Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘damian penny’

Something Damian Penny wrote the other day came back to me just now: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

Damian was, of course, referring to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial. However, I think the quote is a good one, and it popped into my head when I read about today’s ruling against teaching creationism in schools:

A federal judge on Tuesday banned the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution by Pennsylvania’s Dover Area School District, saying the practice violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

[ . . . ]

The school district was sued by a group of 11 parents who claimed teaching intelligent design was unconstitutional and unscientific and had no place in high school biology classrooms.

Before you jump down my throat, I’m in no way implying that Holocaust denial is comparable to creationism. What I am saying, however, is that there’s a clear difference between fact and invention – as in the case of Holocaust denial – which I think we all recognize fairly easily. What many people fail to recognize, however, is that we must also make a clear distinction between fact and belief.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Creationism (repackaged as “intelligent design” or whatever you rename it) is a belief. It is based on faith, not evidence, and cannot be proven for the simple reason that it cannot be disproven.

Today’s ruling banned the teaching of creationism because it violates the separation of church and state. I think the real reason it ought to be banned from science curricula is because it isn’t science. After all, there is no constitutional ban on teaching Holocaust denial in history class, and yet I’m sure we would all call for the dismissal of any teacher who tried, simply on the grounds that it’s wrong.

I have no objection to the teaching of creationist theory in a course about religion, humanities, or cultural studies. But high school biology teachers who teach creationism as scientific fact are muddling fact and belief. People are entitled to hold a belief, but when teaching science, they need to stick to facts.

And so, to restate Damian’s point, everyone is entitled to his own beliefs, but not his own facts.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Damian Penny’s blog an awful lot. I even agree with most of the things he writes. But some of his readers and commentators… well, that’s another story altogether. Case in point: the delusion-fest going on right now about how Harper and the Conservatives are going to win the election by focusing endlessly on the same two issues they’ve spent the last couple of years talking about.

The post starts by linking to a very sensible column in the Ottawa Citizen about what Harper needs to do if he wants to improve his chances in this election:

For the past couple of years, the party has focused on highlighting Liberal corruption and opposing same-sex marriage. This strategy has created three problems, all of which remain unresolved and continue to plague Mr. Harper.

One, Canadians know little about what he actually stands for: they only know what he is against. Two, the Liberals and the media defined the Tory leader before he could do so himself, which explains his personal unpopularity and the Tories’ inability to break 30 per cent in polls. And three, the party has not been able to attract new support because it has failed to reach out to new constituencies. Most people who oppose same-sex marriage are already voting Tory. The party has to move beyond that base.

Then, on the news that Harper is doing precisely the opposite, we get comments like these:

It’s an appeal to the social conservative vote, all right, but that’s not just the stereotypical Christian right. It’s also a way to appeal to new immigrants and the various ethnic communities, who need assurance that the Tories won’t ram a secular social change down their throats.

Actually, the idea that the Tories would pick up votes from immigrant communities by bashing gay marriage proved to be a massive failure in the last election. Why Harper keeps harping on it (no pun intended) is a mystery probably best explained by lack of any other coherent policies.

Then there’s this gem:

This IS a brilliant idea! Here’s how it works:

By bringing up SSM and causing the Liberals to use their ‘boogeyman’ tactics, Stephen Harper has deprived the Liberals of their most powerful weapon.

In this phase of the campaign, the parties should be keeping their most powerful arguments for the final stage. By forcing the Liberals to respond now, their most dangerous argument is going to be exhausted before the end of the campaign, and the Liberal message will appear repetitive.

This is a risk, and will cause a bump in the polls for the Liberals, but it is a brilliant strategy which will ultimately help make a Conservative win happen.

Never doubt Stephen Harper’s intelligence.

Oh, that’s a great strategy there. Lead off the election campaign by talking constantly about the thing you want voters to forget??? Sounds like the other person whose intelligence I need to doubt is the author of this comment.

The Conservatives don’t have a chance in hell. But the delusion-fest continues. Read if you dare.

Damian Penny said it best in reaction to this:

A 19-year-old Israeli soldier opened fire inside a bus Thursday, killing four Israeli Arabs before being killed by an angry mob — the deadliest attack on Arabs in Israel by a Jewish extremist since 1990.

Damian claims there’s “no word for it but terrorism”:

So, will Ken Livingstone or John Pilger make excuses for this because of the gunman’s “desperation”? Don’t hold your breath. (And, of course, they shouldn’t – and neither should defenders of Israel. This act was vile, unforgivable and unjustifiable terrorism.)

No equivocation, no “buts”, no searching for “root causes” or justifications. If I hear any of that I will probably scream.

Edan Natan Zaada’s name should become synonymous with that of Baruch Goldstein or Yigal Amir. They should be universally condemned and reviled by Jews and non-Jews alike. These crazies are not part of my religion or my people. Their acts were unconscionable and there are no excuses. None.

Update: To put it more eloquently:

“I am shamed over the disgrace imposed upon us by a degenerate murderer. You are not part of the community of Israel. You are not part of the democratic camp which we all belong to in this house, and many of the people despise you. You are not partners in the Zionist enterprise. You are a foreign implant. You are an errant weed. Sensible Judaism spits you out. You placed yourself outside the wall of Jewish law. You are a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism.”

- then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, in response to Baruch Goldstein’s murder of 29 Palestinians in 1994.

All I can say is, same goes for you, Edan Natan Zaada.

If you aren’t reading Imshin, Damian or Lisa regularly, you’re missing out. Do yourselves a favour and surf on over there now. There’s not much to see here anyway; I’m still in too-busy-to-blog mode.

Too busy to blog at the moment, but never fear: there is so much worthwhile reading out there that you can keep plenty busy.

Allison and Imshin pointed me towards Lisa’s story of how she came to Israel. I’m completely hooked. You will be too. So far, she’s got parts one, two, three and four.

While you’re over at Imshin’s, read this post about Hannah Senesh.

Damian has this disturbing story about how Russian nationalist lawmakers want to “investigate” and ban Jewish organizations. Meryl has more.

And in case you’re still looking for more to read, check out the Jewish and Israeli blog award nominees. While you’re there, vote for your favourites and check out some of the ones you may never have heard of.

Back to regularly-scheduled programming as soon as possible.

Today was clear, sunny… and a balmy minus 22 degrees centigrade with a windchill of minus 33.

Damian, I sympathize. I really do. But look on the bright side: at least by you, it’s warm enough to snow.

If you’re not reading Imshin regularly these days, you should be. Here’s an example of why.

While you’re at it, you can vote for her or Allison for a BlogAward, even though it’s pretty much a lost cause for anyone in that category. And while you’re at the blog awards site, vote for Meryl Yourish, not just because she asked for endorsements, but because she’s also the source of a lot of the material you read here – and a very witty writer to boot. And the best Canadian blog category didn’t see fit to include yours truly (who am I kidding anyway?) but you can definitely kick a vote or two in for Damian.

Turns out I’m not the only lefty in the blogosphere… in a post reminiscent of this one. You just watch: one day we shall dominate.

Hillel:

“A small group of thugs are holding an entire university community hostage and deciding who is allowed to speak and who is not. All people who value democratic principles such as freedom of expression and speech should share our outrage with this intolerable situation.” – co-Presidents Jason Portnoy and Yacov Fruchter, in a press release.

“That peace that we all felt at Concordia was a Band-Aid. This was not resolved.” – Jason Portnoy, co-President, as reported by CTV news.

“I am truly embarrassed by such failures in a democracy in the 21st century. I am afraid to ask, but if my fellow students are not interested in free speech and inquiry for all of us on campus, regardless of a speaker’s political opinions, than what exactly are we learning at school?” – Tal Elharrar, in an opinion piece in today’s Link

Federation CJA:

“This is a day of great sadness for those who value freedom of expression in our universities and in Canadian society. Concordia University has allowed itself to be taken hostage by a small and violent group within its campus. With this decision, Concordia has demonstrated that the right to free speech is only as strong as the institutional will to protect it.” – Sylvain Abitbol, President, in a statement.

The university administration:

“It is unfortunate, but a reality nonetheless, that the safety of its community members and guests must occupy a central position in planning events at an institution dedicated to free speech.” – Concordia vice-president Michael Di Grappa, in a press release.

SPHR:

“It’s a matter of Canada respecting its own laws. You don’t allow someone into the country who’s an accused war criminal. [ . . . ] Bringing (Barak) to campus would have shown a general disregard for a very large number of people who don’t want him to speak.” – Erik Yingling, SPHR, in today’s Gazette

“He is a war criminal and he shouldn’t be allowed to speak at a public institution like Concordia. Free speech is not unlimited in Canada. I’m glad they learned from their first mistake and came to their senses.” – Chadi Marouf, SPHR, in today’s Globe and Mail.

“I want to make this clear, there would still be people who would not want him to come, he is after all an accused war criminal, but personally I would go to the speech and, if a question and answer period was guaranteed, I would call him out on the crimes he is accused of,” said Yingling. “That being said, I think the university exercised a good degree of common sense when rendering their final decision.” – Eric Yingling, SPHR, in today’s Link.

The Media:

“Freedom of speech is again under assault at Montreal’s Concordia University by administrators who seem to value tranquility on campus more than they do the rights of people to debate controversial ideas.” – Toronto Star editorial.

“[The SPHR] is amazed at its own success… they don’t even have to break windows again. Their reputation precedes them. The mere threat of violence was enough to get the university to capitulate.” – Tommy Schnurmacher, on CJAD radio this morning.

At large:

The contention that a speech by a former Head of State of a democracy can be classified as “provocation” is absurd; rather, it should be seen as a welcome beginning to open dialogue. The stigma associated with a “controversial” speaker represents a disturbing delusion. If a controversial viewpoint is defined as one that many people will disagree with, then controversial speakers are the ones who will most likely advance the course of debate on contentious issues. I’d far prefer to listen to a “controversial” speaker than one who attracts no dissenting opinions. – Josh Fisher, Concordia student in a letter to the Link.

“This would no doubt please the anti-Israeli activists who prevented Benjamin Netanyahu from speaking in 2002. With one riot, they’ll have managed to prevent two Israeli statesmen from speaking at a Canadian university.”- Jonathan Kay, posting to the National Post blog.

“Congratulations, my leftie friends. Concordia is yours. You will no longer have to suffer the indignity of viewpoints you don’t like being represented on campus. It may be some time before the dictatorship of the proletariat takes over society as a whole, but dang it, this is a start.” – Damian Penny.

I haven’t done this in a while, and I think some of my fave bloggers are feeling neglected. Not that they care about the 2 hits they’ll get from these links, but hey, I think they’re great reads… so you should too

Lynn is not impressed by Arafat’s mea culpa and neither is Meryl. Neither am I, for that matter. Arafat’s line about how “even the prophets made mistakes” sounds more like an egotistical attempt for Arafat to compare himself to a prophet than anything else. I guess megalomania comes with the territory for dictators. Whatever.

LGF has the Muslim self-congratulations for vote influence in Canada, which is a logical follow-up to some of what I posted before the election.

Damian has some thoughts about the backlash against Springsteen for participating in the concerts for John Kerry. I think he nails the issue – it’s silly to boycott all celebs for their political views unless they’re extreme. But if people want to boycott, or to criticize, that’s part of freedom of speech as well. Personally I wish celebs would butt out of politics and stick to their areas of expertise, but I know that’s about as likely to happen as peace in the middle east.

And finally, a shout-out to the newest link on my blogroll, Autonomous Source. Bruce is a blogger from right here in Quebec, and definately worth a read.

Damian Penny for Prime Minister!

Hey, who else thinks it’s a good idea? Besides, he wants to appoint me to his cabinet as Minister of External Affairs. I’m honoured… and a little frightened. Hey Damian, do I have your permission to dispatch Bill Graham to Denmark?