Canadian National Anthem

[Synobun]

No, I'm serious, and would appreciate a serious, non-mocking answer.

Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could take my sentence to be anything except mocking sarcasm intended for Canada's rabid conservatives/alt-right circles. Parentage isn't given a moment's consideration in my mind. They wield it as a moral weapon though, so I like mocking it when possible.

If I'm to resist Trudeau, it'd be on things like backing out of electoral reform and selling military hardware to Duterte.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could take my sentence to be anything except mocking sarcasm intended for Canada's rabid conservatives/alt-right circles. Parentage isn't given a moment's consideration in my mind. They wield it as a moral weapon though, so I like mocking it when possible.

If I'm to resist Trudeau, it'd be on things like backing out of electoral reform and selling military hardware to Duterte.

Okay. It's just that I see people on CBC.ca posting "Justin Castro" nearly every single day, and they're not mocking the alt-right. They are the alt-right.

All anyone has to do is look at Justin Trudeau and compare his features to those of his mother and Pierre Trudeau. He has her coloring and his bone structure. It gets more obvious with every passing year.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

Well, it looks like they're not going to send out a special pamphlet.

It's official now.

"existing departmental funds would be repurposed to make the public aware of the new lyrics."

Maybe pamphlets? Could be any new initiative for all we know...

 

[warpus]

Just put the new lyrics on the screen during Hockey Night in Canada. Duh

 

[Takhisis]

I don't sing the version that was changed 35 years ago. We don't need imaginary supernatural beings to keep our land. Thirty years from now will hopefully see a version that has fixed that supernatural nonsense.

Funny how the Reformacons wail that the Liberals are destroying Canada by including women, excluding Christianity... yet the "God keep our land" phrase was put in on Pierre Trudeau's watch.

Religion, just like any other ideology or philosoph, can be (ab)used to justify more or less anything.

Also, just because you don't share in other people's faith does not give you the right to mock it.

Just put the new lyrics on the screen during Hockey Night in Canada. Duh

Problem solved.

 

[Evie]

Just like Trudeau put God in the preamble of the 1982 Constitution (largely to appease conservatives and get them onboard).

 

[warpus]

Goddamn conservatives, always sticking in their god where he don't belong

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Also, just because you don't share in other people's faith does not give you the right to mock it.

The line "God keep our land glorious and free" suggests to me that we need a supernatural being to do it because we're too inept and apathetic to do it ourselves. I happen to think we're better than that. If you're going to criticize, at least have the context from which to do it.

As for mockery, let them stop mocking the rest of us. Religion has no place in science classes, the courts, hospital policy, pharmacists refusing to fill certain prescriptions, and many other places where it's used to dictate laws and policies.

And I am really damned tired of certain individuals on this forum mocking atheists by insisting that atheism is a religion. Once is a misunderstanding. Twice... is difficulty understanding. The two-dozenth time or more is willfully obtuse and trolling.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't mock atheists, I just point out the hypocrisy of people who proselytize for their non-god while yapping about how much better they are than people who believe in a different god or gods.

 

[Evie]

I agree with Valka. "God keep our land glorious and free" is a ridiculous, demeaning, fatalist line. Canada can keep itself glorious and free (which is in fact pretty much what the French original says in the same line, which credits the safeguarding of Canadian homes and rights and Canadian valor, not to divine protection).

Basically, to please religious types, we turned a part of the anthem that spoke of Canada's strength and valor into an admission of Canada's weakness. That deserves all the lambasting imaginable.

 

[Takhisis]

Let's keep things separate.
I actually disagree with mentions of deities in national anthems. Because I believe in the pluralist, secular state. I believe in the separation between religion and state. Because it corrupts both of them.
I also think that changing the original lyrics to pander to fundamentalist idiots is just pathetic. Regarding God's protection, some say that God helps those who helps themselves. And those fundamentalists are, often (especially among Protestants who believe in Sola Fide/Sola Scriptura) the people who least help themselves and their fellow citizens, because they are pathologically incapable of admitting that they are in the wrong.

Yet I do take offence at Valka's statements that religion, all of it, is ‘superstitious nonsense’. Because that means that I, a religious person, am a superstitious idiot.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yet I do take offence at Valka's statements that religion, all of it, is ‘superstitious nonsense’. Because that means that I, a religious person, am a superstitious idiot.

I wish you'd said something years ago. I do not think you're a superstitious idiot.

My objection is when religious people - of any religion - try to impose their religion on others, whether it's by doorknocking or trying to block beneficial legislation due to personal preferences and not because it's bad legislation.

 

[warpus]

Because that means that I, a religious person, am a superstitious idiot.

You could be an intelligent superstitious person though, couldn't you? Or a regular non-stupid non-uberintelligent superstitious person? My mom is superstitious but she's one of the most intelligent people I know.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You could be an intelligent superstitious person though, couldn't you? Or a regular non-stupid non-uberintelligent superstitious person? My mom is superstitious but she's one of the most intelligent people I know.

The issue, generally, is that you believe that acceptance of a god without proof is superstition, but acceptance of your non-god without proof is just good sense. You generally aren't as openly rude about it as Valka, but still a good example.

 

[Synobun]

I wish you'd said something years ago. I do not think you're a superstitious idiot.

My objection is when religious people - of any religion - try to impose their religion on others, whether it's by doorknocking or trying to block beneficial legislation due to personal preferences and not because it's bad legislation.

This could very easily be reversed. A religious person could say that banning religion from governance would be a symptom of an atheist imposing their will upon others.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You could be an intelligent superstitious person though, couldn't you? Or a regular non-stupid non-uberintelligent superstitious person? My mom is superstitious but she's one of the most intelligent people I know.

It makes a difference as to whether it's a harmless personal quirk (ie. not walking under a ladder or believing in 4-leaf clovers) or whether it's something that can negatively affect other people. One of my grandmother's superstitions would certainly be annoying if she were alive right now - she thought black cats were evil and would spit 3 times if she saw one (whether or not the cat crossed her path). She was even a bit dubious about my Siamese cat, because part of her coloring was black (it didn't seem to bother her when I had a couple of black and white tuxedo cats). But now? Maddy is about 99.9% black. My grandmother would either be spitting all day, every day, or she'd have to just get over it.

But that's not the sort of thing that has a definite negative effect on other people. If you have somebody who insists up, down, and sideways that Earth is only 6000 years old, how can that person be a credible cabinet minister in the science, environment, or energy portfolios? Fossil fuels are called fossil fuels for a reason. Yet Stephen Harper, not to mention some Conservative premiers, would put such people in those cabinet portfolios... and surprise, they were climate change deniers and completely oblivious to the environmental damage being done by the oil and gas companies.

This could very easily be reversed. A religious person could say that banning religion from governance would be a symptom of an atheist imposing their will upon others.

Why should someone in government, or employed by the government, get to dictate to a non-believer that they have to pray in school? That's how it was when I was a child. It's even how it was during my B.Ed. practicum in college. That was pre-Charter, so at the time I didn't have the right to politely tell the regular teacher that I would not be joining her and the class in their morning prayers and expect her to take it without retaliation.

 

[Synobun]

Why should someone in government, or employed by the government, get to dictate to a non-believer that they have to pray in school?

They shouldn't, but that's because you and I agree on this. We see imposing religion as something that goes against our interests and ethics. However, a deeply religious person may see our position as the unethical choice. Their objection may be that you're preventing them from doing what is right.

I realize that's quickly heading into moral relativism territory. And I'm not sure how best to bridge the perspective gap. I'm on-board with enforcing secularism as I believe that's the best option. That being said, it's difficult to explain a reason for this to someone if the fundamentals differ. What you see as obvious is what they see as unethical, and the same is true in reverse.

 

[warpus]

This could very easily be reversed. A religious person could say that banning religion from governance would be a symptom of an atheist imposing their will upon others.

In this case though the goal of the government is to make the national anthem fully inclusive. Instead of sons we have all of Canada. Everyone's included instead of just Canadians who are sons. This is important, according to the government, because the national anthem is about all of us, and not some of us. I agree with the government on this.

So you could say that, but making something more inclusive is not an imposition. It's an improvement.

The issue, generally, is that you believe that acceptance of a god without proof is superstition, but acceptance of your non-god without proof is just good sense. You generally aren't as openly rude about it as Valka, but still a good example.

If you want my personal opinion on the word "superstition", I never equated that word with the belief of the supernatural. To me "superstition" is when you scratch your butt in a certain place before a big game for good luck. Or don't eat salami on wednesdays for reasons of "bad luck". And other things like that. Maybe in Polish we have 2 words for this? I'm not sure. You believe that something exists, how can that be superstitious? I think how you act upon that belief is what can make you superstitious. If you hang up items on your walls "for good luck" due to your belief in the supernatural, then yeah, I would call that superstitious I guess.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

They shouldn't, but that's because you and I agree on this. We see imposing religion as something that goes against our interests and ethics. However, a deeply religious person may see our position as the unethical choice. Their objection may be that you're preventing them from doing what is right.

They're not prevented at all. In Alberta, if you want to pray in school, there's no shortage of Catholic schools, charter schools, and home schooling. So with all those choices, why do they need to impose their belief system on the public schools?

If I'd had more choices when I was in school, there are some assignments I'd have opted out of for reasons of conscience (dissections), and there is no way I would have put up with "pray or go to detention" or "pray or risk a negative report to your practicum supervisor" - because a negative report would have been enough for me to be kicked out of the B.Ed. program.

I realize that's quickly heading into moral relativism territory. And I'm not sure how best to bridge the perspective gap. I'm on-board with enforcing secularism as I believe that's the best option. That being said, it's difficult to explain a reason for this to someone if the fundamentals differ. What you see as obvious is what they see as unethical, and the same is true in reverse.

What I see in this instance is religious people attempting to impose their beliefs on public schools. The reverse can't happen, btw. You want a job at a Catholic school? You have to prove you're Catholic. Even if you're just applying to be a janitor, and won't go near any teaching. That's a violation of the Charter, but they're allowed to get away with it. The public schools impose no such thing as "prove you're not religious" in order for someone to be hired.

 

[warpus]

They're at least allowing non-Catholic students now I guess. It wasn't like when I went through the catholic high school system.

I personally loved it, there was mass a couple times each year, and since I walked to school I got to sleep in on those days... Plus stuff in the auditorium for easter and christmas, was easy to sneak out and do whatever you want. They did not take attendance for religious events for whatever reason, maybe a legal one. So you could do what you wanted, as long as it wasn't too obvious. The vast majority of days had nothing religious about them other than "religion class", which were mandatory in grades 9 and 10. There was also a chapel in the school which was open for students to use as they saw fit (or not).

Religion class in grade 9 was boring, but I learned a bit of good biblical trivia. It was all old testament stuff, so at times a bit interesting to learn about from a non-believer perspective, but I knew most of it already so for that reason it was boring. Grade 10 religion was "World Religions" so a lot more interesting to me, because I did not know a lot about other religions at the time. I like to learn new things about our world, so I was into it.

Other than that we had a higher standard of education than the public school system, and everything else was exactly the same. Oh and there were a lot of Polish people there and even a "Polish corner" where a large group of Polish students always hung out, right under the photo of Pope John Paul II, which the school was named after.

So I had a good experience in this system overall, but it needs to be opened up to include everyone, the Catholic label needs to be stripped off, and it probably needs to be merged with the other public school system.. the one that's actually 100% public.