December 7, 2010
This morning at an hour that I much prefer to be sleeping through Gretta Vosper of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity and I faced off against Evangelical Christian Reverend Charles McVety on the topic of the Extraordinary Claims Campaign ("Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: Allah * Bigfoot* UFOs* Homeopathy * Zeus * Psychics * Christ") on the John Oakley Show on AM640. Though a high profile show and certainly great for the Campaign, It would probably have been more productive to have been asleep (nightmares and all). But since radio shows are no time for ranting, I apologize if the following comes across as rant-like, but I think you'll enjoy some of these thoughts.
McVety - the leader of the anti-gay marriage campaign in Canada who recently referred in a media release to transgendered people as "perverts" - believes that our Campaign and its call for evidence for claims like Allah and Christ, constitutes hate speech as defined by the criminal code. Never mind that section in the Code is specifically for speech which actually "incites hatred against an identifiable group" and "in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace" or which "wilfully promotes hatred". Our Campaign totally fails this test. By calling for evidence for beliefs, we neither have created hatred nor are we wilfully trying to promote hatred. The original Atheist Bus Campaign ("There probably is no God...") was also similarly criticized, but it too succeeded in sparking a great debate and failed to breach the peace.
On the other hand, McVety calling transexuals (not ideas people choose, but actual people who have no choice in their sexuality) "perverts", would, if anything, so quality. It's also interesting that legitimate defenses to the hate speech clause are if the matter "were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true" or "were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject". I would say we qualify for both of these defenses. Most of the contentious subject matter is on matters of religious opinion, and we are certainly engaging on matters of public interest, while our skepticism is believed true by the Centre for Inquiry and its spokespeople.
Now perhaps I shouldn't lose too much sleep over McVety's opinions. He also stated that Richard Dawkins sparked the Extraordinary Claims Campaign (totally wrong), that the "Origin of Species" explicitly advocates atheism (Darwin couldn't have been more careful to maintain strict agnosticism in his magnum opus) and that CFI wants to ban bibles in schools, despite the fact that only last week I debated him on the news and stated explicitly - and repeatedly - that while we didn't want bibles distributed by Gideon in classrooms we believe bibles did belong in school libraries (unlike the Catholic and equally tax-payer funded schools that have banned atheistic literature outright). Actually, McVety acknowledged that point, only to return fire by retorting that relegating bibles just to the library was equivalent to banning them!
Today's radio show featured 4 or 5 callers, all but one of whom were totally critical of the Campaign. But host John Oakley informed me that the callers his producers were fielding were actually 50-50 on both sides. Apparently, quite a few they couldn't put on the air. All Oakley's notes told him was that their main thrust was "McVety is out of his mind". I don't know what exactly they plan to say, explained Oakley. I have some ideas.
To give McVety a break, there was one caller I need to comment on. With the original "There's probably no god..." Campaign we got continually taken to task for targeting specifically Christianity, which of course wasn't the case. But in order to make it very clear of our aims, with this new Campaign we have Allah and Christ both on the main ad, and several other deities dealt with on our website. So it was very surprising to get a caller who reflexively shot us the same line about how we wouldn't be so tough if we were targeting muslims. It wasn't clear if he realized we actually did have Allah on the ad, but when it was pointed out to him, his response was odd. He still had a problem. We weren't discussing Allah enough in the Campaign.
But that's of course the fault of the journalists and members of the public (like himself!) who overwhelmingly come at us from a Christian perspective and choose to make Christ the issue. It's ironic that we keep hearing from Christians that they're not offended, but rather are worried that we're offending muslims. Yet the muslim community has been quiet, at least thus far, on this new Campaign. I think such remarks betray their own insecurity which they choose to externalize upon some other faith group rather than come out and admit it.
Just a few thoughts, as I need to vent. It's amazing how much attention this Campaign is getting, all of which serves to prove our aim, which is to spark this kind of debate. Today McVety claimed that our Campaign would lead to no productive debates but only to hatred. He then launched a debate with Gretta on the existence and miracles of Jesus.
Please visit www.extraordinary-claims.com to support the Campaign by donating and/or adding comments to posts.charlesmcvety.jpg charlesmcvety_thumb.jpg
#1 Ian Bushfield (Guest) on Tuesday December 07, 2010 at 1:16pm
The “original” campaign referring to the Freethought Association of Canada’s campaign, since CFI didn’t run any bus ads last year.
#2 Yorg Inesfeld (Guest) on Saturday December 11, 2010 at 5:06pm
A very interesting ad you’ve put in a local free newspaper. There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. If you’re so sure there is no God then why “Probably”? Sounds like more of an agnostic point of view to me. And “Stop worrying enjoy you life” It’s been proven that people with no faith have more stress in thier lives than people with a faith so you would assume they worry more. One principle the bible repeats over and over is “Do not be afraid” and “Do not worry about anything” But just believe. Yorg
#3 Andy Reid (Guest) on Friday December 17, 2010 at 6:47am
@Yorg - please cite the source of your statement “It has been proven that people with no faith have more stress in their lives than people with a faith” Thanks.
#4 Bart B. Van Bockstaele (Guest) on Friday December 24, 2010 at 1:07pm
Yorg, the whole point is that we are NOT so sure that there is no god. Try to prove to the public that I did NOT send you a Christmas card this week. By the same token, it is impossible to prove that there is no god.
That said, given the complete lack of even the most humble evidence for the existence of a god, we *can* say that the no-god hypothesis is a lot stronger than the god-exists hypothesis.
We can also say, with next to absolute confidence, that if there is a god, that god will be nothing like the god the Christians love and fear. For that, all one has to do, is read the official holy books of Christianity, and show the blatant contradictions and “mistakes” recorded in them.
#5 Stephen Feltmate (Guest) on Sunday January 02, 2011 at 9:26am
It seems to me that anyone who is concerned about the “There’s probably no God…” ads probably is intellectually insecure about their faith. If the evidence for the existence of God is as strong as they believe it to be then a sign hardly threatens the legitimacy of their claims.
In my experience, the more insecure somebody is about a claim they are making the more emotional they become in the defense of their position. Rather than rational conversation they resort to bullying. By doing this they are simply revealing their own internal fear that they have only a rhetorical leg to stand on.
#6 Mark (Guest) on Thursday January 06, 2011 at 3:21pm
Love the comments. Keep up the good work Justin and co.
#7 Nikos (Guest) on Friday January 07, 2011 at 6:46pm
I’d like to first and foremost say I do endorse this ad campaign. I remember quite vividly the “Book stop Bible ads” on the TTC last year, which I thought were grossly patronizing and horribly in bad taste. The worst one I remember seeing was an ad in email form, from jesus to the world. Needless to say I probably wasn’t the only one who thought that was in bad taste, even for christians. I’d like to think that if you allow religious persuasion and advertising in the public domain, such as those ads on the TTC, then someone should be able to contradict it.
Also I think McVety, even though I respect his right to have his opinion and share it with the public, should be very careful about throwing out the word “hate speech”. Given how his very vocal opinions are widely known and indirectly (although sometimes very directly) condemn people for their nature and for exercising their civil rights. I think that most people would agree that he boarders on that term himself.
#8 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Sunday January 09, 2011 at 4:43pm
As a TTC user I am disgusted by your shameful campaign to stir the waters of religious tension by advertising on the side of a bus. Did it ever occur to you that some Torontonians simply do not need to be insulted by your atheistic proselytizing. If it’s so offensive for the JW’s or Mormons to come to your door selling their beliefs then why is it OK for CFI to advertise on a bus that I have to sit on? Can’t you atheists keep your religious views to yourselves? And yes they are religious views because issues of faith such as God, miracles, Jesus etc. are a question of faith and not reason.
#9 Stephen Feltmate (Guest) on Sunday January 09, 2011 at 5:08pm
I am not a member of CFI nor do I consider myself an atheist. I wonder, Canadian Guy, if you are similarly disgusted by the Alpha Project’s under-handed campaign to “stir religious tensions”. Or if the multitude of signs on church billboards throughout Canadian cities strike the same nerve. Or if the “in-your-face” Christmas and Easter festivities that occur every year should be viewed contemptuously by non-adherents.
The religious do not get to determine what the default perspective should be for everyone else. The fact that you believe in God and miracles does not make them legitimate entities; and so questioning whether or not these ideas (God, miracles, the divinity of Jesus) have a basis in reality is not a religious view. Any claim that such do have a basis in reality can only be a religious claim because you can only believe in such things if you operate outside the boundaries of reason. Failing to believe in these things is not a “religious claim” but a starting point from which one can begin examining evidence to determine what seems most likely according to one’s own perspective.
In the words of St.Basil: “That God is, I know; but what is his essence I hold to be above reason.”
#10 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Sunday January 09, 2011 at 5:23pm
To quote Justin Trottier’s defence of his bus campaign: “It is of public interest” and “expressed in good faith”. This bus campaign is not in the public interest as faith is a personal decision and protected by the charter. Furthermore the ad is not in good faith and merely intended to insult the personal beliefs of riders.
This ad wilfully promotes hatred I’d say, although it’d be hard to make the legal case. The entire purpose of your organization is to prod people’s religious sensitivities which is unacceptable, especially on a TTC bus.
#11 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Sunday January 09, 2011 at 5:53pm
Stephen Feltmate: You’re still debating religious ideas when you deny the existence of God and miracles. Furthermore, CFI is doing this on a bloody public transit vehicle! The Catholic Church doesn’t advertise on the TTC as far as I know, although the Sally Ann does but that’s charity. Churches advertise on billboards but churches are private property. Does CFI have a billboard on their premises? They can freely advertise their hateful message there instead of on the TTC which I must ride to work!
CFI should NOT be instigating this debate and McVety is right on that point. On the other hand, McVety and any other Canadian has a right to describe homosexuals as perverts because the status of homosexuals is in fact a matter of public debate in Canada while one’s personal religious beliefs are not. Read the charter for yourself. You’ll find no mention of gays being a protected group but you’ll see “Freedom of conscience and religion” in section 2. So why is CFI trying to disturb this right on a city bus?
#12 Nikos (Guest) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 8:07am
Excuse me Canadian Guy, but did you just say that McVety has a right to call homosexuals perverts? Are you insane? How is that not hate speech. What right is it of anyone to question another person’s sexual orientation or choice in who they want to marry and spend their life with?
And you have full right to believe what ever you choose to believe. The majority of people who have a strong stance in their belief will not be shaken anymore than those bus stop bible ads. If you don’t believe that you need empirical or rational evidence for your faith, or you believe either your religion provides that or that your faith is strengthen by not having evidence in God, Allah, Moses, Ganesha, or what ever else you believe, you will not be fazed in the slightest about this. For those that don’t, or for those who are question their religious views but are not sure how to or even if its socially acceptable, may now be more willing to express views of disbelief and look to other areas. As well the biggest thing is the ability for someone to engage in a community with others. When someone decides to leave a religion, its not always just a matter of personal conviction, its a matter of losing their community. They feel that if they stand by their questions then they stand alone. These signs are expressing the fact that you can question these things if you wish and that if you leave your religion you do not have to forgo the benefits of community.
Meanwhile getting back to another point you made, your buddy McVety is claiming that certain groups of people do not deserve the right to be full citizens because of his personal religious belief.
Gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered people are protected under the charter of rights and freedoms. “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination”. Being gay is not a matter of religious belief, its a matter of a person’s nature and it is protected.
#13 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 5:34pm
Sorry about this Nikos but Canada is a democracy and gays aren’t protected under the charter. That’s why McVety can unload into a debate about homosexuals. It’s his opinion not mine.
As for the bus campaign I pay to take the bus and don’t need your offensive proseltyzing ads on my ride home. You people scream blue murder if there’s any mention of God anywhere so now it’s my turn. Your post pretty much admits that your sign campaign is an appeal to members of the public who are not in your club. You shouldn’t be doing this on a public vehicle. Not if you support secularism.
As for McVety saying that certain groups are not full citizens because of their beliefs, I would just reply that he’s not an MP and it’s not his decision rather it’s the decision of the Parliament of Canada.
And to correct your last point, Gays and Lesbians and transgendered are most certainly NOT protected by the charter. Let’s get this straight because it’s an important point in law. Judges who rule otherwise are simply corrupt.
#14 Stephen Feltmate (Guest) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 6:32pm
“Judges who rule otherwise are simply corrupt.”
You see? The signs work. Those who are offended by them tend to emphasize the more ridiculous (some say “lighter side”) of religion and pretty much make the point for us.
There’s really no point in debating these incredibly dim flames - but it is interesting to monitor their reactions. Although frankly I would be a bit uneasy about actually meeting the more angry, volatile ones.
#15 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 7:28pm
So you are suggesting that a Judge can’t be corrupt?
What would be a better term? I defy you to identify homosexuals as being a protected group in the charter.
#16 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 7:40pm
I still can’t see why it’s OK to put religious arguments such as your sign on a transit vehicle.
#17 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 8:38pm
And what does judicial corruption have to do with religion anyways? It’s not meant (by me) as a point about religion. It’s just that I happen to notice Atheists claiming to have more progressive ideas about social issues.
The fact remains that gays are not a protected group in the Charter and being atheist or being a judge doesn’t change that.
#18 Nikos (Guest) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 at 9:10pm
Yes they are. They are Canadian Citizens, Canadian Guy. They have full rights, like everyone else, including freedom from discrimination. Thankfully McVety isn’t a judge or a member of parliament, but his speech is still offensive. Also the point of this is that the status of gay people should not be of public debate. I know its not your original point, but you can’t call someone perverted and just say well its public debate. Its not, you are still insulting someone. What if I called you a sexually depraved and perverted person because you like to have sex with women and then say that you don’t deserve the right to marry one because its against my religion?
I don’t personally think that atheists are more progressive than religious people, I just think I am more progressive than you. Also the TTC is not your own personal transit. Its called public transit for a reason. Atheists have as much right to put ads up as anyone else does. If you don’t believe anything regarding religion or religious debate should be in the public domain, then you need to seriously alter the freedom of expression. Religion is up for debate as much as anything else is. I can’t tell you what to believe but it doesn’t mean I can’t ask questions about it or state a criticism of it.
One last question. Did you get this riled up when the bus stop bible study ads were on the TTC?
#19 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Thursday January 13, 2011 at 5:37am
They are Canadian citizens but their right to gay marriage isn’t mentioned in the charter. And why can’t the status of gay people be up to public debate if you atheists are allowed to put religion up to debate on a public transit vehicle. Anyways gay rights is a matter of debate because it isn’t in the charter whereas religion is. Who cares if gay people are insulted? Trudeau didn’t recognize them as a minority unlike aboriginals or the disabled. READ THE CHARTER!
So you think it’s OK to put ads for atheism up in public transit? Then why can’t the Salvation Army proselytize in shopping malls instead of merely taking donations? Then why do atheists complain about government run faith schools? The TTC is a publicly funded commission and the catholic schools are publicly funded too. Why can’t we put the 10 commandments on display at Queen’s Park? Thats a public place too. We can also post the 10 commandments on public buses.
However if you believe in secularism then an atheist ad doesn’t belong on a public transit vehicle and neither does a Christian ad.
#20 Nikos (Guest) on Thursday January 13, 2011 at 11:17am
Look I am not going to continue about gay marriage that much longer because it is legal and is protected under the charter. Just because it isn’t specifically mentioned in 1982, does not mean it isn’t protected. In the clause it say “in particular”, not “including only” when talking into account those 9 things. Look over this website.
#21 Nikos (Guest) on Thursday January 13, 2011 at 11:20am
#22 Nikos (Guest) on Thursday January 13, 2011 at 11:20am
#23 Nikos (Guest) on Thursday January 13, 2011 at 11:25am
That’s weird it won’t let me show share the link. I’ll put spaces in there. Its www 2 . parl . gc . ca / Content / LOP / ResearchPublications / prb 0413 - e . htm # b1985 txt
just put that all together. It shows the history of the incorporation of sexual orientation into the charter.
You didn’t answer my question though, did you get this riled up when the bus stop bible ads are up?
#24 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Thursday January 13, 2011 at 7:21pm
So your opinion and some lawyer’s opinion on the status of gays overrules McVety’s? How can the courts expand the import of the Charter? The courts don’t have final say over the interpretation of the sections of the charter. Paul Martin was simply lying when he said otherwise in 2003. Sexual orientation isn’t incorporated into the Charter. If it was it would say so. What kind of democracy is that?
#25 Nikos (Guest) on Monday January 17, 2011 at 7:08am
Look I am not going to debate this much further with you because you are just plain incorrect. You remind me of those bigoted, mainly southern people from the united states, a lot of them in the tea party. They have somehow, in their minds, given the original documents like the bill of rights and the constitution a holy distinction. That to alter them or improve upon them would somehow destroy society or invoke the wrath of God or something to that extent. Don’t get me wrong there are tons of things in both documents which I agree with and should be fought for vigourously. The problem is in the original constitution slaves only were recognized as 3/5 a person. Also Slavery itself was not abolished in the bill of rights until 1865.
So don’t get all self righteous on me “Canadian Guy” and say we cannot add to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If black people can be protected from discrimination in the bill of rights more than 60 years after the original bill was passed, when society as a whole decides that race is no longer an acceptable form of discrimination, then discrimination based on sexual orientation has the same right.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an amazing document. I am in no way insulting it, diminishing its importance or its impact, and I will always fight to uphold it, but to not recognize a hole in it and be able to improve upon what is already written, that would truly undervalue it. As well I am not alone. It is not just myself and some lawyer that thinks this. Every court in the this country that ruled on this including the Supreme Court of Canada thinks as I do, as well as the Parliament of Canada. You know that body of people who passed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the first place. Also if I am not mistaken they are elected by the people so to me that sounds like a democracy. And if you asked the majority of Canadians, they will agree with me.
So my question to you is what kind of Democracy are you really pushing for?
#26 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Monday January 17, 2011 at 4:45pm
I’m Canadian and I’m against the Charter of rights as I believe that it’s un-Canadian. I could care less what Americans think of their own constitution. The legalization of gay marriage in Canada was probably the most “American” process in Canada’s political history. I weep for the heritage that the Trudeau Liberals took from us. You seem to be ignorant of Canada’s English Common Law heritage. I wouldn’t fight for the Charter and I wouldn’t be too upset if a Tea Partier came up north to give Beverly McLachlin something to think about.
There are two further points I’d like to make. One is that the U.S. constitution banned slavery as the result of an amendment. There was no amendment to include gays in the Charter. The Chretien Liberals decided not to pursue a democratic solution.
Second point is that the Supreme Court does not think that gay marriage is a right. It merely stated that traditional marriage was not enshrined in the Charter. This is an important distinction because the Supreme Court of Canada did not indicate that it would object to Parliament legislating traditional marriage.
The Charter was signed by the Queen and there was no referendum to test the opinion of the Canadian public. Most Canadians at the time were opposed to it, and they were almost completely opposed to gay marriage. How could such a document endorse gay marriage as a fundamental right. It’s simply not democratic no matter how you look at it.
#27 Nikos (Guest) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 at 7:28am
Its a matter of discrimination. Something you apparently feel you have never had to deal with. How exactly is it un-canadian to have a constitution and a document that ensure your rights as a canadian? That is one of the biggest oxymorons I’ve ever heard, in large part because of your nickname. I think you need to start writing these things as the “really really really un-canadian guy”. Are you a loyalist or something? Do you secretly have a queen fetish? What exactly would you want if not for our constitution?
Also peoples minds do change. I will admit that gay marriage or even preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation was not on the radar of most people in 1982, and those whose radar it was on, didn’t much want to deal with it or were against it. Thankfully society can grow and as of 1982 we have a constitution which is our own, which can grow as our society grows. To me it was one of the most democratic leaps forward in our nation’s history. Maybe I just have a better outlook on what people are capable of when they are driven by hope and caring for their fellow person. Canada has shown that despite a history of english common law discrimination, that its people can be more accepting of fellow human beings. Sorry except for you, McVety and any other person who is so self righteous that they actually think that their personal religious or in their words “moral” beliefs outweigh basic decency and caring about another human being. Don’t you preach love and acceptance.
How about this un-canadian guy, you can go live with your tea party friends in the american south. Nothing is stopping you. You see its isn’t undemocratic when people as majority disagree with you. I know, I know, its sucks not to be the majority any more. Luckily since you are still a canadian citizen, your basic rights are protected. And you know what, I would fight to protect them if someone discriminated against you.
#28 Nikos (Guest) on Tuesday January 18, 2011 at 7:34am
Lastly I want to make this painfully clear, gay marriage is not the fundamental right I am referring to. I am referring to not being discriminated against because of your sexual orientation and that all people have a right to marriage by law in Canada. The fundamental right is MARRIAGE to which all are protected whether you are gay or not. Please get that through your head I don’t know how many times I have say it.
#29 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Wednesday January 19, 2011 at 8:40pm
It sure is un-Canadian to have a founding document like the Charter. Canada is a democratic country founded by the British. We did fine without a written constitution until 1982. Pierre Trudeau even decriminalized homosexuality through statutory law before that date. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
You are the America-worhipper since a document like the Charter belongs in a place such as the good ol’ USA with it’s greaseball lawyers and deranged gun nuts. You’ll note that the fun stuff in Tucson Arizona last week was guaranteed by the 2nd amendment in our neighbour’s constitution. Our Charter was a step backward for those of us who believe that the average Canadian opinion is more important than a constitution cast in stone for all time. For an atheist you sure are dedicated to ramming YOUR pro-gay marriage beliefs down MY throat. Gay marriage didn’t show Canadians as tolerant at all. It was forced on parliament and there was no debate.
SO you insult Canada’s head of State, tell me to leave Canada and then expect me to be happy that I’ve lost my voting rights! I could care less about you protecting my rights. That’s the job of Parliament. It’s called democracy. You can kiss my ass if you think you are going to protect my rights.
Lastly, I agree that gay people have a right to marriage. They have a right to different sex-marriage. However, the Supreme Court of Canada did not indicate that they have a right to different sex marriage. That was not the result of the court reference during the Chretien government. There is nothing in the Charter which indicates a right to Same Sex Marriage. The charter has to be amended properly.
The strange thing is that you probably think that I am against gay-marriage. I never indicated that in my posts but what’s a minor detail matter when you high and mighty atheists are debating a Christian like me. I simply wish to point out how hypocritical you people are when you get political. Why should an atheist support gay-marriage? Why should an atheist support the Charter of rights?
#30 Nikos (Guest) on Thursday January 20, 2011 at 7:49am
It seems to me that you are quite hateful. First off to call 6 deaths fun stuff in any circumstance is in bad taste. Secondly we had a constitution before 1982, its was the british constitution, all we did was give our parliament and our democracy the ability to better dictate our own future.
I find it interesting that you believe that if we are not subject to the queen that we will fall under america’s rule in some way. I don’t believe that will be the case. Gaining distance from the queen and the monarchy, like in 1982, better protects your voting rights?
I would also like to point out that I did not insult the head of state, I insulted you, quite directly actually, and it wasn’t much of an insult either.
Thankfully though this conversation is actually moving to a semi-decent level. The only reason we were debating gay marriage and the “status of gays” was because of your comment. The reason why I am defending their rights not to be discriminated against doesn’t really have much if anything to do with my atheism actually. It has everything to do with the way in which I view society and the way I believe people have a right to be treated in a fair, decent and co-operative country. I find some, not all but a lot of, religious people blur the line between their religious beliefs and their views on politics/civil rights. They are two completely different things. Gay marriage should not be debated at all, it should be a given. People of different religions can debate and argue whether to allow gay marriage in their church/synagogue/temple/mosque etc until they are blue in the face, but that is where they should limit the debate.
One of the greatest perks in being an atheist is that your views on the world can be dictated by yourself and your opinions do not have to adhere to anyone or strict doctrine. I do not debate politics as an atheist.
Why do religious people feel they have to box anyone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural/spiritual into a doctrine of thought? Can’t atheism to you exist as merely a quest for answers, or a desire to focus on the empirical and rational rather than some clearly defined set of ideas. There is nothing even remotely hypocritical about being an atheist and supporting the charter or gay marriage. Do you not realize that that statement is the equivalent of saying its hypocritical to not believe in god and care about a fellow human being.
Please tell me that you at least realize that your argument stems from an idea that ethics, or ethical viewpoints come from a belief in god.
#31 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Thursday January 20, 2011 at 7:19pm
Yes but the British Constitution was democratic but our current American-style constitution is not. Did the people of Canada get a chance to reject gay marriage by electing MPs with the power to uphold traditional marriage? NO. With our current constitution “We” can’t dictate our own future. The Supreme court dictates it.
Yes the Queen protects our voting rights because she symbolizes the authority of Parliament while a Republican system is undemocratic. You’ll notice how many issues the average American is prohibited from voting on. Gun control, abortion, etc.
Your views on Gay marriage are enshrined in law by a dishonest legal system while McVety’s views get trashed by an arbitrary court system. How can you defend such an unfair system. In a democracy, no right is a given, they are all voted on in Parliament by elected MP’s.
There is nothing wrong with a person’s religious views colouring the democratic process, after all MP’s are elected unlike judges. Why can’t a Cardinal or a Bishop become Prime Minister of Canada if they win the election?
You are the one who is boxing people into a doctrine of thought. You are the one forcing Canadians, many of whom are not very religious, into accepting gay marriage as a right.
Finally, it is hypocritical for an Atheist to support the Charter because it is essentially a religious document, in function if not in form. Mere mortals such as myself cannot question the Charter so it may as well have been written by a Pope.
I don’t care where ethical view points come from. I simply believe that the law should come from elected MP’s and not unelected judges. Please tell me you understand that Canadians have been screwed out of their input into the laws of Canada by the court party and the Charter.
Actually ethics come from Man and Man comes from God I suppose. But you don’t believe in God so the point is moot.
#32 canadian athiest girl (Guest) on Monday January 24, 2011 at 1:22pm
uncanadian guy please provide the source of your statement “Man comes from God”.
#33 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Monday January 24, 2011 at 4:13pm
I can’t .. it’s mythology. Mythology can’t be proven scientifically.
#34 Canadian Guy (Guest) on Monday January 24, 2011 at 4:14pm
And why do you call me “uncanadian guy”? I was born in Canada. I can prove that… unlike OBAMA!!
#35 buy cheap beats by dr dre (Guest) on Wednesday December 19, 2012 at 8:27pm
beats by dre on sale