Grant Rants

Archive for the ‘The Grant Rant’ Category

The stupid it burns: anti-vampireism and bald as a hair colour edition

- May 14th, 2012

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens, and the rest of you!

Ok, I have some ranty mojo brewing today and I’m in need of a target. Fortunately, the world is a big place with more stupid than it is possible to catalog, and it was easy enough to find one. Just up the highway in fact. In Toronto, that mythical center of the known universe.

Specifically, a column by rabbi Dow Marmur, who evidently doesn’t like us heathens very much.  The problem with we atheists, he says in a meandering column in the Toronto Star, is that we are pretty much like jihadists:

I’ve, therefore, consistently refused to engage in debates with atheists. They may consider me a cowardly man of little faith who’s afraid of exposing himself to the truth, but impartial observers will know that contemporary atheists are often even more fanatical than religious fundamentalists. Their zeal seems to know no bounds.

Interesting. Last time I checked, the most fanatical religious fundamentalists in North America try to have their dogmatic nonsense taught in science classes and are obsessed with telling women what they can do with their bodies, including a hilarious Republican bill that passed recently in Arizona that defined pregnancy as starting two weeks before conception. (no, that is not a punch line.) In even more extreme cases in North America, Europe, and of course, the middle east, the fundamentalist set is busy killing other people, often using that delightful method employed by the truly deluded, suicide bombing.

Atheists write books and blogs.thestupiditburns Oh, the horror, the horror.

He Marmur points to Alian de Botton’s weird newish book Religion for Atheists, where in de Botton says he wants to build atheist temples, as some manner of evidence that atheism itself is becoming a religion (which is why we are worse than the worst religious fundamentalists….you know without the bombs and such) and in fact, heathens have “religion-envy.”

Ok, look, first de Botton strange book was greeted with disinterest by the atheist community, such as it even exists, and the most anyone could say about it was “uh, what?”

It’s true, there are atheists who seem to want to ape the group cohesion provided by most religions, but it’s an attitude I’ve always found puzzling. It’s why I don’t belong to any skeptic/atheist/humanist groups nor go to regular meetings. I don’t have any need to get together with people to talk about what I don’t believe in. I tend to, this rant notwithstanding, focus my commentary in his regard on attempts to breach the wall between church and state, or religious attempts to undermine basic freedoms like freedom of speech, or attempts to win converts by stealth (like the ongoing efforts of the Gideons to be given access to elementary public school children.) But sit around and talk about why I don’t believe in the existence of gods? Zzzzzz. Please. I’d almost rather watch Glee.

Marmur’s entire argument crumbles because it starts with a false premise. He treats atheism as though it’s a thing like Christianity or Scientology or Jedism something. The tacit assumption he makes is that atheism is a complete philosophical entity, with dogmas, and rules and holy books and, I would guess, priests or clerics or some sort that one obeys. And uses this argument as he defends the excesses and violence of religion:

Because religion is articulated and administered by human beings, it often falls short of its stated ideals — just like atheism.

Really? Really, Rabbi Marmur? And what ideals are those exactly? Where do I find them? Where, in the name of Zeus’ holy toga, do I find the “stated ideals” of atheism?

Look man, atheism is barely a thing at all. All atheism is just not believing in a god or gods. Period. QED. End of frakkin’ story. The only reason we have a name for it at all is because historically everyone around us has been totally hell bent for leather on this whole god business.

I mean, even the name “atheism” is pretty stupid because it dignifies the thing that it denies. Look, I don’t believe in vampires or big foot either, right? But there is no need to run about calling myself am “anosferatuist,” or an “asasquatchist,” is there. The bottom line is that atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour. The “ism” at the end makes it all sound fancy, I guess, but it isn’t.

I pretty well agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson on this front when he says “at the end of the day I’d rather not be any category at all.”

Even the so called “atheist community” is a disjointed lot that is only bound by the disbelief in the supernatural and generally shared respect for science, evidence and reason. There is also some broad agreements on the values of democracy, freedom of speech and the like. Beyond that, it is pretty well, to use the cliche, like herding cats. Disagreements abound. Yes, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, PZ Myers and a few others are the most public and well known of the so called “New Atheists” (which is only new by the authors refusal to shut up when told.) but they constantly disagree. Tyson and Dawkins’s disagree over how to talk about science and religion in popular culture. Myers recently took Harris to task over issues of racial profiling at airports. And I’ve lost track of how many non-believers were sharply critical of Hitchen’s views on the Iraq war.

But I am sure Marmur will tell us where in that mess there are the “ideals” of atheism. Or is that the sound of cricket’s chipping?

About the only thing that Marmur gets right is that religion allows people to form a community of believers and atheism doesn’t do this. Well, yes. So what? De Botton’s goofy book aside, how is that supposed to an argument against atheism, or put more correctly, for religion? Does it demonstrate the existence of a god? Because that is what it would take, son. That pesky thing call evidence sort of matters.

Ultimately, Marmur’s entire argument seems to boil down to the idea that religion makes you feel good, and atheism doesn’t. I suppose that could be right. Atheism provides no guidebook, no bromide of any sort. Attempts to make it do so are as foolish as attempting to grasp quicksilver. To me, not having that kind of crutch is freeing. Yes, life can be miserable. It can suck. It will, as Rocky says. “beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently  if you let it.”

Speaking only for myself, I would rather harden myself to deal with it than rely on help that isn’t there because it makes me feel good to believe there is. I would rather deal with life as it is, honestly, and be miserable than to cling to some manner of false hope. If atheism is a thing at all, it’s living life on your own terms, taking the awful and the good as they come.

I get feedback: Royals, rants and lost causes edition

- July 5th, 2011

Greetings heathens, zealots, web denizens and the rest of you!

So last week I penned a Grant Rant about the nauseating arrival of the royal couple to Canada, the endless media fawning over them, and the ridiculousness of making new citizens swear allegiance to a monarch.

Among those commenting is the post who goes by the handle “kitter” who said:

Ugh, I’d rather hear about our Monarchy than listen to people b*tch and whine about them over and over. So much energy is wasted on hating something out of one’s control, and yet Mr. Lafleche seems to have no end of it, given all of the complaining he does about the never ending stream of things he seems to hate.

So the thrust of what “kitter” is saying is why be critical of the royals when, really, I cannot do anything about them. I may not like them at all, but it’s not like Grant LaFleche, on his own, can make a Canadian Republic that finally grows up and frees itself of the bobbles of its youth.

Yah well, nothing changes if people don’t start talking about it first. There are many people in this country who feel no affinity for a family of rich folks in the UK. There are many who don’t love them, don’t care what they wear or how charming they are supposed to be, don’t want their proxy in Ottawa, don’t want our tax dollars paying for them in any way, and don’t see ourselves and our country and our lives reflected in them in the least. Asking what, if anything, the royals legitimately contribute to Canada is not an empty question. I rant about it, some other guy someplace else talks about and maybe enough people start talking about it that we finally do something about it. That is how change works, son.

Still, being critical of the celebrity circus that is the royals is not a common position to take in the press apparently, as my fellow pundits fall over themselves to squee squee squee over Will and Kate like teenaged girls watching a Justin Bieber/Glee telethon. Yet not a single one can say why we should care. Why should we give a flying rats behind about the monarchy? What does a hereditary royal family contribute to a democratic society? How are they any different, in substance, to pop stars? The justifications  offered don’t rise much above the inane,  mostly some combination of “well we’ve always done it this way ,” and “*gasp* look at the dress Kate has on today!”

Take fellow Sun media columnist, and fellow Calgarian, Warren Kinsella by way of a for instance. WK says yes, the monarchy is undemocratic and, yes, costs the taxpayers money and yes, they not relevant to the lives of Canadians or the business of the nation. But, he tell us, the Senate sucks so it’s ok:

Sure, the monarchy isn’t very democratic, and it costs taxpayers money, and it is largely irrelevant to the everyday lives of Joe and Jane Frontporch. But the same thing can be said of the Senate — which, unlike the monarchy, periodically attempts to impose its undemocratic will on the democratically elected House of Commons.
The monarchy, I suggested to the antimonarchy mouthpiece, doesn’t hurt anyone. Moreover, if it makes some Canadians feel good — and God knows, in the nasty, brutish and short-sighted Stephen Harper era, feeling good about something is a rare occurrence — then what’s the harm?
William and Kate are charming and seem genuinely smitten with Canada: We could do a lot worse.

Did you get that? We should just lay down and accept the monarchy without complaint because our senate is pretty well screwed up. This is a bit like saying to a cop, after you are pulled over for speeding that you shouldn’t get a ticket because someone else stole a car. You cannot defend one stupid thing by pointing to something that is even worse.

Yes the Senate is in dire need of reform – something no government in my lifetime has really had the stomach to do because it ultimately requires amending the constitution and since we don’t have an effective means of constitutional change, it’s always messy. But that doesn’t give the royals a free pass because the latest crop is “charming.”

(By way WK, its not that monarchy is “not very” democratic. That implies it is at least a bit democratic. A hereditary monarch is, by definition, not democratic at all and that’s the problem. Just sayin’.)

He also makes some noises that the Queen has outlasted our prime ministers and American presidents and offered “sage advice” to them all. Well that last bit we can just dismiss, yes? The governments of Canada and the United States don’t ring up the Queen to find out if they should go to war or what kind of tax policy to set. And yes of course the Queen outlasts public officials because she doesn’t have to run to office and isn’t accountable to anyone for what she says or does. If we, as citizens, don’t like what Stephen Harper is up to, we can toss him out in the next election. Americans impose term limits upon their elected officials to prevent anyone from gaining a monopoly on power.

Claiming the longevity of a monarchy as a virtue is like saying “oh uh, that mountain is more awesome than fruit because the mountain lasts longer.” Sure, but you cannot eat it.

Robopocalypse upon us: The Grant Rant

- February 12th, 2011

Check out the latest Grant Rant here.

The Grant Rant for Jan. 15

- January 17th, 2011

The latest Grant Rant can be read here! Read and comment!