Saturday, 25 April 2015

Vatican Just Doesn't Seem to Be That Into Gay French Ambassador

(source)
For awhile now there has been some speculation about what the Vatican thought of the newly appointed French Ambassador to their little pseudo-state.

See, in January, the French cabinet appointed openly gay Laurent Stefanini to become their new ambassador. Thing is, the Vatican didn't respond in a very timely manner to this candidate. People started to talk in April:
The French cabinet approved Stefanini's appointment on January 5 but has not yet received a reply.

"A delay of three months like this is not normal," a well-informed source in Rome told AFP.

"The reply normally doesn't take more than a month, a month and a half," this source added.

If there is a refusal, "the Vatican doesn't reply, doesn't offer an explanation and it's up to the country concerned to interpret this lack of a reply."
Still, the French government stuck to their guns and stood by their man -- even with the sad silent treatment from this new progressive Pope.
Despite silence from the Vatican, France is refusing to rescind Mr Stefanini’s nomination – in an apparent bid to either force the Vatican to either accept it or openly reject it.

Government spokesman Stephane Le Foll told France24: “France has chosen its ambassador to the Vatican. This choice was (Laurent) Stefanini and that remains the French proposal.

“Negotiations are underway. Every ambassador must be approved when they are nominated… we are awaiting the response from the Vatican.”
Well, Stefanini finally got a meeting with the Pope on April 18th. The Vatican still, apparently, is unable to say whether or not they accept the appointment, though.
The Vatican has declined to comment on the matter, saying that an appointment is confirmed when the name is published in the official bulletin of the Holy See. It is extremely rare for the Pope to get directly involved the naming of ambassadors.
You know what? This sort of reminds me a little of people who don't want to do business with homosexuals: cake bakers, car mechanics, pizzerias. No doubt this has something to do with the Pope's religious freedom and his strongly held beliefs.

One Catholic newspaper considers this whole thing a provocation. That's right, this man is a provocation because he dares to be gay!
Earlier this month the French Catholic daily La Croix cited an unnamed source as saying the Vatican considered it a "provocation" that France's Socialist government, which in 2013 legalized gay marriages, had proposed a homosexual for the post.
I hope France keeps it up and doesn't back down. I mean, how much good is an ambassador to the Vatican anyway? Is it even a real country?

First Nations Girl's Leukemia Returns, Goes Back Onto Chemo

Chemotherapy vials (source)
News just came out that J.J. the First Nations girl with leukemia, whose mother took her out of chemotherapy and brought her down to Florida for quack alternative medicine, has restarted chemo after the disease predictably returned in March. She has left the Hippocrates Health Institute.
A cancer-stricken Ontario First Nations girl whose court case drew national attention last fall is now receiving a mix of aboriginal and conventional health care – including chemotherapy – after her leukemia returned in March and her mother agreed to a blended treatment plan.
Okay, fine, whatever. I find it shocking they couldn't have come up with this in the first place.

J.J. was said to look well in court on Friday. I wonder how she looked back in March?

All of this seems related to a clarification ruling on Friday by Judge Gethin Edward which -- after J.J.'s cancer returned -- makes the child's well being paramount to any case. I'm having some trouble parsing the words, but I think it means that the child's health should be 'balanced' with the desire to use traditional medicine vs or alongside science-based medicine(?), but it's all rather foggy to me.
It is a "significant qualification" of Ontario court Judge Gethin Edward's November 2014 ruling, according to one legal expert, which means the child's well-being has to be balanced against rights to traditional medicine.

Nick Bala, a law professor at Queen's University, says the clarification "walks back" the original ruling that put First Nations constitutional rights as the major factor to be considered in the care of the child.
You would think that the child's well being would have always been considered paramount. This is precisely what I've been asking for all this time. The only thing which could obscure this obvious goal would be decades of institutional abuse and belief in unproven traditional medicine over evidence-based treatments -- along with politics. It seems very much like the judge believed in this medicine as well and is now backpedalling
Yesterday, Edward revisited his decision, although he didn’t call it that. He called it a “clarification,” as sought by all parties concerned, and an amendment or an adjustment.

In truth, it was a retreat.

A retreat that came too late for Makayla, whose case never went to court.

Indeed, when the Brant agency’s director, Andrew Koster, was asked afterwards outside court about whether a conciliatory approach towards melding traditional and “Western” medicine might not have save Makayla, the society’s lawyer stepped in to avoid a response. “I don’t think that’s a fair question. Of course, everybody is sad when a child dies. But this isn’t the place to exhume that case.”
This is precisely the place to exhume that case — which is now being examined by a committee that reports to the Chief Coroner of Ontario.
And nobody seemed to mention what the parent did -- brought her daughter to a treatment centre which apparently had very little to do with traditional medicine.

With all this said, it seems like J.J. got a second chance and I'm happy for her and her family. I hope it works out.

Friday, 24 April 2015

Calgary Private School Possibly 'Inconsistent' But No Indication of Being 'Atheist'


Chris Selley wrote something over at the National Post about how if schools want to be atheist they should be consistent in their atheism. I think it's worth a look because it shows us that it's not only atheists (schools or people?)  who must be consistent, it's our entire system. Don't blame the atheists, okay?
If you run a private school with a position on religion, these are interesting times. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled Montreal’s Loyola High School was entitled to teach Quebec’s Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum from a Catholic perspective — that is, it said Catholics were not required to treat Catholicism as just another faith. You might ask: Why would anyone enrol his children in a Jesuit school expecting it to be neutral about Catholicism? Why would a government that strives toward neutrality in matters of religion allow churches to run schools and then presume to tell them how to teach about religion? But this is the country we live in. Many of our governments subsidize the religious schools they’re trying to nudge away from their faiths.
It all sort of breaks down with the very first sentence and Selley knows it. He tries to remedy things by tagging on the last sentence. Let's play it back without all the goop in the middle.
If you run a private school with a position on religion, these are interesting times. ... ... Many of our governments subsidize the religious schools they’re trying to nudge away from their faiths.
Well, that just about sums it up, doesn't it? A huge problem here is we're calling these schools private when they're being subsidized heavily per student by the government. Whether the school be a Muslim academy teaching girls they cannot do track (because running will make them lose their virginity) or a Catholic school teaching that a virgin can give birth to the son of a god whose body becomes one with your Sunday morning communion wafer, it just shouldn't be funded by the government. We definitely shouldn't have this deliberately obscured by calling it a private school.

Let's get into the goo now.
Last month, the Supreme Court ruled Montreal’s Loyola High School was entitled to teach Quebec’s Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum from a Catholic perspective — that is, it said Catholics were not required to treat Catholicism as just another faith.
As I've mentioned before, this is one class... just one single class out of many. This would be perhaps the only class where the school would be required to present alternate religious beliefs without trashing them. Is this really too much to ask? Ultimately though, the school got their cake and they get to eat it too.

Commentor fabuloso puts it excellently:
The Loyola school was not forbidden to "teach Catholicism from a Catholic perspective"; it was, according the the Que. ministry, required to add One Mandatory Course to its curriculum that dealt with religion from a neutral or non-sectarian angle.

That requirement was there so that the Loyola students could receive an accredited degree in public education, with a few comparatives. Similarly, a cult that thought the world was Flat would need to add one course that proposed the Round Earth Theory.
 Surely this must be some form of sloppiness on Selley's part. Now for some more goo.
You might ask: Why would anyone enrol his children in a Jesuit school expecting it to be neutral about Catholicism? Why would a government that strives toward neutrality in matters of religion allow churches to run schools and then presume to tell them how to teach about religion?
I wouldn't expect it to be neutral about Catholicism, most of the time. I would expect them to abide by the education ministry's rules to insure my child gets properly educated on world religions. I would expect that especially since public dollars go into the school.

Look, I don't know how things work in Ontario or the rest of Canada. Here in Quebec, the state has a mandate to ensure a basic level of education for the children. I wonder what Selley thinks about the Quebec government meddling in the education of extreme Orthodox Jewish groups. Should they stand aside and allow children to be taught nothing but the Torah and Yiddish? Why does religion get a pass with Selley?

The first step is to stop public funding of religious schools and subsidies to students, point finale.

Now let's move on past the first freaking paragraph to the rest of the piece. The details of this case are from 2011, predating this blog. This will be my working excuse for having never heard of it.

It seems that there is this prestigious private school in Calgary, Webber Academy, which is attempting to be non-denominational. I have really no idea what that truly means. It could simply signify Christian-lite. Anyway, this school forbade two Muslim students from praying anywhere on the premises. The students went before a human rights tribunal and won. Now the school is stuck with a $26,000 fine and the students can presumably pray in the school.
The Alberta Human Rights Commission fined Webber Academy a total of $26,000 for distress and loss of dignity after the boys were forced to hide at the school or leave the property during the city’s chilly winter to fulfill their faith’s obligations.
Look, as an atheist, even I agree with the commission. So long as it's not lead by the school itself and the students do not get any special privileges and do it discretely somewhere on the premises -- hey, knock yourselves out.

Selley rightly points out that this school was fine with headscarfs and turbans, etc. It just had a problem with the physical action of praying. This was the primary inconsistency of the atheist school.
But it’s not hard to see why they lost. Webber claims visible religious practice is a direct affront to its central ethos, but its ethos doesn’t seem to be very coherent: It allows students to wear turbans and hijabs, for example. The school tried to distinguish between garments as “a state of ‘being'” and prayer as “a visible activity,” which the tribunal kiboshed on principle; but in any event the activity wouldn’t have been “visible” had the school provided a private space. And Neil Webber, the school’s president, certainly did himself no favours by suggesting a student quickly crossing himself might not be a problem.
In the end it can really be a matter of degree but that's not my issue. Selley is here saying that it's those who wish to run atheist schools who are being inconsistent. It's just that there is no indication whatsoever that the school administrators are the slightest bit atheist.

The same commentor, fabuloso sums it up well again.
The Webbers aren't "atheists", they are people who ban visible expressions by students of adherence to any particular religion. As most Christians are not required by their churches to pray out loud, or wear big crosses, this ban is a free pass for Christians. But for faiths that do require a daily prayer, as the HR council said (in one of the few moments when it has fulfilled a lucid purpose), the ban is a ban on Muslim students enrolling in the first place. Which makes Webber a nice, white, suburban, discreetly Christian academy in the near suburbs of Calgary.
It seems to me like the problem with Shelley's piece is not merely in the first sentence. The issue exists even earlier on, in the title itself: Want to be atheist? Be coherent first.

Atheist where, who?

The word atheist makes for good click bait though.

Search This Blog

Loading...