Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 101

Thread: Is it ok for the Governor General to mock religion?

  1. #1

    Default Is it ok for the Governor General to mock religion?

    As this article points out, she mocked god as a concept, and also mocked astrology. But she didn’t mock the great bear spirt in Jumbo Valley. Would the Liberal elites have laughed if she had?

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/chri...#comments-area

    Curiously she also attacked homeopathy, which is nonesense, but it’s a nonesense her bosses the Queen and Prince Charles both believe in.

    I am an atheist, and I don’t like monarchy, but I am not sure it makes sense to have a GG giving speeches that imply everyone who isn’t (eg Justin Trudeau who is Catholic), is ignorant. It’s worth watching the speech, one of those interesting speeches where as much is said by the body language (rolling eyes) as the words.

    If Trudeau and the Liberals want to come out and say that Allah and Jehovah / Jesus and Buddha and Odin and Apollo and the Great Bear Spirit are all nonesense, great, I’ll cheer them on - but you don’t need to appoint someone to the GG position to say it for you.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-11-2017 at 06:25 AM.

  2. #2
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    I agree with just about everything she said. But she should not have said much of it, given that she's supposed to be above politics and many people would vehemently disagree with much of what she said. Someone's got to tell her to dial it back a bit.

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    No, it's not okay.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    No, it's not okay.
    Agree that it’s politically incorrect.

  5. #5

    Default

    Funny that it seems that half the world engages in what is being called mockery of others beliefs (capitalism, socialism, religion, etc. etc. etc.) The current US president among many more before him have even legitimized mockery as the way of winners.

    It may be Kelly McParland that “must learn”. As well, that the GG is appointed by our Queen upon a PM recommendation. (Another one of those subtleties.)


    Kelly McParland: Payette must learn mockery is not the correct response to different opinions
    Kelly McParlandKelly McParland
    November 3, 2017 2:59 PM EDT

    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/kell...erent-opinions
    Last edited by KC; 04-11-2017 at 09:33 AM.

  6. #6

    Default

    That's appalling coming from the GG. If she had made that speech not as the GG nobody would of been any the wiser except the people in the hall. The GG is the Queens representative in Canada and is supposed to speak for the Queen. The Queen would never make a speech like that in public. Payette should exercise a little decorum. How well was she vetted before she was offered the job. Remember when Big Tater gave the finger to those protesters in BC. Well, is this Tater Tot's finger to the public by appointing someone who has no filters.
    Last edited by Gemini; 04-11-2017 at 10:31 AM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  7. #7
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    i’m don’t believe she was mocking religion in the manner that trump mocks individuals... i think the comparison would be to a well run forum - you can respond or react to the post or to the idea, not to the poster. in that light, not only am i fine with her positions, i think if governments and government representatives were prepared to do this more often or had started it decades or even centuries ago then the world would be a better place. we all have the right and the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe and that includes the right to be wrong. but if i choose to believe in the non-existence of gravity, our government and our media and our schools shouldn’t be expected to teach and support that belief simply because i hold it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #8

    Default

    ^Well, I am sure you have heard the expression 'this is not the time or place'. That should have been the way it was for her speech. She is supposed to represent the Queen and the Queen would not have made a speech like that. If you are the father of the bride when you make the wedding toast surely you don't start to harp on about your job, your money woes, your love life etc. Time, place. Payette should maybe think twice before she speaks as she speaks for the Queen and what the Queen stands for.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    That's appalling coming from the GG. If she had made that speech not as the GG nobody would of been any the wiser except the people in the hall. The GG is the Queens representative in Canada and is supposed to speak for the Queen. The Queen would never make a speech like that in public. Payette should exercise a little decorum. How well was she vetted before she was offered the job. Remember when Big Tater gave the finger to those protesters in BC. Well, is this Tater Tot's finger to the public by appointing someone who has no filters.

    Good post! This person won't even acknowledge if she supports the monarchy. His judgement is way off, as is hers by the sound of it!

  10. #10

    Default

    I am not OK with mocking religion.

    Some scholars and atheists scoff at religion and state if you are a scientist that you can't believe. Well it is a fact some of the greatest minds in science believe in God. A local example is Dr. Don Page at the UofA Physics Department. He is one of the world's great Cosmologists who edits and challenges Stephen Hawkins theories and books. Page stars that the more he studies the universe and dark matter, the more he believes in God.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    That's appalling coming from the GG. If she had made that speech not as the GG nobody would of been any the wiser except the people in the hall. The GG is the Queens representative in Canada and is supposed to speak for the Queen. The Queen would never make a speech like that in public. Payette should exercise a little decorum. How well was she vetted before she was offered the job. Remember when Big Tater gave the finger to those protesters in BC. Well, is this Tater Tot's finger to the public by appointing someone who has no filters.

    Good post! This person won't even acknowledge if she supports the monarchy. His judgement is way off, as is hers by the sound of it!
    It's like when Tater Tots wife Mrs. Potato Head wailing a song about her daughter during a Martin Luther King Tribute. Totally wrong. Libs love to make it all about them and if they are famous/political/rich libs they gloat even more. Payette is just a reflection of that.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  12. #12
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I am not OK with mocking religion.

    Some scholars and atheists scoff at religion and state if you are a scientist that you can't believe. Well it is a fact some of the greatest minds in science believe in God. A local example is Dr. Don Page at the UofA Physics Department. He is one of the world's great Cosmologists who edits and challenges Stephen Hawkins theories and books. Page stars that the more he studies the universe and dark matter, the more he believes in God.
    i don't think she was mocking religion in the sense you're not okay with...

    there's a big difference between dr. don page stating that "the more he studies the universe and dark matter, the more he believes in God" and those who use their belief in something to preclude studying the universe or dark matter or anything else or anyone else from studying the universe or dark matter or anything else.

    unquestioning belief to the exclusion of anything else whether that belief is in the form of religion or horoscopes and then allowing that belief to take precedence over all other potential thought or free will is what's not okay.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  13. #13

    Default

    the only acceptable norm left that society accepts is mocking religions. There's so much that society doesnt accept anymore but when it comes to bashing Christians or other religions its perfectly okay.

  14. #14
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    the only acceptable norm left that society accepts is mocking religions. There's so much that society doesnt accept anymore but when it comes to bashing Christians or other religions its perfectly okay.

    Yes, I think that's true.
    I'm not religious, but many of my friends/family are.

  15. #15

    Default

    Its interesting that Payette is talking about free thought and not being echo chambers while being one in the Evolution vs Creationism debate. I side with evolution myself but have always welcomed critiques of it, or more erudite defenses of alternate philosophies.

    Its interesting as well that Payette considers evolution scientific fact. It is still a theory. Indeed its the critique of any theory that furthers science and debate and where clear inconsistencies are found the theory could be further developed and expanded on, or parts therein refuted.

    People speaking about Scientific Process should consider it is a process. Human knowledge, and by product science, is not omniscient at this stage. As much as we like to think it is.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  16. #16

    Default

    Political affiliations are openly mocked too. Funny that - religion and politics are open to public mockery, but I've been told they aren't polite subjects for social gatherings.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    the only acceptable norm left that society accepts is mocking religions. There's so much that society doesnt accept anymore but when it comes to bashing Christians or other religions its perfectly okay.

    Yes, I think that's true.
    I'm not religious, but many of my friends/family are.
    You’re kidding. We’re approaching two decades of incessant - everything (debates, propaganda, wars...)- about islam, muslims, terrorists, anti-islam’ists being labelled as racists, refugee and immigranion defences all in the name of supporting religious equality...

  18. #18

    Default

    Further. Payette, while she has represented well in other speeches should heed that hers is a figurehead position. It exists largely to perpetrate good will at least in as much as is the common view of the symbolic position. So that grace, and graciousness, is the foundation of the ministry she currently holds. She does seem to be furthering some aspects in this speech that are not the purview of her position. The last thing a GG should be doing, I would think, is making comments that offend. Albeit I had no reaction to the comments and felt they were mild, not everybody would interpret them in that way.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  19. #19
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,285

    Default

    I applaud Jule 100% on her speech. It’s 2017, not the Middle Ages. I don’t even care who was offended, they deserve to be made fun of in this day and age given the insanity they believe in.
    Last edited by etownboarder; 04-11-2017 at 03:03 PM.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,711

    Default

    I thought her remarks were quite clearly directed at the part religion has played in governance, and the wedge effect it has had in virtually every facet of society. Not specifically at religion in general or the people who practice it, but at the fact that religion is obviously getting in the way of progress. As for Chris Selley's comments on it, he's the one bringing indigenous beliefs into this. He even noted that 'Had she riffed on Indigenous religious beliefs specifically on Wednesday, it would have been a full-blown crisis'.

    The eye-roll wasn't good. Obviously. But what would you say if your MP publicly started voting on house matters based on Astrology? Preaching in interviews about Jupiter being in the 4th house before voting against something that you feel strongly in favour of? Do you think that would be ridiculous? I'd assume so.

    Believe whatever you want, practice it all day long if that's what suits you. But once you start legislating based on your religious affiliation, and affecting other people in a negative way, you are open to criticism and eye-rolling.

  21. #21

    Default

    Etownboarder said exactly what I'm thinking.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    Really? I thought he sounded like an id!ot

  23. #23

    Default

    curious on those mocking religion where those people stand on the niqab bans.. I suppose I don't really need to ask.

  24. #24
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Its interesting as well that Payette considers evolution scientific fact. It is still a theory.


    Careful now. Scientists use "theory" quite differently than the general public. Almost all of science is "just a theory" (I know you didn't use "just"), and there are very few actual "laws". Those mostly reside in math and physics. Outside of those fields, pretty much everything is a theory and open for further study and revision if necessary.

    But at this point, anyone who seriously questions the validity of the theory of evolution should be mocked, unless they have a very, very good alternative hypothesis. The entire field of biology is built upon it, and many others heavily draw upon it. At this point, it's withstood 160 years of study and held up fine. Sure, it's been further fleshed out in the intervening years, but if anything that's an indication of it's validity. Things like Intelligent Design are laughably bad, and have literally been found in a courtroom to not even be a valid hypothesis, let alone an actual scientific theory capable of explaining the world as we know it.

    Same goes with numerous other "theories", like general/special relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang, plate tectonics, and so on. If someone is going to seriously call any of those in to question and not simply invite ridicule upon themselves, then they better have something better than "God did it."

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    i don't think she was mocking religion in the sense you're not okay with...
    She used the “would you believe, in this day and age” them sounded incredulous that people would believe in astrology or creation. Easy targets perhaps, but if people enjoy those things, why is it deserving of mockery? I think it’s the sort of talk that probably goes on in science conferences quite often, but even there I’m not sure it’s right - religion (faith) and science don’t need to conflict. I think the speech is actually a bit childish, hopefully someone takes her aside / vets her speeches in the future.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Really? I thought he sounded like an id!ot
    Says the induhvidual who laughs at the thought of excrement and splooge on festival goers. Do explain how your incessant pre-pubescent mockery of anything outside your political party membership somehow remotely qualifies you to pass judgement on Ms. Payette. Or anyone else, for that matter.

    As always, don't let outrageous hypocrisy slow you down.

    Today's acronym: Perpetual Uber-Twitted Zealot

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I applaud Jule 100% on her speech. It’s 2017, not the Middle Ages. I don’t even care who was offended, they deserve to be made fun of in this day and age given the insanity they believe in.
    So you believe.

  28. #28

    Default

    It's not a matter of what we believe on this forum in this instance.
    Payette (in Canada) represents the Queen. The Queen, defender of the faith for the Church of England.
    The Queen herself does not weigh in on religious, political matters. She keeps a wide berth on those things. She's the Queen, not a religious expert.
    It would have been fine if Payette made that speech under her banner of astronaut. To make it under the banner of Governor General was just wrong.
    She has to learn to separate those rolls while being GG.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  29. #29
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I applaud Jule 100% on her speech. It’s 2017, not the Middle Ages. I don’t even care who was offended, they deserve to be made fun of in this day and age given the insanity they believe in.
    Ok I'll bite.... where do you think the building blocks of life came from then since the "primordial soup" theory has thankfully been put to rest?

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    Ok I'll bite.... where do you think the building blocks of life came from then since the "primordial soup" theory has thankfully been put to rest?
    We've been through this before. All are encouraged to believe as one wishes. That includes the liberty to accept the divination of life, the universe and everything. But do not purport there is any such substantiated evidence whatsoever.

    "Then, where did we come from?" Great question. Yet not a piece of evidence. Or an answer.

    That is the width and breadth of the issue.

  31. #31
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edTel View Post
    Ok I'll bite.... where do you think the building blocks of life came from then since the "primordial soup" theory has thankfully been put to rest?
    We've been through this before. All are encouraged to believe as one wishes. That includes the liberty to accept the divination of life, the universe and everything. But do not purport there is any such substantiated evidence whatsoever.

    "Then, where did we come from?" Great question. Yet not a piece of evidence. Or an answer.

    That is the width and breadth of the issue.
    As you say, everyone has the right to believe as they wish and I am honestly curious as to how the naturalist explains the sudden appearance of the building blocks necessary for production of RNA and DNA in the first complex cells?

  32. #32
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    There are multiple hypotheses, but yes, it's very much in question. Feel free to educate yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Again, "God did it" is not a valid answer, hypothesis or theory in science. What's your alternative hypothesis that doesn't invoke a magic man in the sky?

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    Wow, JT sure knows how to pick 'em doesn't he. The more weirdos he hires the bigger the smile on Andy's face. I voted for JT but my support is definitely waning.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 05-11-2017 at 05:26 AM.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    Says the induhvidual who laughs at the thought of excrement and splooge on festival goers.
    What does this mean? Anyone?

    What does it have to do with this thread?

    Does someone need to go back on their meds?

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Says the induhvidual who laughs at the thought of excrement and splooge on festival goers.
    What does this mean? Anyone?

    What does it have to do with this thread?

    Does someone need to go back on their meds?
    I had no idea but I tend to tolerate peoples freedom of speech and harmless non-hate motivated splooge.


    The bottom line is that the GG is the Queen’s representative and needs to speak in the conventional time-honoured politically correct and acceptable language. (As a universal truth is: Whatever you say or do - WILL be used against you.’)

    Similarly I’ve longed waited for the Queen to say something, anything, that reflectes her actual views and vast, VAST learnings from her position of power and privy but no, we just get fluff year after year, decade after decade. She probably knows best.
    Last edited by KC; 05-11-2017 at 08:02 AM.

  36. #36

    Default

    ^I respect the Queen (not the institution), but I don’t think you should assume she has vast learnings, anymore than anyone does just by having dinner parties with Prime Ministers. I suspect part of the reason she has done so well in the role, is that she is simple, basically a socialite focussed on people not politics or science, and that works perfect for the job. People politely say she is intelligent but they don’t really mean it. Anyone with a lot of intelect would be bored out of their mind having to sit around attending countless meaningless ceremonies, meetings and functions (she can’t whip out the iPhone and ignore them). Charles on the other, isn’t academic or bright (he is so out of touch with the modern world that he pens letters by hand), but imagines he is smart and relevant, it’s going to be a total mess when he is the King of Canada.
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-11-2017 at 08:42 AM.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Wow, JT sure knows how to pick 'em doesn't he. The more weirdos he hires the bigger the smile on Andy's face. I voted for JT but my support is definitely waning.
    The interesting thing is there were lots of warning signs. Some government insiders had reportedly warned she is a handful, and there was all the drama of the assault charge against her that was dropped. Drama will follow her - on the bright side, I guess at least she can’t be worse than Clarkson was...
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-11-2017 at 08:45 AM.

  38. #38
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ...

    The bottom line is that the GG is the Queen’s representative and needs to speak in the conventional time-honoured politically correct and acceptable language. (As a universal truth is: Whatever you say or do - WILL be used against you.’)

    Similarly I’ve longed waited for the Queen to say something, anything, that reflectes her actual views and vast, VAST learnings from her position of power and privy but no, we just get fluff year after year, decade after decade. She probably knows best.
    i think i have the same reservations about your post as i did about selley's initial column. there were two possible responses to the speech - you could either agree with her statements or you could disagree with her statements. selley - not me favourite columnist - seemed to work really hard to agree and to disagree at the same time.

    you are correct, she is the queen's representative but there is no requirement i am aware of that insists upon "time-honoured politically correct and acceptable language". but i heard no unacceptable language in the speech (assuming you did mean to use the word "language" and not "thought".

    as for the "thoughts" in the speech, again she is the queen's representative. why are you so positive that the thoughts expressed didn't represent the queen's actual views and vast, VAST learnings from her position of power and privy?

    time-honoured politically correct process would in fact probably call for a monarch's representatives - just as they call for a president's or a prime minister's or a premier's representatives - to put forward thoughts and opinions and policies to the public prior to the person they speak for stating those same things.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ...

    The bottom line is that the GG is the Queen’s representative and needs to speak in the conventional time-honoured politically correct and acceptable language. (As a universal truth is: Whatever you say or do - WILL be used against you.’)

    Similarly I’ve longed waited for the Queen to say something, anything, that reflectes her actual views and vast, VAST learnings from her position of power and privy but no, we just get fluff year after year, decade after decade. She probably knows best.
    i think i have the same reservations about your post as i did about selley's initial column. there were two possible responses to the speech - you could either agree with her statements or you could disagree with her statements. selley - not me favourite columnist - seemed to work really hard to agree and to disagree at the same time.

    you are correct, she is the queen's representative but there is no requirement i am aware of that insists upon "time-honoured politically correct and acceptable language". but i heard no unacceptable language in the speech (assuming you did mean to use the word "language" and not "thought".

    as for the "thoughts" in the speech, again she is the queen's representative. why are you so positive that the thoughts expressed didn't represent the queen's actual views and vast, VAST learnings from her position of power and privy?

    time-honoured politically correct process would in fact probably call for a monarch's representatives - just as they call for a president's or a prime minister's or a premier's representatives - to put forward thoughts and opinions and policies to the public prior to the person they speak for stating those same things.
    Great points. Thanks.

    The tone and the use of, what was it, “do you believe...” seemed to be the point of contention

  40. #40

    Default

    Kinda comical because she represents the Queen of England, the head of the Church of England.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #41
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    I find it embarrassing more than comical. I haven't seen much in the news about it so it's fading away but hopefully JT takes notice and has serious discussion with the GG Julie
    Last edited by Drumbones; 05-11-2017 at 09:33 AM.

  42. #42
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I find it embarrassing more than comical. I haven't seen much in the news about it so it's fading away but hopefully JT takes notice and has serious discussion with the GG Julie
    ???

    she's the queen's representative, not jt's representative.

    if anything, hopefully she'll have some serious discussions with him.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  43. #43
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    See it how you like. Technicalities aside, he's the boss.

  44. #44
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    See it how you like. Technicalities aside, he's the boss.
    technicalities aside?

    technically, she's the boss.

    although it was upon his recommendation, she was appointed by the queen and serves at the queen's pleasure not his. as long as it remains the queen's pleasure, the governor general will continue to be the federal vice-regal representative of the canadian monarchy. her responsibilities include presiding over the swearing-in of the prime minister, the chief justice and cabinet ministers and to summon, prorogue and dissolves parliament as well as delivering the speech from the throne. she is also the one who gives royal assent to acts of parliament without which parliament cannot govern.

    are some of those roles predominantly ceremonial? only insofar as only ceremony is needed. where more is required, the power and responsibility still resides in the office.

    just technicalities i know. but that is how we govern and conduct ourselves at all levels, not just where it concerns the governor general.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  45. #45

    Default

    I like it when people in public positions are honest and forthcoming with their opinions instead of simply reading superficial politically-correct poll-tested speeches from a script.

    Now I would like to hear if her opinions apply to all religions and religious beliefs, or just some of them, to see if she is just trying to selectively bash specific religious beliefs over others.

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I find it embarrassing more than comical. I haven't seen much in the news about it so it's fading away but hopefully JT takes notice and has serious discussion with the GG Julie
    ???

    she's the queen's representative, not jt's representative.

    if anything, hopefully she'll have some serious discussions with him.
    Which goes to prove the absurdity of the whole situation. The Queen has no influence over Canadian politics and yet her representative is appointed by the governing party. Is the Governor General supposed to be a clairvoyant? How is she supposed to know what the queen wants her to do?
    So as a strictly ceremonial position does it really matter what she says?
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  47. #47
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    I find it embarrassing more than comical. I haven't seen much in the news about it so it's fading away but hopefully JT takes notice and has serious discussion with the GG Julie
    ???

    she's the queen's representative, not jt's representative.

    if anything, hopefully she'll have some serious discussions with him.
    Which goes to prove the absurdity of the whole situation. The Queen has no influence over Canadian politics and yet her representative is appointed by the governing party. Is the Governor General supposed to be a clairvoyant? How is she supposed to know what the queen wants her to do?
    So as a strictly ceremonial position does it really matter what she says?
    Yes, it matters.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,374

    Default

    It is okay for anyone to have an opinion as an individual, its NOT okay for the Governor General to mock other citizen's religions or views. The problem is where do you draw the line at personal vs. official views.

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,525

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Its interesting that Payette is talking about free thought and not being echo chambers while being one in the Evolution vs Creationism debate. I side with evolution myself but have always welcomed critiques of it, or more erudite defenses of alternate philosophies.

    Its interesting as well that Payette considers evolution scientific fact. It is still a theory. Indeed its the critique of any theory that furthers science and debate and where clear inconsistencies are found the theory could be further developed and expanded on, or parts therein refuted.

    People speaking about Scientific Process should consider it is a process. Human knowledge, and by product science, is not omniscient at this stage. As much as we like to think it is.
    No evolution is fact just as we know gravity is a fact. There are theories as to how gravity works as there are theories as to the process which brought about evolution.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    See it how you like. Technicalities aside, he's the boss.
    technicalities aside?

    technically, she's the boss.

    although it was upon his recommendation, she was appointed by the queen and serves at the queen's pleasure not his. as long as it remains the queen's pleasure, the governor general will continue to be the federal vice-regal representative of the canadian monarchy. her responsibilities include presiding over the swearing-in of the prime minister, the chief justice and cabinet ministers and to summon, prorogue and dissolves parliament as well as delivering the speech from the throne. she is also the one who gives royal assent to acts of parliament without which parliament cannot govern.

    are some of those roles predominantly ceremonial? only insofar as only ceremony is needed. where more is required, the power and responsibility still resides in the office.

    just technicalities i know. but that is how we govern and conduct ourselves at all levels, not just where it concerns the governor general.
    You're thinking 1700s Ken. Not how it Actually works. It's just ceremonial kept intact for old times sake. William and Kate may be able to keep it going but before them I think the monarchy was in trouble and would have likely been abolished at the Queens death. With JT being a Roman Catholic and a staunch believer in freedom of religion and the Queen being the head of the Church of England I'm thinking she must mind her peas and ques after this or she will be toast. Just my opinion.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 05-11-2017 at 01:47 PM.

  51. #51

    Default

    I don't think for one minute that French Canadian Catholics give a flying fruck about prodesants and The Church of England. They give even less a fruck about the Monarchy being prodesants. In fact the more political/rich/famous they are the less they care. In fact I bet the British Monarchy are not on most French Canadians radar. Remember when Big Tater Pierre did a pirouette behind the Queen. I should imagine that's Tater Tot's attitude towards monarchy. Showing disrespect and ignorance like his father. I doubt he'll say a word to Payette about her speech. Probably to busy wondering who (and where) he's going to spend Xmas with and if a private jet will be provided.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  52. #52
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    See it how you like. Technicalities aside, he's the boss.
    technicalities aside?

    technically, she's the boss.

    although it was upon his recommendation, she was appointed by the queen and serves at the queen's pleasure not his. as long as it remains the queen's pleasure, the governor general will continue to be the federal vice-regal representative of the canadian monarchy. her responsibilities include presiding over the swearing-in of the prime minister, the chief justice and cabinet ministers and to summon, prorogue and dissolves parliament as well as delivering the speech from the throne. she is also the one who gives royal assent to acts of parliament without which parliament cannot govern.

    are some of those roles predominantly ceremonial? only insofar as only ceremony is needed. where more is required, the power and responsibility still resides in the office.

    just technicalities i know. but that is how we govern and conduct ourselves at all levels, not just where it concerns the governor general.
    You're thinking 1700s Ken. Not how it Actually works. It's just ceremonial kept intact for old times sake. William and Kate may be able to keep it going but before them I think the monarchy was in trouble and would have likely been abolished at the Queens death. With JT being a Roman Catholic and a staunch believer in freedom of religion and the Queen being the head of the Church of England I'm thinking she must mind her peas and ques after this or she will be toast. Just my opinion.
    well according to the government of canada, the roles and responsibilities of the governor general include the following constitutional duties:

    "Canada is a constitutional monarchy, where the duties of head of State and head of Government are distinct. Canada’s Parliament consists of three parts: the Queen, represented by the governor general; the Senate; and the House of Commons.


    "The Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada (1947) authorize the governor general of Canada to exercise powers and responsibilities belonging to the Sovereign, with the advice of members of the Privy Council. The governor general is non-partisan and apolitical.

    "The Canadian Constitution Act (1867) places executive power in the Queen. However, in practice this power is exercised by the prime minister and his ministers. The governor general acts on the advice of the prime minister and the government, but has the right to advise, to encourage and to warn. As such, the governor general can offer valued counsel to the head of Government.


    "One of the governor general’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament. In addition, the governor general holds certain reserve powers, which are exercised at his or her own discretion. The governor general also presides over the swearing-in of the prime minister, the chief justice of Canada and cabinet ministers. It is the governor general who summons, prorogues and dissolves Parliament, who delivers the Speech from the Throne, and who gives Royal Assent to acts of Parliament. The governor general signs official documents and regularly meets with the prime minister."

    emphasis added...

    and that's how it works today, not just 400 years ago. it may well be mostly ceremonial most of the time but that doesn't diminish the remaining responsibilities regardless of how often they are exercised.

  53. #53
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,602

    Default

    After watching the video of Payette's remarks on YouTube several times, I don't think the thread title accurately reflects what the GG actually said.

    She was not mocking the religious beliefs of every day citizens. She was expressing incredulity that there are still those in learned society and houses of government that deny human caused climate change, put faith in horoscopes, and believe life came from divine intervention instead of natural random processes.

  54. #54
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Kinda comical because she represents the Queen of England, the head of the Church of England.
    And? Anglicans aren't Creationists and are more or less accepting of all modern science. It's a pretty mellow denomination compared to others.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 05-11-2017 at 05:31 PM.

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    After watching the video of Payette's remarks on YouTube several times, I don't think the thread title accurately reflects what the GG actually said.

    She was not mocking the religious beliefs of every day citizens. She was expressing incredulity that there are still those in learned society and houses of government that deny human caused climate change, put faith in horoscopes, and believe life came from divine intervention instead of natural random processes.
    Whether she was mocking religious beliefs or not she is now representing the Queen. The Queen does not make public speeches on her opinions in regards to religion, politics or a number of other issues. Payette's speech would have been O.K if she was speaking as an astronaut but not as a G. G.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  56. #56
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    There are multiple hypotheses, but yes, it's very much in question. Feel free to educate yourself here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

    Again, "God did it" is not a valid answer, hypothesis or theory in science. What's your alternative hypothesis that doesn't invoke a magic man in the sky?
    The fact remains that science will never be able to prove or unprove the existence of God/Intelligent Designer but the more that science finds out about how life came to be on this planet the less likely it becomes that is was just random chance due to all the fine tuning required. Even Darwin allowed for the fact that God could be the designer of the evolutionary process. As far as where the building blocks of life came from I am not expert so I defer to those with more knowledge on this then myself...

    https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/to...origin-of-life

    "Whether natural reservoirs of significant concentrations of amino acids and ribose sugars even exist is debatable. Astronomers have yet to detect ribose or any of the bioactive amino acids in the only possible astronomical synthesizers of these molecules, namely interstellar molecular clouds.9"

    As you know from reading my other posts, I do not subscribe to the a literal six day creation period as the Hebrew word recorded in Genesis is "yom" which can also mean an undefined long period of time which I believe is the correct. If God chose evolution or just created new species as time went on, matters not to me except when it comes to the creation of human life which I believe was a special creation. I don't think that you would argue that the human species is different from the rest of the animal world. Where we differ is that you believe that the hominids evolved into modern humans, and I do not. Anyway we should probably take further discussion to the religion thread so as to not derail the topic further.

  57. #57
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    The fact remains that science will never be able to prove or unprove the existence of God/Intelligent Designer


    This is true. Good thing that is not what science does. Science is agnostic as far as God or the supernatural are concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    but the more that science finds out about how life came to be on this planet the less likely it becomes that is was just random chance due to all the fine tuning required.


    Totally false. Citation needed (the one you provide below is from a total cook who has little or no respect in the scientific community, and is not even a biologist).

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    Even Darwin allowed for the fact that God could be the designer of the evolutionary process.


    Citation needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    As far as where the building blocks of life came from I am not expert so I defer to those with more knowledge on this then myself...

    https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/to...origin-of-life


    Hugh Ross is a laughing stock in the scientific community. So much so that very few even bother to respond to his unique brand of silliness. But here's a couple:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...le-scientific/

    http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.ca/20...g-for-god.html

  58. #58
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I don't think for one minute that French Canadian Catholics give a flying fruck about prodesants and The Church of England. They give even less a fruck about the Monarchy being prodesants. In fact the more political/rich/famous they are the less they care. In fact I bet the British Monarchy are not on most French Canadians radar. Remember when Big Tater Pierre did a pirouette behind the Queen. I should imagine that's Tater Tot's attitude towards monarchy. Showing disrespect and ignorance like his father. I doubt he'll say a word to Payette about her speech. Probably to busy wondering who (and where) he's going to spend Xmas with and if a private jet will be provided.
    Its just another fire tater tot has to put out..there are a few!

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    Its interesting as well that Payette considers evolution scientific fact. It is still a theory.


    Careful now. Scientists use "theory" quite differently than the general public. Almost all of science is "just a theory" (I know you didn't use "just"), and there are very few actual "laws". Those mostly reside in math and physics. Outside of those fields, pretty much everything is a theory and open for further study and revision if necessary.

    But at this point, anyone who seriously questions the validity of the theory of evolution should be mocked, unless they have a very, very good alternative hypothesis. The entire field of biology is built upon it, and many others heavily draw upon it. At this point, it's withstood 160 years of study and held up fine. Sure, it's been further fleshed out in the intervening years, but if anything that's an indication of it's validity. Things like Intelligent Design are laughably bad, and have literally been found in a courtroom to not even be a valid hypothesis, let alone an actual scientific theory capable of explaining the world as we know it.

    Same goes with numerous other "theories", like general/special relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang, plate tectonics, and so on. If someone is going to seriously call any of those in to question and not simply invite ridicule upon themselves, then they better have something better than "God did it."
    I stated in the post that I side with Evolution.

    just ftr

    Hey, I have a good understanding of Biology and have studied Geology as well. In Geology an age old moving tectonic plate debate (excuse pun) is the underpinnings of uniformitarianism vs Cataclysm. (the latter now being referred to as Catastrophism) While uniform processes do a good job describing such things as sedimentary layers, geomorphology, plate tectonics etc, Earth incidents such as Earthquakes, Volcano's etc. are more perceived as cataclysmic incidents. Know in advance that I comprehend the gradual pressures that result in such cataclysm, and that I do not infer any kind of spaghetti monster god invocation, just that a combination of theories, and that were often competing in the past, often combine to further, rather than limit understanding.

    That said I'm Uniformitarianism grounded myself..
    Last edited by Replacement; 06-11-2017 at 01:56 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,714

    Default

    She's talking flak for this on her FB page, and some first nation groups are upset with her

  61. #61

    Default

    ^Ha Ha, on days like this I wish I had a Facebook account.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  62. #62

    Default

    ^Not surprising, she basically called any indigenous person who believes that Great Spirit created us all, an *****. This isn't going away, people are learning about it, and getting more upset at it. Here is Rex:

    In this wonderfully diverse Canada that Ms. Payette now represents, was it her intent to ridicule the religious beliefs of so very many faiths whose cosmologies include a divine creation, some as myth, some as a fact of faith — as opposed to a fact of science? It may be easy to flip a rhetorical knuckle at, say, Christian fundamentalists (almost a hobby for present-day secularists), but is the Governor General really comfortable with derogating the mythos of so many of the world’s religions, and implicitly at least, leaving them on a plane with the trivial fortune-cookie elaborations of the daily horoscope? Indeed, what of First Nations’ and other Aboriginals’ cosmologies, their spiritual practices, their belief in the “sacredness” of nature? Are these acceptable truths or facts in a scientific age?

    ...

    Naturally, Ms. Payette opined on climate science, and equally naturally placed inquiry and skepticism on what is proclaimed the consensus of that but emergent discipline as denialism – thereby endorsing the ugliest rhetorical term in this entire, explosive issue, which summons the butchery and cruelty of History’s greatest crime as a spurious backdrop to debate on an unresolved public issue. We have a right to expect better from Her Majesty’s representative.
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-...-faith-science
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-11-2017 at 02:09 PM.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Not surprising, she basically called any indigenous person who believes that Great Spirit created us all, an *****. This isn't going away, people are learning about it, and getting more upset at it. Here is Rex:

    In this wonderfully diverse Canada that Ms. Payette now represents, was it her intent to ridicule the religious beliefs of so very many faiths whose cosmologies include a divine creation, some as myth, some as a fact of faith — as opposed to a fact of science? It may be easy to flip a rhetorical knuckle at, say, Christian fundamentalists (almost a hobby for present-day secularists), but is the Governor General really comfortable with derogating the mythos of so many of the world’s religions, and implicitly at least, leaving them on a plane with the trivial fortune-cookie elaborations of the daily horoscope? Indeed, what of First Nations’ and other Aboriginals’ cosmologies, their spiritual practices, their belief in the “sacredness” of nature? Are these acceptable truths or facts in a scientific age?

    ...

    Naturally, Ms. Payette opined on climate science, and equally naturally placed inquiry and skepticism on what is proclaimed the consensus of that but emergent discipline as denialism – thereby endorsing the ugliest rhetorical term in this entire, explosive issue, which summons the butchery and cruelty of History’s greatest crime as a spurious backdrop to debate on an unresolved public issue. We have a right to expect better from Her Majesty’s representative.
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-...-faith-science

    She specifically mentioned indigenous persons and Great Spirit beliefs?

    I didn't realize that.

    What exactly did she say?

    From what I'd read I thought she was speaking very broadly about devine intervention. I thought in the first article it was the articles author that introduced the Great Spirit reference but: no?

  64. #64

    Default

    ^She mocked anyone who believes in creation / astrology or similar, which includes indigenous people who believe in spirits - but sure, maybe for clarity, next time she should say "can you believe, in this day and age (except for indigenous people and perhaps also Muslim's, because I'm politically correct and I can't criticize them), that people still believe in divine creation..."????
    Last edited by moahunter; 06-11-2017 at 03:30 PM.

  65. #65

    Default

    Now you're trying to put your terrible words in the GGs mouth?

    Seriously moahunter, you're barely able to speak for yourself. Give it a break.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #66
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Below that old white mountain, just a little southeast of Nome
    Posts
    628

    Default

    [QUOTE=Marcel Petrin;855336]

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    but the more that science finds out about how life came to be on this planet the less likely it becomes that is was just random chance due to all the fine tuning required.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarcelPetrin View Post

    Totally false. Citation needed (the one you provide below is from a total cook who has little or no respect in the scientific community, and is not even a biologist).
    Marcel, no matter what citation I provide it is not going to satisfy you as you don’t accept the opinion of scientists who are also theists. As far as Dr. Ross goes, I would ask you for a citation regarding your claim about lack of respect for him within the scientific community.

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    Even Darwin allowed for the fact that God could be the designer of the evolutionary process.


    Quote Originally Posted by MarcelPetrin View Post

    Citation needed.


    http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/27/us/belief-in-god-and-in-evolution-possible-darwin-letter-says.html


    Quote Originally Posted by MarcelPetrin View Post

    Hugh Ross is a laughing stock in the scientific community. So much so that very few even bother to respond to his unique brand of silliness. But here's a couple:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross

    https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...le-scientific/

    http://skepticalprobe.blogspot.ca/2012/12/dr-hugh-ross-lying-for-god.html
    Again I would ask you for relevant citations as the above are not from fellow scientists.

    I accept the same scientific evidences that you do but I don’t come with the bias that it all necessarily occurred through a random set of naturalistic events. Yes, I come at it with the bias that it came about through the hand of God, and why wouldn’t I, as nothing in the Bible contradicts what science has discovered thus far.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^She mocked anyone who believes in creation / astrology or similar, which includes indigenous people who believe in spirits - but sure, maybe for clarity, next time she should say "can you believe, in this day and age (except for indigenous people and perhaps also Muslim's, because I'm politically correct and I can't criticize them), that people still believe in divine creation..."????
    As far as my eye can tell and I haven't seen a full video or transcript of Payettes speech but the article you cited is Murphy speculating and wondering if she is questioning such things as indigenous beliefs. I don't think Murphy is wrong on that, just that Payette didn't state it in so many words.

    The Murphy rebuttal is wonderful btw. Theres few oracle columnists left like him. He really still has a unique ability to get nuance where others so often see black and white.

    This, to me, is one of the most interesting statements;

    "Faith has its “knowing” and it is not the same as the “knowing” of science, and to make science with a capital “S” the singular aperture by which we may know all of life and the world is itself a secular heresy, which we know as Scientism."

    Indeed much of what we know is not due to Science but was discovered, happened upon, observed, known in some other way. Much of human knowledge is incidental, or accidental. Discovering one thing when looking for something else. Or discovering the opposite of what was thought and so on.

    In anycase its important to remember that Science, as well, can be considered a theism. As I mentioned earlier Human Knowledge is not absolutel it is not at an omniscient stage, we like to think it is, but we're still stumbling in darkness in many fields.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^She mocked anyone who believes in creation / astrology or similar, which includes indigenous people who believe in spirits - but sure, maybe for clarity, next time she should say "can you believe, in this day and age (except for indigenous people and perhaps also Muslim's, because I'm politically correct and I can't criticize them), that people still believe in divine creation..."????
    As far as my eye can tell and I haven't seen a full video or transcript of Payettes speech but the article you cited is Murphy speculating and wondering if she is questioning such things as indigenous beliefs. I don't think Murphy is wrong on that, just that Payette didn't state it in so many words.

    The Murphy rebuttal is wonderful btw. Theres few oracle columnists left like him. He really still has a unique ability to get nuance where others so often see black and white.

    This, to me, is one of the most interesting statements;

    "Faith has its “knowing” and it is not the same as the “knowing” of science, and to make science with a capital “S” the singular aperture by which we may know all of life and the world is itself a secular heresy, which we know as Scientism."

    Indeed much of what we know is not due to Science but was discovered, happened upon, observed, known in some other way. Much of human knowledge is incidental, or accidental. Discovering one thing when looking for something else. Or discovering the opposite of what was thought and so on.

    In anycase its important to remember that Science, as well, can be considered a theism. As I mentioned earlier Human Knowledge is not absolutel it is not at an omniscient stage, we like to think it is, but we're still stumbling in darkness in many fields.
    Well said. However, at some point the discoveries of science should enable people to question some elements of the scriptures and religious folklore that religions perpetuate. It shouldn’t take centuries for the followers of religions to accept discoveries such as the earth circling the sun vs the sun circling the earth. Plus the fact that some aspects of scriptures and teachings and translations have been proven wrong, should be sufficient reason to view all other scriptures and teachings as ‘failable’. [Nec scriptum]

    People, scientists included, need to respect the fact that humans neither now know very much with any degree of certainty, nor have they ever. Moreover science loving people have to understand that their own understanding of many scientific facts they themselves believe, are believed by them as articles of faith that the scientific experiments and results were actually valid.

    Does God exist?
    I’m very comfortable not knowing the answer to that so I don’t feel compelled to criticize others who’s beliefs fall along some spectrum of belief or disbelief as long as they don’t hit the absolutes. However, religious beliefs go far, far beyond a faith in a God(s) existence to include innumerable other articles of faith such as “chosen peoples” superiority of some or all people, etc.
    Last edited by KC; 07-11-2017 at 08:57 AM.

  69. #69
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    Marcel, no matter what citation I provide it is not going to satisfy you as you don’t accept the opinion of scientists who are also theists. As far as Dr. Ross goes, I would ask you for a citation regarding your claim about lack of respect for him within the scientific community.
    Actually no, I have zero problem with scientists who happen to believe in God, so long as they don't let their bronze age beliefs interfere with their scientific endeavors. And I did provide you with 3 links to critiques of his work, which expose it as being totally non-scientific. No scientist in their right mind is going to do an actual scientific study or poll about the kooky beliefs of one goofball, so sorry, I don't have a peer-reviewed paper that says Ross is indeed a goofball. But any rational reading of his work on old earth creationism makes it pretty clear the guy is way out there.

    That article doesn't say what you claimed it said. Main quote:

    Nevertheless, whereas Darwin believed evolution to be purely mechanistic, both Kingsley and Gray regarded it as divinely guided into progressive paths. Darwin, in his theory, had leaned heavily on the botanical research of Asa Gray at Harvard.

    ''What my own views may be,'' Darwin wrote in his letter, ''is a question of no consequence to anyone except myself. But as you ask I may state that my judgment often fluctuates. Moreover whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term, which is much too large a subject for a note.


    ''In my most extreme fluctuations,'' he continued, ''I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older) but not always that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.'' Darwin was then 70 years old.
    Bolding mine. You claimed "Darwin allowed for the fact that God could be the designer of the evolutionary process." That is absolutely not what he said, nor what that article said. Darwin believed evolution to be an entirely natural, mechanistic process that did not require a divine creator to guide it.

    Quote Originally Posted by edTel
    as nothing in the Bible contradicts what science has discovered thus far


    heh, the Bible contradicts itself on a regular basis (see here:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions), let alone 2000 years of scientific progress. But if that's what you believe, there's little chance I'm going to change your mind. But if you care to read, here you go: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

    The Bible didn't even get Pi right. Biblical literalism should have been consigned to the dustbin of history centuries ago, if not millenia. There is nothing in the Bible that couldn't have been written by a bronze age human with no deeper understanding of the world/universe/morality/ethics than his contemporaries. If the Bible truly is this amazing document that God himself guided the authoring of, why didn't God bother to say "hey guys, slavery is bad mmmkay? Don't own humans." Instead, it's full of passages on how to properly beat your slaves. Nice.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 07-11-2017 at 09:20 AM.

  70. #70
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    In anycase its important to remember that Science, as well, can be considered a theism.


    Yeah, no:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/

  71. #71
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    164

    Default

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-...b_9783386.html
    "It did not occur to me that the Scriptures seemed just as clear to detractors as it did to me, or even that what I thought was clear might have come across as a bit more obscure to others, and legitimately so. Now, however, I realize how powerful confirmation bias is, and what a strong role this cognitive error plays as a factor in determining personal belief...... Confirmation bias would seek to prove the hypothesis rather than disprove it - the latter is the scientific method; the former is an error."
    posts randomly and infrequently

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I applaud Jule 100% on her speech. It’s 2017, not the Middle Ages. I don’t even care who was offended, they deserve to be made fun of in this day and age given the insanity they believe in.
    +1
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  73. #73

    Default

    To me, a statement like the following short quote doesn't mean that the speaker agrees with another person 100%. It could be 100% sincere too: " “a good thing that we finally decided to listen again” to the wisdom of Aboriginal Canadians. Payette’s subsequent conference remarks could cast doubt on her sincerity." "


    Governor General should abandon unscripted speeches to conform to her role
    Barbara J. Messamore: Viceregal speeches are seldom memorable; when they are, it is usually for the wrong reasons

    "...the disappointed reaction in some quarters to the tone of Payette’s evidently unscripted comments offers an instructive example of the tightrope a viceregal representative must walk between meaningful advocacy and potentially offensive controversy. Payette’s engaging speaking style was evident from the moment of her installation. But the unique demands of the Governor General’s role may require her to abandon extemporaneous remarks."

    ...

    "Payette also expressed astonishment, with raised eyebrows and a wagging finger, that “we are … still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process, let alone—oh my goodness, lo and behold—random process.” It might have been predicted that these remarks could offend people of faith. Algonquin elder Claudette Commanda was present at Payette’s installation, on which occasion Commanda gave thanks to the Creator. At that ceremony, the Governor General declared that it was “a good thing that we finally decided to listen again” to the wisdom of Aboriginal Canadians. Payette’s subsequent conference remarks could cast doubt on her sincerity."

    ...
    How much more difficult is the role of a viceregal representative today! We demand down-to-earth authenticity coupled with unstudied immediacy, and yet expect the Crown’s representative to never cause offence or controversy. Paradoxically, the ubiquity of social media can make speech less free, especially for someone in such an office. It is hard to propose that the remarkable Payette resort to canned and stilted speeches, but it could well be what the role requires.


    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/gove...rm-to-her-role

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I applaud Jule 100% on her speech. It’s 2017, not the Middle Ages. I don’t even care who was offended, they deserve to be made fun of in this day and age given the insanity they believe in.
    +1
    Would you have applauded, if she had not just singled out for mockery Astrology and Creationists, but also singled out for mockery Islamic and indigenous peoples beliefs? As was noted in the OP article, we would have had a full constitutional crises then, people on here would be calling her a racist. Or does not matter, because its just "dumb" astrologers, and "stupid" creationists (which actually covers most religions, including the Anglican church that her boss the Queen is the head of)? I don't disagree with her view, but I disagree with her mockery given she is supposed to represent us as head of state.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-11-2017 at 01:18 PM.

  75. #75
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I applaud Jule 100% on her speech. It’s 2017, not the Middle Ages. I don’t even care who was offended, they deserve to be made fun of in this day and age given the insanity they believe in.
    +1
    Would you have applauded, if she had not just singled out for mockery Astrology and Creationists, but also singled out for mockery Islamic and indigenous peoples beliefs? As was noted in the OP article, we would have had a full constitutional crises then, people on here would be calling her a racist. Or does not matter, because its just "dumb" astrologers, and "stupid" creationists (which actually covers most religions, including the Anglican church that her boss the Queen is the head of)? I don't disagree with her view, but I disagree with her mockery given she is supposed to represent us as head of state.
    i can't speak for Chmilz but i would have applauded...

    to my eyes and ears, she wasn't mocking astrology or creationists per se, only those who allowed their belief to take precedence over what science has been able to prove - even though that proof exists under the current state of any particular theory - instead of incorporating that science in their belief. it's interesting to me that there are many who are capable of embracing science without losing their faith in religion, it's only in the other direction - when religion is not prepared to embrace science - where difficulties arise.

    as for your islamic and indigenous red herring reference, many of the most impactful scientific discoveries were made and embraced by muslim scientists and cultures and many of the soundest discoveries and practices regarding ecosystem management and coexistence were made and embraced by indigenous populations.

    any mockery i discerned (and how much was real mockery and how much was simply personal speaking style and affectations is arguable) was not addressed at anyone's belief system per se but at stupidity and blind adherence and the denial of fact. and if there's anything we should be less tolerant of and not more it's stupidity and blind adherence and the denial of fact.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  76. #76

    Default

    What Ken said.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    if there's anything we should be less tolerant of and not more it's stupidity and blind adherence and the denial of fact.
    I agree in principle, but who is the authority to decide what scientific "facts" are actually facts or not?

  78. #78
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,020

    Default



    Simple.

    " A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.”

    - Jean Chretien

  79. #79
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    if there's anything we should be less tolerant of and not more it's stupidity and blind adherence and the denial of fact.
    I agree in principle, but who is the authority to decide what scientific "facts" are actually facts or not?
    Scientific bodies and scientists who are actively researching/working in that particular field of study.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    I applaud Jule 100% on her speech. It’s 2017, not the Middle Ages. I don’t even care who was offended, they deserve to be made fun of in this day and age given the insanity they believe in.
    +1
    Would you have applauded, if she had not just singled out for mockery Astrology and Creationists, but also singled out for mockery Islamic and indigenous peoples beliefs? As was noted in the OP article, we would have had a full constitutional crises then, people on here would be calling her a racist. Or does not matter, because its just "dumb" astrologers, and "stupid" creationists (which actually covers most religions, including the Anglican church that her boss the Queen is the head of)? I don't disagree with her view, but I disagree with her mockery given she is supposed to represent us as head of state.
    i can't speak for Chmilz but i would have applauded...

    to my eyes and ears, she wasn't mocking astrology or creationists per se, only those who allowed their belief to take precedence over what science has been able to prove - even though that proof exists under the current state of any particular theory - instead of incorporating that science in their belief. it's interesting to me that there are many who are capable of embracing science without losing their faith in religion, it's only in the other direction - when religion is not prepared to embrace science - where difficulties arise.

    as for your islamic and indigenous red herring reference, many of the most impactful scientific discoveries were made and embraced by muslim scientists and cultures and many of the soundest discoveries and practices regarding ecosystem management and coexistence were made and embraced by indigenous populations.

    any mockery i discerned (and how much was real mockery and how much was simply personal speaking style and affectations is arguable) was not addressed at anyone's belief system per se but at stupidity and blind adherence and the denial of fact. and if there's anything we should be less tolerant of and not more it's stupidity and blind adherence and the denial of fact.
    I think when someone rolls their eyes, and says "would you believe" they are mocking - and I think its pretty reprehensible of her to make fun of, even, astrologers. She would not have made fun of muslins or indigenous people the same way. As to religious people making scientific discoveries - of course, the Muslim world is famous in antiquity for various discoveries, I don't know what point you are trying to make, the only one I am aware of, is that religion and science are two different things, if she wants to argue science, great, but she crosses an ugly line when she rolls her eyes at people of faith, even if that faith is horoscopes or creationism.

    She is in damage control today, giving speeches about religious freedom - it might have been nice if she had given some thought about that before her childish presentation, hopefully she has learned an important lesson about treating people, even if they don't have the same view that you do, with some dignity.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-11-2017 at 04:22 PM.

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    if there's anything we should be less tolerant of and not more it's stupidity and blind adherence and the denial of fact.
    I agree in principle, but who is the authority to decide what scientific "facts" are actually facts or not?
    Scientific bodies and scientists who are actively researching/working in that particular field of study.
    That is all well and nice to say but scientists and scientific bodies are highly politicized themselves. Each has their own government-friendly political agendas, each have their own religious and political biases, each will make compromises to attract more funding for their own research (at the expense of someone else's), and scientists see a lot of publication bias (i.e. their research results are very often held from ever being published because their findings go against what journals or scientific organizations want them to).

  82. #82
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    So then what's your answer to the question? There are no objective facts any more? Everything's just up in the air?

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Everything's just up in the air?
    Although not everything, much of the climate relates to the temperature of air. That temperature of a given pocket of air is a fact. The impacts of that temperature on the world today is something we aren't capable of perfectly measuring (we can't predict the exact temperature tomorrow, or the next day, at any given location on earth) - one day we may have that understanding - maybe even the technology to be able to control the climate to be more ideal for us. Until then, all we have is theories and models that are still being refined, not even the most ardent climate scientist would claim that they are factually perfect yet.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-11-2017 at 04:39 PM.

  84. #84
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ...

    I think when someone rolls their eyes, and says "would you believe" they are mocking - and I think its pretty reprehensible of her to make fun of, even, astrologers. She would not have made fun of muslins or indigenous people the same way. As to religious people making scientific discoveries - of course, the Muslim world is famous in antiquity for various discoveries, I don't know what point you are trying to make, the only one I am aware of, is that religion and science are two different things, if she wants to argue science, great, but she crosses an ugly line when she rolls her eyes at people of faith, even if that faith is horoscopes or creationism.
    okay...

    let me get this straight. you really want us to believe you think it would be pretty reprehensible to make fun of astrologers?

    what if that astrologer was an investment advisor who decided where to put your retirement monies based on nothing more than the phase of the moon or jupiter's alignment with mars and the day you were born?

    you really want us to believe you would treat that astrologer's faith with the same seriousness and respect as warren buffet's investment advice because, after all, there's really nothing to differentiate between their respective beliefs.

    really?

    it's not just about faith and when that faith is stupid and adhered to blindly and denies fact, you can either make fun of it or you can cry.

    what you can't do is give it any form of credibility and still keep any form of credibility because that truly would be mockery.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  85. #85

    Default

    ^I think homeopathy and astrology are nonsense. I think Islam and Christianity are as well. But when I meet an astrologer or a Muslim or a Christian, I have the good sense to not at them or ridicule them, and I'm not in public office as a GG. If she wants to talk about the harm caused by people who use homeopathic remedies instead of getting real medicine, I'm fine with that. If she wants to say that climate change is happening and we need to respond to it, I'm fine with that (even if I don't agree). But when she ridicules Canadians who have different beliefs than she does, I think that's crossing the line for a GG, sooner or later it will spark a constitutional crises, because she is not a President, she is not elected, her role is purely ceremonial, and it needs to be as we don't have monarchs ruling us anymore.
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-11-2017 at 04:56 PM.

  86. #86
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I think homeopathy and astrology are nonsense. I think Islam and Christianity are as well. But when I meet an astrologer or a Muslim or a Christian, I have the good sense to not at them or ridicule them, and I'm not in public office as a GG. If she wants to talk about the harm caused by people who use homeopathic remedies instead of getting real medicine, I'm fine with that. If she wants to say that climate change is happening and we need to respond to it, I'm fine with that (even if I don't agree). But when she ridicules Canadians who have different beliefs than she does, I think that's crossing the line for a GG, sooner or later it will spark a constitutional crises, because she is not a President, she is not elected, her role is purely ceremonial, and it needs to be as we don't have monarchs ruling us anymore.
    really?

    i guess you didn't communicate that very well to the government of canada.

    In today's constitutional monarchy, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Canada's Head of State. She is the personal embodiment of the Crown in Canada.


    In Canada’s system of government, the power to govern is vested in the Crown but is entrusted to the government to exercise on behalf and in the interest of the people. The Crown reminds the government of the day that the source of the power to govern rests elsewhere and that it is only given to them for a limited duration.

    source: the government of canada
    emphasis added

    of course i can't guarantee this is the case in any alternative universes to which c2e connects us so perhaps in your world it's different.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ...

    I think when someone rolls their eyes, and says "would you believe" they are mocking - and I think its pretty reprehensible of her to make fun of, even, astrologers. She would not have made fun of muslins or indigenous people the same way. As to religious people making scientific discoveries - of course, the Muslim world is famous in antiquity for various discoveries, I don't know what point you are trying to make, the only one I am aware of, is that religion and science are two different things, if she wants to argue science, great, but she crosses an ugly line when she rolls her eyes at people of faith, even if that faith is horoscopes or creationism.
    okay...

    let me get this straight. you really want us to believe you think it would be pretty reprehensible to make fun of astrologers?

    what if that astrologer was an investment advisor who decided where to put your retirement monies based on nothing more than the phase of the moon or jupiter's alignment with mars and the day you were born?

    you really want us to believe you would treat that astrologer's faith with the same seriousness and respect as warren buffet's investment advice because, after all, there's really nothing to differentiate between their respective beliefs.

    really?

    it's not just about faith and when that faith is stupid and adhered to blindly and denies fact, you can either make fun of it or you can cry.

    what you can't do is give it any form of credibility and still keep any form of credibility because that truly would be mockery.
    You're missing the point. It does not matter if the astrologer was a cross dressing Irish Krishna or a hard gambling witless plumber. The point is the Queen does not make political/religious speeches. The Queen and her speech writers go out of their way not to offend or to perceive the monarchy has any leanings on certain issues. The GG represents the Queen. She should keep her speeches neutral so as not to offend. The Queen has been doing this for a lot of years I doubt in all that time she has said anything controversial.
    If Payette wants to try out her astrology etc. spiel may she should wait until her G G tenure is through.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  88. #88
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    ^

    there is a proud history in canada for the governor general to do and to say things that the king or queen he or she represents would not do or say or even condone. the role is to represent the monarchy, not to mimic the monarch.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So then what's your answer to the question? There are no objective facts any more? Everything's just up in the air?
    Are there objective facts anymore? I would say we are well beyond help in this regard. For one of the best examples we can look at the big gender debate.

    Let's not let facts get in the way of people picking their gender.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Let's not let facts get in the way of people picking their gender.
    Let's not let people get in the way of recognizing fact. A significant part of the GG's message, btw.

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^

    there is a proud history in canada for the governor general to do and to say things that the king or queen he or she represents would not do or say or even condone. the role is to represent the monarchy, not to mimic the monarch.
    Cripes, you really have lost the plot on this G G thread. If she's representing the monarchy she would be getting on with the job she was entrusted with not throwing around her own personal views on the world. Saying things the monarchy would not say, that's hilarious.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  92. #92
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,798

    Default

    Oh Trudeau and his space cadets.

  93. #93
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^

    there is a proud history in canada for the governor general to do and to say things that the king or queen he or she represents would not do or say or even condone. the role is to represent the monarchy, not to mimic the monarch.
    Cripes, you really have lost the plot on this G G thread. If she's representing the monarchy she would be getting on with the job she was entrusted with not throwing around her own personal views on the world. Saying things the monarchy would not say, that's hilarious.
    i might have over stated with not condone but as to do or say? the current monarch isn’t likely to eat seal meat or visit russia (although the next one might) and the monarch might do something different on requests for prorogueing or dissolving parliament or invoking the war measures act so i’ll stand by “represent and not mimic”. but i’ll agree the real discussion point in the thread has gone a bit sideways.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So then what's your answer to the question? There are no objective facts any more? Everything's just up in the air?
    Are there objective facts anymore? I would say we are well beyond help in this regard. For one of the best examples we can look at the big gender debate.

    Let's not let facts get in the way of people picking their gender.
    When plate techtonics was first discovered, even other scientists apparently ostracized that scientist.

  95. #95
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter
    Although not everything, much of the climate relates to the temperature of air. That temperature of a given pocket of air is a fact. The impacts of that temperature on the world today is something we aren't capable of perfectly measuring (we can't predict the exact temperature tomorrow, or the next day, at any given location on earth) - one day we may have that understanding - maybe even the technology to be able to control the climate to be more ideal for us. Until then, all we have is theories and models that are still being refined, not even the most ardent climate scientist would claim that they are factually perfect yet.


    First of all, you conflate weather with climate. They are not the same thing. And the fact is, primitive climate models from the late 80's and early 90's have quite accurately predicted the warming we've experienced and if anything have been too conservative. See here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

    And it's a total fallacy to claim that until we have perfect understanding of something that we can't make predictions or act on those predictions. We know for a fact that CO2 (as well as other gases) help to insulate the Earth. That's incredibly basic science and beyond any doubt or debate. We know that we're going to have doubled or tripled the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by the end of the century. That is also beyond any doubt or debate.

    And really, this proves my point that if you just ask the scientists and the scientific bodies, the answer you get is very very different than if you start asking the opinions of non-experts and/or industry, politicians and the like. There is basically no published, peer reviewed research that seriously calls in to question any one small aspect of climate science, let alone the entire breadth of it. It's only when you muddy the debate with people from outside the field that things start going sideways. This itself has been studied numerous times, in peer-reviewed studies as well:
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    And it's a total fallacy to claim that until we have perfect understanding of something that we can't make predictions or act on those predictions. We know for a fact that CO2 (as well as other gases) help to insulate the Earth. That's incredibly basic science and beyond any doubt or debate. We know that we're going to have doubled or tripled the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by the end of the century. That is also beyond any doubt or debate.
    Luckily I have never claimed that we do have to have a perfect understanding of something to act on it. My point was that climate science has theories, like the theory of climate change (which was once called the theory of global warming). Maybe one day that theory will advance to the point where it is fully understood and is an indisputable fact. But that is not the case yet. As to taking action, whether it is a theory or a fact, that's a matter of opinion regarding the cost of that action versus the potential benefits. We elect politicians to make decisions based on their opinions (which may or may not be supported by science), we don't elect the governor general to do that. When the governor general wants to give her opinion on the correctness of the science, I'm fine with that. When governor general equates people who don't agree with acting on the science yet, with people who believe Nazis didn't commit genocide against Jews (i.e. a holocaust / climate change "denier"), I think she steps across an abusive line. You and Kcantor might think those two "crimes", denying the holocaust happened or denying climate change requires immediate action, are equally bad and deserve to be compared to each other, but I certainty don't, and I'm not alone in that view:

    Naturally, Ms. Payette opined on climate science, and equally naturally placed inquiry and skepticism on what is proclaimed the consensus of that but emergent discipline as denialism – thereby endorsing the ugliest rhetorical term in this entire, explosive issue, which summons the butchery and cruelty of History’s greatest crime as a spurious backdrop to debate on an unresolved public issue. We have a right to expect better from Her Majesty’s representative.
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-...-faith-science
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-11-2017 at 08:19 AM.

  97. #97
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,020

    Default

    Yeah, Top_Dawg has really felt that global warming over the last week and a half.


  98. #98

    Default

    I find it amusing that no one has gone to the heart of this issue.

    Original Question: Is it ok for the Governor General to mock religion?

    Definitive Answer: No

    Reasoning: The Governor General must uphold the laws in Canada and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which include religion

    Evidence: Charter preamble; "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."

    Conclusion: Since the Government of Canada enshrined the principle of the supremacy of God, the concept of God and freedom of religion. This would include a right to atheism, despite the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which recognizes the "supremacy of God." As far as I know, 'science' or 'evolution' is not even mentioned in the Charter but we know them as true.

    Regardless of Payette's personal beliefs or disbeliefs, she is the highest official and the Queen's representative in Canada and must uphold the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, the rule of law, freedom of religion and the belief in God.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #99

    Default

    Yeah it’s problematic. I’d say that the Supremacy of God opens up a lot of issues in terms of various religions scriptures which are the very words of “God”.

    However:

    “2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;“

  100. #100
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    ^^

    i don’t believe the gg was mocking god or the belief in god.

    if she was mocking anything it was allowing any belief - whether religion or astrology or any other - to acceptably ignore reality because they choose not to reconcile the two. there is nothing in that is counter to the canadian constitution.

    you cannot cloak anything you want in the vestiges of religion or astrology or any other belief system and automatically receive a pass simply because of the cloak being worn.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •