Dilemma? Not Really
The City of Ottawa is quite simply making too much of a small, but to them, perplexing problem. If some secular humanists, atheists and agnostics feel it is just and proper to give them equal time in spreading a message, equal in measure to that which religious groups disseminate, well, so be it. For the atheists, religion is not an issue; it simply does not exist, not as a human construct around which a set of social/cultural protocols have been formed in honour of a Supreme Being.
On the other hand, if there was a widespread transfer of definite proof that God in any of His incarnations did not exist, an immense number of faithful would be inconsolably discommoded, to say the least. Their faith is often all that stands before them and the dissolution of hope for the future. Reasonably, people who have faith should be left to their faith, to enjoy it and practise it and take comfort in it, while those without religious faith should be prepared to leave it at that.
Truly, there is no need, although there does exist the temptation to prick a majority view that seems preposterously emotionally and socially immature and rationally unsound, in the view of some who take umbrage at having experienced religion or religious symbols thrust before them at every turn. The little triumph of "There probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" is in itself a trifle juvenile. Why impose one's disbelief in such a manner, jocular as it is?
But it's a done thing now. And let's face it, there's a certain essence of equality about it. Having spread from its first appearances on public transit in London, England, beyond, to North America, it's here. Most mature-minded cities, in a spirit of fairness have agreed to have the atheism ads run. But not the capital city of Ottawa, still a small-town city for all its accoutrements of a big city; social conservatism is the order of the day here.
Simply put, it's not kind to the religiously-inclined to have those advertisements smack in their faces, but in all fairness to the entire spectrum of religious/irreligious belief, they're there, they exist, those who have the wherewithal to pay for the ads insist they would appreciate having their request to air them granted. Their supposition that their request is not unreasonable cannot be denied.
This is, after all, still a country that encourages, insists upon, guarantees, freedom of speech. And basically, it's a talking point, something that puts people on the alert, instigates curiosity and a willingness to discourse. Or not. And the very truth of the matter is, God really wouldn't mind all that much. I could claim to have it on inside authority.
Who could have the audacity to demand proof?
On the other hand, if there was a widespread transfer of definite proof that God in any of His incarnations did not exist, an immense number of faithful would be inconsolably discommoded, to say the least. Their faith is often all that stands before them and the dissolution of hope for the future. Reasonably, people who have faith should be left to their faith, to enjoy it and practise it and take comfort in it, while those without religious faith should be prepared to leave it at that.
Truly, there is no need, although there does exist the temptation to prick a majority view that seems preposterously emotionally and socially immature and rationally unsound, in the view of some who take umbrage at having experienced religion or religious symbols thrust before them at every turn. The little triumph of "There probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" is in itself a trifle juvenile. Why impose one's disbelief in such a manner, jocular as it is?
But it's a done thing now. And let's face it, there's a certain essence of equality about it. Having spread from its first appearances on public transit in London, England, beyond, to North America, it's here. Most mature-minded cities, in a spirit of fairness have agreed to have the atheism ads run. But not the capital city of Ottawa, still a small-town city for all its accoutrements of a big city; social conservatism is the order of the day here.
Simply put, it's not kind to the religiously-inclined to have those advertisements smack in their faces, but in all fairness to the entire spectrum of religious/irreligious belief, they're there, they exist, those who have the wherewithal to pay for the ads insist they would appreciate having their request to air them granted. Their supposition that their request is not unreasonable cannot be denied.
This is, after all, still a country that encourages, insists upon, guarantees, freedom of speech. And basically, it's a talking point, something that puts people on the alert, instigates curiosity and a willingness to discourse. Or not. And the very truth of the matter is, God really wouldn't mind all that much. I could claim to have it on inside authority.
Who could have the audacity to demand proof?
Labels: Environment, Human Relations, Whoops
posted by Pieface @ 5:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home