So, I spent a great deal of time saying that if Bush was elected again, I’d move to Canada. But really, why wait? Gay marriage (not available everywhere in canada, and available in MA, I realize), universal health care, fewer insane military commitments, decent public transportation (at least in toronto), a less theistic state, and relatively low cost cultural adaptation. Plus I can go for dual citizenship and keep voting against the bigger asshat in the States, as well as do my bit for Canada.
It’s a pity I can’t find an international ranking of grad schools. Because, of course, those rankings are exactly tailored to my interests. Which is why I went to one of the lowest ranked places that accepted me. =)
And furthermore, I started on this path in the hopes of being able to help out here, where we, as humanity, need it most desperately, I think. If I believe I can make a difference (and why would I be doing what I’m doing if I didn’t?) then perhaps I ought to ask not which country can do best for me, but what I can best do for my country.
Ponder, ponder, ponder.
“a less theistic state,”
Is belief in a God really that terrible?
I think the state ought to be agnostic. The US government might be a-religious on paper, but it is decidedly not in fact.
Religion is a powerful motivator. For both good and great evil.
For me, it mostly makes me feel isolated. Kerry’s “and god bless” at the end of his dnc speech was pretty alienating for me, actually. Not unlike a recent event where I noticed a lady leaving her purse behind as she got on the bus, pointed it out, and the bus driver said “god bless you for that”. I seriously had an immediate reaction where I almost wished I hadn’t pointed it out. It robbed me of the warm fuzzy I got for the deed.
I am seriously burned out on religion.
The state ought to take the position that God or Ultimate Reality is ultimately unknowable by human faculties?
Where exactly is the US Government a-religious on paper? It seems to me that the founding fathers were pretty established Deists, for the most part, and their documents seem to reflect that stance.
The apocryphical seperation of church and state isn’t practicle, if individuals aren’t allowed to, say, vote their conscience (borne out of religious conviction) on issues like murdering unborn children or whether the speed limit ought to be raised.
Is your beef with organized institutions, groups of like-minded people, individuals of faith, or the concept of faith itself?
My preferred stance would be a very accepting agnosticism, which, if leaning in any direction, leaned towards atheism, because that’s my own view of things. So, more or less, yes.
Between the complete absence of words like “god”, “deity”, “almighty”, and “lord” (aside from the date, on that last one), and the first amendment which states that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, it seems pretty a-religious, or at least a-theistic (not to be confused with atheistic 😉 to me.
Furthermore, my conscience certainly isn’t based in any religious conviction. It’s mostly based in my, atheistic, compassion. And I suspect that I am not alone in this. I approve of people voting their conscience based on sound information. I disapprove of candidates being asked about their religious beliefs or affiliations, or volunteering such themselves, to help people make their voting decisions.
My beef is mostly with inflexible denial of the real world. In general, I regard religion, like science, as an attempt to make sense of the world. And that is a noble calling. The danger comes in when humility is replaced with hubris. Curiosity with dogmatic certainty which causes one to ignore contradicting reality.
And that mostly happens when you develop an echo chamber effect among the faithful. Which mostly happens in organized religion.
These are, of course, all my opinion. But I firmly believe that people who think they have all the answers are fooling themselves.
So, US Government and society ought to confirm to your own ideas of religion?
I believe I was raised with an expectation of how they ought to be, and shaped myself around it. I also think it’s an eminently reasonable solution. What are your beliefs on the topic?
So, if one were raised a fundamentalist Christian and taught that this is a Christian nation, and thought it quite reasonable that this be the case, you’d approve?
Personally, I don’t think anyone’s good deed should be ruined in their mind when they hear someone say, “God Bless.”
Of course I wouldn’t approve. I stated earlier that my main problem with religion was the cultivation of dogmatic certainty, which happens to be the essence of fundamentalism. I can conceive of the possibility, had I been born in different circumstances, that I might very well have ended up as a fundamentalist believing in the sanctity of our state and its leaders, but that’s a rather lengthy string of maybes. I wouldn’t be who I am now. I can understand how fundamentalists have acquired the beliefs they have, but understanding does not equate to approval.
I meant how do you feel about the intermingling of state and religion. Particularly of state approved and/or disapproved religious practices. And of candidates being selected on the basis of their professed faith and/or religious practices.
And thanks for the input, but if I need advice on how I ought to feel at any point in time, I’ll ask for it. I’m generally capable of figuring out that on my own. =)
I would make a distinction that may seem arbitrary to you, but really doesn’t to me: namely, conscience springs from compassion, but it is shaped by religion and similar beliefs. I regard a zygote as less worthy of compassion than a cow. To me a zygote is essentially an amoeba with potential for more. Curtailing that potential is perhaps sad, but hardly murder. To a fundamentalist, that zygote may have a soul, whereas the cow (or a chimpanzee or gorilla) probably would not, and thus the zygote is worthy of compassion while the chimp is not.
But in both cases, I’d like to think compassion is the root.
I don’t know about other disciplines, but philosophy has a fairly well-researched ranking system that includes most of the English-speaking world. It’s somewhat controversial, but you can see it here. In general, U Toronto is a very good school, and McGill is great in humanities and Waterloo in sciences, but you probably want something more specific than that. Especially for something like urban planning, or whatever related field I assume you’re studying.
Well, I’ve heard that U Toronto is a great school for urban studies. And I have a pretty good notion at this point of what I want to do (stakeholder identification and outreach, as well as education, negotiation, and meeting facilitation). I’m currently in public policy because it strikes me as more broadly applicable, but we’ll see where it all goes.
I just never know about how the US relates to the rest of the world. It seems like policy and planning could quite reasonably be topics where one is best off if ones goes to a school in the political entity one plans on working in. =)