Thursday, June 04, 2009
"Atheism: a threat to civilization."
Now, what might you think an article with such a title could be?
That's right! It's an extended complaint about how "the militant atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others who want to slam religion ... portray Christianity not only as wrong but evil."
As could be predicted, the names Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao Zhe Dong get associated with atheism as well.
If you haven't suffered too much irony whiplash from that, consider the following juxtaposition:
"Their goal is to divorce political questions like abortion from moral claims and religion ..."
[Which is part of] a larger and more insidious political strategy designed to make voters fear Conservatives on the basis of individual religious choices."
You might think this wouldn't bother me much, seeing how I'm a militantly apathetic agnostic, but I'm afraid that the author of the piece, one Fr. Alphonse de Valk, is pretty clearly conflating "secularists" with "atheists":
Atheism's common form in Canada is secularism. As we have pointed out many times in the past, modern secularism is not neutral; on the contrary, it is aggressively anti-Christian.
Lastly, there is this, which just goes to show what difference an editor can make:
Today the Christian belief in God is under tremendous attack. It began in the 1960's with the overthrow of the age–old condom nation of contraceptives, divorce, abortion, and homosexual activism.
Hows that for progressive?
On the other hand, you do still spell words like "atheist" and "neighbor" with unnecessary vowels ...
And I notice he recycles the Standard Lies about l'affaire Goodyear. I may have to fisk this at my place, over the weekend....
This may or maynot be true. The leaders of three of Canada's four main political parties don't exactly hype their religious beliefs. They may or maynot be agnostic or atheist, but to my knowledge none of them have aver made that claim.
One thing that is very different up here, compared to the US, is the role of religion in politics. We're much less tolerant of religious agendas in our politicians, whereas in the US it seems to be a requirement - especially for one particular party...