Thread by @According2Luke

<Thread> I wasn't expecting a religious lecture on my radio on my school run with the kids this morning - and yet here we are.
.
(Approx 8:30am, 630CHED) @630ched @eileenbell

Eileen Bell managed to deliver a rude, factually incorrect & hypocritical opinion piece this morning, and if it had been exactly the same but about Christian believers the switchboards would have lit up immediately.

Eileen starts well enough, taking issue with Quebec's Bill 21 & its infringement upon religious freedom. As both an atheist & a secularist I wholeheartedly agree with Eileen.

As both an atheist & a secularist I wholeheartedly agree with Eileen. It's an appalling piece of legislation and an absolute over-reach. If Eileen had stopped her piece there I'd be sending fistybumps & an "Amen Sista!"

But she didn't. For some inexplicable reasons she then decides to attack atheists on issues completely unrelated to Bill 21.

She says she'll "respect atheists" & then "demands" the same respect back.

Then Eileen immediately goes on to say what she doesn't want from an atheist is "a smarmy grin from someone that thinks they're intellectually superior because they can't understand how science & god can co-exist."

Wow. Imagine driving your kids to school & the announcer on the radio saying, "and what I don't need is some smarmy, arrogant Christian who thinks they're morally superior because they can't grasp that they're deluded about their god."

How would that be? Those phone lines would be on fire. And therein lies the hypocrisy. The double-standard. The subconscious privilege.

I would be remiss to not point out the factual error in Eileen's statement. Belief in a theistic god & science are not compatible.

They can "co-exist", but only through cognitive dissonance & the suspension of the rules of science in the area of faith - which is fine when we are open & honest about it.

Eileen seemed to suggest religious claims for existence of a theistic god or say, the existence of a collective, conscious life after death are somehow consistent with, or not at odds with science. Well, they absolutely are. And to not understand that is to not understand science

To conclude, it is a shame that a valid & worthy piece about an attack on religious freedom would be used to launch what seems like a personal attack on one particular (non)faith group..

I find many faith tradition claims to be ridiculous. Literally. Yet Eileen "demands" that I respect them.
It seems the religious freedom to call members of the LGBTQ community broken, sinful, disordered or unnatural is well protected, and even publicly funded.

In fact negative religious beliefs concerning other faiths, women & even cutting the skin off a newborn boys penis are all protected.

yet limit my freedom to laugh at concept that a human knows will of a creator of universe in matter of same sex sex on this planet.
Or a belief that saying the right magic words over a piece of wafer it will literally turn into the 2000 year old physical manifestation of a deity

While religious freedom is genuinely & concerningly under attack in Quebec, it appears the religious freedom to criticise or disparage others, while at the same time demanding respect & protection is alive & well in Alberta.

.@EileenBellNews - you should know that I'm not upset nor offended - or looking for an apology :)
I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy & double standard that often exists, especially with majority faith beliefs in our society.
Even in the most decent & well meaning people. x