Tuesday, February 11, 2014

The Free Market Illusion

This morning on CBC news, there is an article by regular American correspondent Neil MacDonald about the subsidies to American farmers. I have long disliked the fake free market surrounding farming. Farmers form a relatively strong lobby amongst North American politics, and they tend to get their voice heard with greater volume than other larger groups (such as farm product consumers!) do. Even without the out-right cash payments Neil illustrates, farmers get massive amounts of support in fuel subsidies, tax relief, and other goodies that take them out of the challenging free market that any other small business owner leaps into. I suspect a lot of farmers would tell you a story about how hard it is to make end meet, but take a drive past almost any farm in Canada and you'll see the most expensive trucks on the road (I'm not talking about the farm's work trucks, I'm talking about the top of the line up duelly long-box that drives to church on Sundays), and some of the biggest and fanciest houses in middle-class Canada. Farmers don't like having this sort of thing pointed out to them partly, I think, because of a culture of entitlement. Many farmers seem to think it is their inherent right to be a farmer and to be able to earn a living at it. If I more competitive farmer produces a better product cheaper than they do, they don't seem to grasp the free market concept that other businesses do: you're going to go out of business if you can't compete.

This post is not a rant against farming. I know that many farmers work long hard hours all alone. I know they get dirty, and I know they put an essential product in the market place. I'm not blaming farmers for the state of the system. I'm blaming, once again, politicians. As Neil MacDonald points out, government, especially in the United States, throws trillions of dollars at farming in a sort of ongoing great social experiment. With the advent of the global market place and free-trade agreements, government has had to simply increase the amount of money so that American farmers can remain "competitive" in a larger market place. Here is the cold harsh reality of a globalized free-trade agreement: if an American corn grower can't compete with one in another country, then they should go out of business. In a globalized economy, there is no inherent right to stay in business when someone on the other side of the world can produce the same thing more cheaply. Of course, voters want it both ways: they want to be able to buy cheap stuff from China, but they still want the rest of the world to buy their expensive food and autos. What is government forced to do? Subsidize, subsidize, subsidize. That way, American producers keep the illusion that they are productive and competitive.

A few numbers from the article by Neil MacDonald:

- between 1995 and 2012, the U.S. government has paid its cotton producers $32.9 billion
- America paid Brazilian cotton growers $147 million a year keep quiet let the Americans keep subsidizing their cotton grower
-Congress just passed a massive farm bill that will spend $1 trillion over 10 years ($100 billion per year - of the equivalent of  Russia's entire defense bill each year)



This is anything but a free market. And, worst of all, this is just one example. Don't even get me started on the oil industry in Canada. Talk about an unfair advantage to the richest part of the private sector. I'm not necessarily a fan of an entirely free market, or of a globalized market. I don't think either are the best scenario for the average citizen. I think that in the past two decades, corporations have found a new way of lobbying government to enrich themselves by fantastic amounts of money. This includes the free-trade agreements and globalized market place combined with huge government subsidies and, worse, bail-outs in the case of corporate losses.


Friday, January 24, 2014

Maintain the Illusions

I recently finished the book Empire of Illusion by Chris Hedges. It's a decently written book in which Hedges manages to mix mature writing style without sacrificing accessibility to the average reader. And, at under 200 pages, it's a quick read. The basic premise of the book, as the back cover states, is that "A culture that cannot distinguish between reality and illusion dies." In five sections, the illusions of literacy, love, wisdom, happiness, and the illusion of America itself, Hedges illustrates how spectacle and superficial but catchy sound-bites have essentially taken over from more in-depth reading and understanding of issues. As the population gets less and less literate and chases more and more after entertainment and celebrity-ism, the powerful and wealthy people who control most of the economies of the globe are able to promote their agenda through political processes without much thought of objection by the voters. This initially sounds like some sort of tired and recycled conspiracy theory about how the Illuminati are controlling everything behind the scenes, but it is anything but that. It is a careful examination of how powerful entities, most notably corporations, are exerting their influence in a more and more consolidated manner to achieve their agenda of profit at all costs (no pun intended). Anyone who follows politics at a thoughtful level recognizes that no political party or successful politician is actually serving the people anymore. Politicians, especially in America where it takes enormous amounts of money to get elected, are already sold out to corporate interests before they ever get elected. They are fully owned, and not by the voters who think they put them in office. No decision the politicians make is ever based on what is only best for the population or the society, but always considers the wishes of for-profit corporations whose interests are pushed through by lobbyists. The political aspect of the book is only one component, but perhaps the most important one. Hedges also discusses how television has evolved from a genuine information source to nothing other than entertainment. Particularly in the past 15 years, with the advent of reality television, entertainment has taken over in an especially appealing way for the average citizen. The average person in America has very little in terms of success or meaning in their life (so goes Hedges' thesis), and therefore it is very successful to sell people a story that their life may amount to something. They are a celebrity themselves just waiting to be discovered. This is the appeal of reality television. Rather than watching sports and dreaming about how you could have been that successful athlete, you can now watch reality television shows and watch everyday, flawed people who really are just like you, and think that you might be the next star on TV. This illusion fills a void in one's life and hides the reality that we are not special, and that one day we will all die with most of us never really amounting to anything worthy of remembrance.

I felt that I could really relate to Chris Hedges' thesis in this book. I'm always looking for over-arching themes to society and human behaviour, and I would suggest that Hedges has found one. The replacement of reality with illusion is very, very appealing to humans (as religion has shown over millennia). This overwhelming temptation to accept illusion over reality is entertaining and temporarily satisfying, but of course it leads to a depressing, unfulfilled life. And worse, it leads to a disengaged, disillusioned, apathetic population. Hedges conclusion is that American society is inevitably headed towards a "reverse totalitarianism" based on extreme corporatism, and I am inclined to agree with him. Every citizen in America will one day be monitored in every aspect of their lives by corporations in bed with government.

With the theme of his book in my mind, I watched a short clip this morning of Kevin O'Leary sharing his opinion on the news that the wealthiest 85 people in the world now have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people in the world. Here is what Mr. O'Leary had to say:



I think anyone who isn't a billionaire (in other words 99.9998% of the world population) understands how inherently ignorant and insulting this statement is. O'Leary's main point is that everyone who isn't extremely wealthy (part of the 1%) is simply not working hard enough. When I was in my 20s and 30s I regularly worked 75 - 80 hours a week. Here I am still not party of the 1% (not even close). I'm sure many readers can relate. As Amanda Lang points out in the video, the poorest people in the world don't even have socks to pull up and get to work and it is ludicrous to suggest that if they only worked harder they too could be the next Bill Gates.

But more importantly than the ignorance that O'Leary spouts is the way in which he does so. As Hedges writes in his book, the media and television are simply entertainment now. Sound bites rule. Celebrity broadcasters or celebrity guests (such as O'Leary) spew out the illusion that the public wants to hear. Despite the fact that most of us are not filthy rich, and despite the fact that we inherently know that working harder is not going to turn us all into billionaires, there is comfort in that illusion. There is comfort in knowing that, hypothetically at least, we too could become wealthy beyond measure. This illusion is maintained by not allowing any proper discussion on the issue. An educated host who was given equal time to discuss the issue would easily pick apart O'Leary's ridiculous assertion. But note what O'Leary has been trained to do: to cut people off and just repeat his sound bite. There is no depth of thought, no attempt to actually understand the opposing point of view. The illusion is spewed out, never given time for analysis, and then the television moves forward before the audience really has time to think about things. Repeat the message every day over and over and people who should see the idiocy of such an illusion start to accept it. Worst of all, whether someone like O'Leary realizes this or not, the main power brokers who want this illusion maintained certainly know the falsehood of the message. However, they want the illusion maintained because their wealth accumulation requires it. The huge lie that working harder will make everyone rich is based on the fact that the super-wealthy need the majority of the population to be kept in poverty in order to facilitate their own enrichment. For example, where is the cheap labour for a corporation going to come from if every Bangladeshi in a sweat shop only worked hard enough to lift themselves up to the status of billionaire?

While I really enjoyed Hedges' book, my main objection is the ending. He spends a couple of pages at the end suggesting that human love eventually overcomes evil in this world. That, even in the death camps of World War II, a bit of love here and there was still noted. I find this to be a feeble sort of roll-over defeatism conclusion to the book. Instead of love, I suggest education. Education is the only solution to preventing (or reversing) the perpetual illusion believed by the majority of the population. Sadly, the powers that be have long ago also recognized that fact and gutted the educational system. The last thing the powerful want is an educated and enlightened population capable of critical thought.

Fortunately, however, while they may control things like funding to formal education, they can't control your decision to turn off your TV and go read a book or engage in some meaningful and respectful discussion with someone about relevant issues.

Friday, July 12, 2013

Politics is a Disgrace as Usual

My blog is a dismal failure of late. I have not had time to commit to much writing, nor perhaps have I had the inclination. Sometimes one fatigues of writing out against or for issues of importance. The world seems to chug along inevitably towards environmental disaster, increased focusing of wealth and power by fewer and fewer, and more and more corruption by governments. Sometimes you have to just think: "What's the point anymore?" However, I am compelled to write a bit partly because of a noticeable void on the blogosphere. Mr. Bruce Gerencser, perhaps Ohio's most infamous atheist, has disappeared from the web. This is a pity, as he is a fabulous writer and, with his extensive and lengthy career as a minister, he provides valuable insight to those who have left religion (or those considering such a move). Bruce has run a blog called Moving Forward in which he wrote extensively about his experience as a pastor, his leaving the church, and his other thoughts on living as a former Christian in a very Christian environment. Bruce, if you are out there, come back!

In the meantime, a few of us lesser mortals should pick up the flag and soldier on.

What is on my mind of late? Well, as usual the crazy world of the religious. I recently heard a radio interview with a local Muslim cleric who was fairly outraged that a foiled terrorist plot against a government building here in Canada had been smeared with the Islamic terrorism brand, even though it was to be committed by those seeming unconnected to traditional Islamic terrorism. I am not trying to be politically incorrect here, but the whole argument put forth that Islam is a peaceful religion is almost laughable. Sure, there are many peaceful Muslims, and there are possibly even some Muslims who are more peaceful than they would be if they did not have their religion. But, to me this argument is the same as the one that claims Christianity is a religion about loving your neighbour and treating them like you would yourself. That might be one small portion of what Christianity is about, but to say that that is only what it is about skips over some monstrous evils in the religion. Same with Islam. Why oh why do humans need religion to think they will be peaceful? Can we not just understand and accept that violence typically stems from a feeling of not being recognized in one's proper place in the human hierarchy? People who are confident in their place in the world don't typically feel the need to go out and kill others. Only those who feel slighted in some way, often because they have a falsely grandiose sense of self, feel the need to show others they are right by force.

This brings me to politics. I hate politics and I am on the verge of becoming apolitical. I have typically voted in the past because I feel that it is my duty, but it really is getting unappealing. I can't think of a single politician that I would have the option of voting for, for whom I would feel comfortable voting. I think I can honestly say that every single vote I have ever cast since I came of age has been a choice made against a candidate rather than for the one I ended up voting for. Is that really how democracy is supposed to work?

Well, for those, like myself, who think that politicians are all liars and cheats, the past few months have been an astounding reinforcement. The federal government in Canada is facing some significant scandals. The biggest of these (I mean apart from the scandal that they cheated in an election, twice) is that a senator by the name of Mike Duffy (senators are unelected and appointed basically for life in Canada - until they reach an antiquated forced retirement age) spend a shitload of money flying around the country and then claimed reimbursement from the tax-payers by breaking the rules on his official province of residence. He represents the province of Prince Edward Island in the senate, but he has lived in Ottawa for so long that he is technically a resident of Ottawa. In any case, he ended up owing the Canadian tax-payers $90,000, as sum that for some reason he couldn't afford to pay back (how could you not afford to pay it back when you've just claimed it illegally to begin with?), so the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright, cut him a personal cheque for $90,000 to help him out. Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy are not buddies, but they are of the same political party. Smell a fish? Yes, so did the media and the opposition parties. In the end Nigel Wright was forced to resign (why, if he did nothing wrong?) and the Prime Minister claims, unbelievably for a known control freak, to have had no knowledge of this payment. (The actual language released in a statement from the Prime Minister's Office was very sneaky and left a window open for someone to see how he could have known about it). What's the point of my rant? Well, it's just one more example of the kind of low-life power-hungry unethical scumbags that always seem to end up at the top of the heap in politics. Power ruins everything. The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, one should note, gained most of his votes from conservative minded religious folks. Mr. Harper gained a majority government (after having his previous minority government defeated on a vote of no confidence based in being in contempt of parliament for cheating on the previous election) largely by campaigning on a promise of more transparency and accountability in government. Sheesh. Where do political parties find these people?

Apologies for a scattered blog post. It was my first in while.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

God is Indeed Dead: It is Scientifically Provable



A common claim in the discussion surrounding, made by both the religious and atheists or agnostics, is that God cannot be disproved. I think that many or most atheists allow this misconception based on the true premise that science cannot disprove a phenomenon without evidence for or against it. And, I think some of the more enlightened and less fundamentalist of the religious out there claim the same thing. They understand enough of the scientific method to understand that their claim of God cannot be disproved. Some of the religious use this as a petty form of argument: “You can’t disprove my God exists, therefore there is a good chance He exists.” But in this post I blame atheists and agnostics for their stance on this issue. I am disappointed to say that I have yet to meet an atheist who doesn’t concede this point, that God cannot technically be disproved, even if there is no evidence in support of His existence and even if it is overwhelmingly unlikely that He exists.

The reason I have a problem with this point of view is as follows. It is true that the notion of a non-specific deity cannot technically be disproved, but in reality we rarely talk about the potential existence of a non-specific, non-meddling, impersonal deity who shows no evidence for his or her existence. And, in practical terms it is the very specific gods of human history (Yahweh, Allah, or plain old “God”) who cause most of the debates about religion. “God exists, I have a personal relationship with Him, and you can’t disprove that.” Well, I beg to differ. Once you make your deity specific, as all who follow organized monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, or Christianity necessarily do, then you put all the evidence for that specific deity out there for judgment. You can’t make very specific claims about the nature and the actions of your deity and then claim that since science cannot examine the evidence for that deity it cannot disprove it’s existence.

Let’s take a look at some of the very specific attributes attributed to the Christian God as an example.

  • It was claimed of the Christian God that He created the world in six days. We know scientifically that the world was not created in six days.

  • He is the same God that people claim answers their personal prayers. We know scientifically that prayers are not systematically answered. (Some scientific blinded studies have even been done showing no effect of prayer on health outcomes).

  • He is the same God that people claim sent himself to earth in human form through a virgin in the Middle East two millennia ago. We know scientifically that this is not possible, and we have pretty good reason to believe that it did not happen when you examine the verified records of the time.

  • He is the same God that people claim died and the came to life again a couple of days later. Again, we have very good reason to believe scientifically that this never happened. For such an unheard of event there should have been many, many written records of the event. Indeed, everyone who could write at the time would surely have written something about the event, especially considering it was apparently accompanied by a massive earthquake and a number of zombies walking around in plain sight in Jerusalem, none of which is recorded.

  • He is the same God that people claimed would come back to the Middle East in person within the lifetimes of the people there at the time. We know that did not happen.

These are a few examples of specific claims about a particular God which have been convincingly shown not to be true. So, it is no longer reasonable to simply say that science cannot disprove the existence of God, when you make such a claim about a very specific God whom you have defined carefully beforehand.

Some of these claims will be dismissed by more liberal-minded Christians by claiming that they were not intended to be taken literally. But this attitude is simply one of trying to move the target as needed. No one ever claimed that the Genesis account of creation was not to be taken literally until science showed that it couldn’t be true. Only after that did the religious alter their claims out of necessity and start to claim that it’s just a story that describes something more profound. A classic case of making your beliefs fit the irrefutable evidence as needed.

If, when you refer to “God”, you are referring to the God in the Bible, the God that most Christians would consider their deity, then it is entirely reasonable to state that God does not exist. It is also entirely reasonable to state that science has proven He does not exist. The religious would be flawed to then claim that science can’t technically disprove the existence of their God, because most of the qualities and history of that God have been disproved. To alter the qualities and history of God to fit the new evidence that arises from science (such as the fact that the world was not created in six days), is to simply ignore the facts and to adjust your target in order to cling to your belief.

If you really want to be convincing in your argument that science cannot disprove your God, then you need to define your God, explain what he/she is like, what he/she does, what he/she has done in the past, and then let science take it’s best crack at disproving it. The only deities so far that science is unable to disprove are the ones that are specifically poorly described such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, gods such as Allah, Yahweh, or other monotheistic deities have long since been disproved as convincingly as has the notion that the sun revolves around the earth.


Saturday, October 13, 2012

You Can Never Have Too Many Unicorns

The unicorn analogy to religion is an old and common one. Many atheists pull out the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU), a fictional deity (well, I guess one doesn't really need the redundant word "fictional") used to point out that any god really isn't any more supported by evidence than one that has been dreamed up deliberately within recent memory. The whole point of the IPU, in my opinion, is to point out the silliness of believing that one god is real just because he is written about in an ancient book and is accepted by many millions of people, while rejecting a similarly made up god (the IPU) which is not.

The IPU has probably run its course in some ways because it is often used in ridicule, something that is not a very productive form of communication (I've never known anyone to be ridiculed out of their religious beliefs). It is also dismissed superficially by the religious without really considering how it relates to their beliefs. Nevertheless, it is an analogy worth repeating, and often.

Today I was listening to the radio and heard a snippet of an interview that was an ad for an upcoming interview with a Christian scholar. The man was talking about persecution of Christians in other places around the world, and pointing out that, by comparison to the genuine and often violent persecution of Christians in various places around the world, North American Christians can't really claim persecution of their faith. But, he objected, North American Christians can genuinely claim to have been marginalized, a trend that he obviously did not agree was a good thing. The interview was going to discuss his views on this marginalization. Unfortunately my car ride ended before the interview, so I profess ignorance to his actual points about the marginalization of Christians in society, but I thought it was an interesting startint point for some thoughts.

Are Christians marginalized in North America? And, if so, is that a good or bad thing?

I would argue that Christians and Christianity is most definitely not marginalized, but I do understand how someone with a Christian bias might think so. Christianity and Christian beliefs are at the forefront of almost every political discussion, particularly in America. We all know that no political leader will ever get elected to high office without professing a personal faith in Christianity. There is a constant battle to introduce Christianity into schools, museums, and legislation in the United States. Canada might be a bit more openly secular, but Christianity runs pretty deep in parts of this country too. The reason many Christians think they are being marginalized is because of a warping of their importance in the past. Their voice has been far louder than other groups, both religious and other. There probably has been a diminishing in this in recent years, or at least an examination of it, with the trend of "new atheism". But, to say that Christianity has become marginalized in society is to way overstate things. Its impact might be decreasing slighly, but it still carries far more weight in societal discussions than other religions or beliefs do. Often more than the facts and evidence that science brings too.

Is it a good or bad thing for Christianity to be marginalized? Well, this is where the unicorn analogy comes in. We don't want a society in which individual people are marginalized. That does happen, of course, but we should strive for a society in which it is minimalized. But, we do want a society in which Christianity is marginalized. Many Christians would initially object and talk about how their religion is the foundation of a civil society. But, they need to embrace the unicorn analogy to understand their position objectively. If there were a group of people who believed in unicorns, and indeed who believed that unicorns talked to them privately, told them how to live, told politicians when to invade other countries, et cetera, would we not want that group marginalized? Surely we would not want a crowd like that to have a loud voice in decision making in society. We would not want people who believed in something that we all know is fiction to be more important in society than everyone else, would we? That is the exact position that the rest of us have with regards to Christians. We think their beliefs are fictional. We think that the voice of God that they hear in prayer is simply in their head. We think that when they make decisions based on their Christian beliefs, and especially when they push them on others, that the result is often disastrous and negative.

When you think that your religion should be afforded more respect, ask yourself how much respect you would give to a group of unicorn-believers. Then expect exactly the same amount of respect and clout in society yourself.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

It's a Miracle! Oh...wait, nevermind.

This post is aimed at moderate, intelligent Christians (or those of other religions that require the supernatural). Many times the popular media, comment boards, and blogs involve discussions with and about those of the religious who are frankly out of touch with reality and a bit extremist. If you think the world is 10,000 years old, then this post is not for you. But, if you are the kind of Christian who accepts science and evolution, and who also believes in Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, then I'd be happy to hear your comments on this post.

Image courtesy of Google Images

My question is this. Why do you likely reject the "miracles" that some people make in our modern world which are obvious shams. Do you realize that when a grilled cheese sandwich seems to have the image of the Virgin Mary on it, it is just a coincidence of the cooking pattern of the bread combined with our human bias to recognize human faces where they are not actually in existence? If so, then you probably reject the notion that God is speaking through the grilled cheese sandwich as a bit of a silly side of your religion, right? So, if you're still with me so far, then let me ask why you likely don't reject the equally amazing miracles described in an ancient book? Do you believe that the Red Sea physically parted and allowed thousands of Israelites to walk through on dry land? Do you believe that Lazarus rose from the dead to live again? Do you believe that fire came down from heaven and consumed Elijah's offering and the stones that it was built on? Do you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, died and then came to life again a couple of days later? (Presumably you must believe this latter miracle, since it is part of the basis of the Christian religion). So, why the discrepancy? Why reject the crazy, ridiculous things that people claim today as miracles and yet accept and embrace the stories from the ancients about similarly ridiculous, physically impossible events? Is it only because they are written down in the Bible? Is it because the Bible is the inspired word of God? Wouldn't anyone who wanted to start a religion simply tell you in their book that the book is the inspired word of God and that you should accept it as such?

So, if you are reading this, if you are a Christian, then I would sincerely like to hear your point of view on this matter.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Canadian Theocracy

For several years when current Prime Minister Stephen Harper was becoming prominent in the federal political landscape and then was leader of the opposition, there was a feeling that he had a hidden agenda that was undesirable to most Canadians in that it was regressive socially and dominated by antiquated religious dogma. The best trick Harper managed to pull was to get the public to forget about that worry and actually elect him to the highest office in the country. How he did so was by using two words: "jobs" and "economy". Stephen Harper is smart enough to realize that money makes the world go around. You are not going to get elected in Canada by talking about how gays shouldn't marry, about how abortion is wrong, and about how we should generally be a "Christian nation with good family values", whatever that means. That rhetoric might work in Republican dominated states south of the border, but not in a country like Canada that is dominated politically by the main socially progressive cities.

But, most people do care about money and about having a good job, even if they already have a good job. For some reason, when a politician talks about jobs and the economy over and over and over again like a broken record, even those people who have lots of money and a secure job start to listen and start to believe that maybe he's their best bet in the Prime Minister's office. And so, to make a long story short, Stephen Harper and his gang of religious Reform Party (Americans can read this as Tea Party) wingnuts achieved a small majority government in 2011.

And then, as surely as a leopard that has coloured over its spots with some cheap water based paint, the jobs and economy paint because to wear off and the real spots began to show through.

First, it was the Office of Religious Freedom, purportedly established at great expense to Canadian taxpayers, to promote religious freedom in a world in which religion is under attack from all sorts of places. But, of course, this office was solely intended to promote Christianity. Photo ops with the foreign minister were taken with the pope and not with imams or the Dalai Lama. Comments by readers in the popular media were overwhelmingly against this office on two counts: it was a waste of tax payers money by a government that promised fiscal restraint; and secondly it was pretty obvious that it was a thinly veiled and politically spun attempt to spread Christianity with no regard for other religions, never mind those with no religion.

Now, the Conservative government has boldly cancelled the contracts of any religious counsellor for inmates who is not Christian. Therefore, if you are a federal prisoner and happen to be Muslim or Jewish, you can only expect counselling to come from a Christian counsellor. The Muslim or Jewish counsellor you previously had, to help with your rehabilitation and help get you ready for society again, is gone. Of course, every Christian on earth has the goal of increasing the number of Christians, of converting people to the "good news". There are varying degrees of how blatant Christians are with their proselytizing, but a good Christian can hardly claim to not care that their fellow human is headed of to an eternity of hell. No, whether public or private, they want you to convert to Christianity.

Maybe this is simply a voting tactic. Maybe Stephen Harper realizes that most of his votes come from undereducated redneck conservative Christians and therefore the more of them he can create in the voter pool the better his chances of re-election. Watch next for a new law that limits immigration into Canada to places that are crazy fundamentalist Christian. If you are from the deep south or the mid-west of the U.S., well come on in. If you're from Afghanistan or France, well not so much.

But, all joking aside, this is a very frightening trend. Stephen Harper never grew out of his immature, self-serving, Bronze Aged secret agenda. He just figured out that the average Canadian wasn't going to buy it wholesale and so he had to really bury it until he got elected. Harper stopped making all his ridiculous statments about gay marriage, homosexuality, and abortion for a few years, focused on the economy and jobs in his election campaigns, finally got elected when the 65% of the electorate that hates him divided their votes between other parties, and then brought in his crazy theocratic reform.

This all illustrates a characteristic of Christianity that is absolutely deadly in politics: close-mindedness. Christians all believe they are 100% right. They have been told by God what life is all about and what is right and what is wrong, so when they get in positions of power nothing else really matters. If God didn't mention the environment in the Bible, then anything to do with care for the environment must just be some evil anti-God made-up conspiracy and can safely be ignored. If God tells you homosexuality is wrong, then it doesn't really matter how enlightened your society has become on human rights, you can just plough ahead and try to make it illegal because that is what's right. (See American politics for more examples of this type of bull-headed dogmatic "leadership". George Bush was a walking example of it. Never mind that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that the whole world thinks I'm wrong for invading Iraq, God told me to do it so I'm right). Can you imagine bringing this type of 100% right attitude into any other scenario such as a marriage, a workplace, a friendship? Disaster. Just like when religious people bring their stubborn and ignorant dogma into politics.