Health, Wealth and Stealth Continued: Religion vs Knowledge

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

When the scientific community discovered that our science minister Gary Goodyear did not believe in evolution, they were in shock, as were most Canadians. How could a man who did not believe in science, be our science minister? It boggled the mind.

And then to add insult to injury, another Harper MP stood up in the House of Commons to deliver the knockout punch.

Armed with the knowledge that exists today, Charles Darwin may not have written the theory of evolution, Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney told the House of Commons this week. "Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science," Lunney said in the House on Thursday. Given what is known today, he added: "Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions." (1)

Any scientist who accepts fact as fact, is not a scientist? What just happened here?

An American scientist picked up the story and posted a reply: "Not so smug now, are you Canada."

I confess, we residents of the USA sometimes have a bit of an inferiority complex when we compare our citizenry to those of other nations of the world — we look like such a collection of idiots next to places like Iceland and Australia and New Zealand and Germany and England and Canada ... Of course, none of those other countries are entirely exempt from having dumbasses pontificating on science, so we can still occasionally take a cheap, desperate shot at some furrin' loon.

... Mr Lunney's choices of objections, reveal that he has read the erroneous creationist literature, but has never examined the scientific debunkings of his claims. I have heard this claim that creationists use the same evidence to argue for creation. It is not true. They select a narrow subset of the evidence that superficially supports their claims, and then ignore the broader array of evidence that completely undermines them. (2)

I know I'm not so smug now. We were a laughing stock. But this brings up the question, if someone believes something, do you have to respect that belief, even when it is proven to be untrue? Even when it's absolutely ludicrous?

Lunney went from a virtually unknown backbencher to a media sensation overnight, but not in a positive way. He is a member of our government and he had just stood up to go on record as claiming to believe in a myth. He's allowed to believe in that myth. I have no problem with that. But he is not allowed to publicly announce that myth as fact when he is representing a country whose residents don't share in his myth. It simply makes us look bad, but more importantly, alarms everyone in the scientific field, from researchers to science teachers.

However, what I have since discovered about Lunney, is that his belief in creationism over science, is only a tip of the iceberg. This man is also heavily involved in the quackery industry. And no not because he's a chiropractor. Chiropractors are not quacks. But this one is.


The Case of Lana Dale Lewis

In 1996, Lana Dale Lewis went to see a chiropractor about migraines and had a neck alignment. Two weeks later she died of a stroke and the coroner determined that the cause of her death was a tear in the artery at the back of her neck. (3)

After the decision, the lawyer for the family, Amani Oakley, was asked to appear on the Michael Coren show to discuss the findings. The show's producers also invited an expert to join her. That expert was chiropractor James Lunney, Conservative member of Parliament for Nanaimo - Alberni.

After attacking the deceased, and suggesting that she caused her own stroke because of her lifestyle, he made a shocking claim. Her death could have been prevented if it were not for Health Canada, and it's attack on herbal medicines, and that all strokes could be prevented with the use of folic acid.

After the interview, CTS, a faith-based studio that airs the Coren show, refused to release any videos or transcripts of the interview, since it would clearly have been the end of the good doctor's career.

But it turns out that Dr. Lunney's attack on Health Canada in favour of quack medicine was nothing new. He represents the worst of the herbal medicine industry, making outrageous claims about miracle cures for everything from blindness to hair loss. To put it bluntly, the man is a nut.

"I Can Make the Blind See"

In 2001, James Lunney, then Alliance party Health Critic, stated that "a 'parallel' system of private health care services should be available to take pressure off the public system and reduce waiting lists." (4)

By parallel he clearly meant the quackery industry; an industry to which he is a card carrying member. This is not to say that all herbal medicines are bad, but what Lunney promotes is nonsense, mixed with just enough religious fervour, to make believers of innocent victims.

... this product can grow back brain cells, and because the Creator is a lot smarter than scientists, 90% of poor health would disappear ... Will it help everyone? YES IT WILL....”It's a God given answer!” (5)

In 2003, Health Canada raided the offices of Truecorp, a company selling supplements without government approval:

RCMP officers and Health Canada investigators raided the offices of a Raymond-based health product company, alleging it has been selling a nutritional supplement to the mentally ill without government approval.

About a dozen armed officers surprised employees of Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd. at 10:15 a.m. Tuesday when they swept in and demanded everyone in the call centre stop working and back away from their computers. Mounties from Calgary, Ottawa and Montreal then began downloading information from hard drives and rifling through filing cabinets. Officers also backed up vans to the building's doors and prepared to take stacks of documents away. (6)

The news here is not the supplement's claims, which many in the medical profession debunk, but the fact that the company was breaking the law. The stuff being sold as a miracle cure had not undergone adequate testing and was not approved by Health Canada.

So what did James Lunney do about these law breakers? He attacked Health Canada. On letterhead from his Parliamentary office:

War on Natural Health Products Escalates, "What’s next from Health Canada’s Keystone Cops?"
　
NANAIMO—Dr. James Lunney, MP for Nanaimo-Alberni, reacted with outrage to Tuesdays RCMP/ Health Canada raid on a Natural Health Products company in Raymond, Alberta.
　
"Health Canada’s latest attack on the freedom of Canadians to make their own health choices is intolerable. They have resorted to extreme, unwarranted measures to prevent promising, low risk products from reaching Canadians who require them. This bureaucratic interference is out of control; it is contrary to science and to the public interest."

The public interest would be to make sure that a drug is safe to use before it is sold. Lunney instead backed up the industry that was breaking the law. But the story of Lunney and quackery is very complex, so I'm covering it in a separate post.

Coming up Next.

Sources:

1. Darwin would think again, Lunney tells House of Commons: MP says theorist might draw different conclusions if he had today's information, By Darrell Bellaart, The Daily News, April 04, 2009

2. Not so smug now, are you, Canada? By P.Z. Myers, April 3, 2009

3. Chiropractic patient died 'by accident': jury, By CTV.ca News Staff, January 17, 2004

4. "That should be a no-brainer, shouldn't it?", Vancouver Sun, February 21, 2001.

5. Truehope Conference in Shiloh, Ohio, Founders David Hardy and Anthony Stephan presentation, September 16, 2009.

6. RCMP shuts down supplement firm, By David Heyman, Calgary Herald, July 16, 2003

Creationism vs Evolution: A Misguided War

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

When Gary Goodyear was asked if he believed in Evolution, he said that it was inappropriate for a reporter to ask him about his religious beliefs.

However, it was a question about science, and Mr. Goodyear is our science minister. If he doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution, then he should step down. It's like having someone head up Jewish policy who is a Holocaust denier. They just don't fit.

Canada's science minister said that he didn't answer a question about his views on evolution because he says the question is "irrelevant" to his portfolio.

Gary Goodyear, minister of state for science and technology, sparked a controversy when he refused to tell the Globe and Mail whether he believes in the science of evolution. His portfolio was already under fire because of cuts to scientific research councils in the most recent budget ... When asked by the newspaper about evolution he responded, "I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate."

But when asked again on Power Play if he believed in the theory of evolution he responded, "Of course, I do." "We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it's to the intensity of the sun . . . or to the effects of walking on concrete. (1)

This doesn't have to be about religion vs science, but both should be able to work together. The Vatican has said that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. The Church of England has also worked to play up Darwin's role in their church. But if Goodyear is unable to do his job because of his religious beliefs, he should step down.

Creationism vs Evolution

However, Goodyear's beliefs are part of a much larger problem. Fundamentalists want creationism taught and evolution discarded because they believe that it is only a "theory". A proven theory but still just a "theory".

The problem with teaching the creationism from the Bible, is that it excludes many other religions, who have their own ancient spiritual versions of the event.

In early Greek mythology, it was the Titan Prometheus who created man. The Titans were the elder gods who ruled the world before being overthrown by the Olympians. It is said that Prometheus shaped man out of mud and that the virgin goddess Athena, daughter of Zeus, breathed life into his clay figure.

In ancient Mexico, the supreme God was Ometeotl, who being both male and female, spawned four sons. These offspring were then responsible for creating earth, water, heaven and hell.

In Eastern Canada, where I was born, the Canadian people believe that the Great Spirit Glooscap was responsible for their creation. He fell from the sky in a canoe with his brother Malsum, and anchored at Uktamkoo (now Newfoundland); an island that magically appeared for their use. Glooscap shot arrows into an ash tree, and out stepped men and women. They were strong and graceful with light brown skin and shining black hair, and he named his people Wabanaki. He then created animals from rocks and clay and while they were originally large and ferocious, he tamed them to be servile, and provide his people with food and clothing.

Norse legend also uses the imagery of trees as the roots of mankind. Their Garden of Eden was Midgard. (Mana-heim), originally inhabited by the gods, Odin, Hoenir and Lodur, who were responsible for creating the universe. One day when they were strolling around Midgard, they noticed two trees, an ash and an elm and decided that humans should be created with the same strength and beauty that they possessed.

So Odin endowed them with souls, Hoenir granted them motion and sense, and Lodur gave them “blood and blooming complexions”. The trees had become man and woman, and the gods left them in Midgard to do what comes naturally.

The ancient Sumarians accepted Adam as the first man, but referred to him as a Pasisu-Priest of the Anunnaki tribe, a mythological race of people, found primarily in the Middle East, India and South Africa and we can certainly trace the migration of people from those regions into Europe and eventually North America. His father was "Enki, Lord of the Earth and Waters" and Adam was genetically created by mixing his father's blood with that of a Homo-Sapien. The first test tube baby, so to speak.

The creator of the Germanic people was Ymir; the Aztec, a plumed serpent named Quetzalcoatl; the Pawnee, Tirawa, also known as the 'Arch of Heaven' ; the Iroquois, Hahgwehdiyu and the Navajo Estsanatlehi, wife of the Sun god, who lived alone in a “house that floats on the western waters”. One day, when she was feeling lonely, she created men and women from small pieces of her skin.

Even the Bible is viewed by modern and liberal minded theologians as a series of historical documents written by human authors, who were trying to promote their group's spiritual beliefs; and like any other book, it contains factual errors, distortions and exaggerations. This is not a put down to any of the saints who contributed to its pages, but we have to remember that it was written before the age of technology and scientific understanding, when people needed explanations to appease their fears; no matter how unbelievable those explanations may have seemed.

But, regardless of whether we believe that we sprang from man and a rib; were created through extraterrestrial activity, stepped out of a tree or swung from it’s branches; our religious beliefs stem from the need to explain the unexplained and to envision the image of our creator or creators, as mirroring our own; but with exceptional powers that cause them to rise above mere human form.

And whether that is God, Goddess, Great Spirit, The Creator, The Lord, The Almighty, Yahweh, Allah, Abraham, Jesus, Buddha, Brahman, Dalai Lama, Allah, The Tao, or one of the many others, their teachings are laid down to give humankind direction. However, it's also quite acceptable to follow none of them or no one at all.

Science should be embraced because as it unravels life's mysteries, allowing us to focus on the positive side of our spiritual beliefs: helping our fellow man.

But if schools really want to teach creationism they need to make it part of religious studies, not science class, and allow students and parents to decide whether or not they will take the course.

In her new book The Armageddon Factor, Marcie McDonald discusses a situation that occurred at the Abbotsford School Board when creationism was added to their curriculum. (2) When it was discovered it created quite a controversy.

From a column in the Vancouver Sun:

"Ignorance is strength," the thought police declared in George Orwell's political satire "1984", and if there was any truth in such oxymoronic double-think, Abbotsford's schools would be turning out a mighty generation of deep thinkers.

The Abbotsford school board, guided by an evangelical Christian philosophy, requires teachers to "balance" the theory of evolution by also teaching creationism, using materials from fundamentalist sources. Many teachers, Vancouver Sun reporter Douglas Todd has found, avoid teaching creationism by not teaching evolution either.

So the schools produce students who have been taught nothing about the origins of life. They have not been told that most scientists - and most Christian churches - accept that evolution provides the best explanation available to fit the known facts and that the theory changes as more facts come to light.

Nor have they been told that some Christians believe God literally created the universe in seven days; that many Christian churches accept the Bible's creation story as metaphoric truth, reflecting the state of science at the time it was written; and that all the world's religions have their own creation myths, full of startling and delightful parallels, contradictions and insights.

Board chair John Sutherland says schools should teach ideas that reflect their communities, and Abbotsford has a large evangelical Christian population.

The board will review the way its policy is implemented, but it won't change the policy itself. It must be disheartening to be a member of a minority group in a community that won't tolerate anything outside the orthodox of the majority. But publicly funded schools should not be contributing to such an atmosphere. The Abbotsford board should scrap its policy. Evolution should be taught as a part of mainstream science. If the board wants creationism taught, it should provide courses in comparative religion. Parents who want more religious content for their children can teach them at home, or send them to church or enrol them in private schools.

If the board won't change, the education ministry should force it to. If the ministry won't act, teachers and parents should seek help from the courts, or human rights agencies. No religious group should have the right to dictate what is taught in our public schools. (my emphasis)

Sources:

1. Science minister says his evolution views not relevant, CTV News Staff, March 17, 2009

2. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8, 195-197

3. School balancing act defies science, Vancouver Sun, March 18, 1995

Gary Goodyear and the Harper Government's Attack on Science

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

In 1995 Ontarians elected their first neoconservative premier, Mike Harris. It was an experiment that failed badly due in large part to the fact that many candidates who rode the wave of the movement into power, had no government experience.

Many were from rural areas and lacked higher education.

On the surface this is not a problem. Rural communities need a voice and who best to speak for them, than one of them.

However, the difficulty was in choosing a cabinet, because ministers not only speak for their constituents but for their 'clients' who fall within their mandate.

Now Harris had people in his caucus who could have represented the interests of these groups. Who had enough (and often more than enough) expertise to understand the needs of schools, farmers, etc. But that is not how neoconservatism works.

Harris wanted to tear down government departments, so he needed ministers who would become the nemesis of their 'clients'. Ministers who were 'movement' oriented and knew what had to be done. If they felt any empathy or concern for the problems facing these 'clients', that would run contra to the neoconservative agenda.

Political scientist and author Brooke Jeffrey explains how Harris chose his cabinet:

First and foremost, Mike Harris chose people like himself. That meant white, middle-aged men. It also meant self-made men were in and well-educated
upper-middle-class ones, for the most part, were out. In addition, Harris picked a third of his cabinet from rookie MPPs with no experience in the legislature, let alone the cabinet. The advantage, for Harris, was that they would always perceive themselves to be in his debt. After all, they had been elected on his coat-tails ... The combination of these two selection criteria alone was likely to cause serious problems for the government, but Harris did not stop there. Ignoring conventional wisdom once more, he deliberately (and some would say perversely) placed individuals in portfolios for which they had no relevant experience or training.

His theory was unique, but understandable if one considers his neoconservative perspective. (1)

So in Harris's world the Minster of Agriculture did not speak for the farmer, but promoted fewer farmers and lower prices, which meant more imports. The Minister of Education did not speak to the quality of education but only to reducing the number of schools and teachers, promoting private education.

In her new book, The Armageddon Factor, Marci McDonald discusses the appointment of Gary Goodyear to the Science portfolio. Goodyear was an obscure backbencher who had dropped out of university and instead chose a career as a chiropractor. This doesn't mean that his chosen path was not in the scientific field. Far from it.

However, McDonald suggests that Stephen Harper chose Goodyear in part to exact revenge on academics and climate scientists. (2) After all, their demands stood in the way of big business.

But she also draws on the fact that Gary Goodyear is a devout Baptist who 'embraced a personal belief in creationism' and 'regarded evolution as a theory concocted by scheming humanists in academia to undercut the very foundations of Christian doctrine.' (2)

So to Goodyear he would be the foe of the science community because they threatened his beliefs. Ignoring the fact that scientists could use their "God given" talents for the betterment of mankind, he was only concerned that their 'theories' violated the Old Testament.

So though I'm sure to some degree Harper liked sticking it to the academics, who are often viewed as the enemy of the movement, I think his choice of Goodyear was to appease the Christian fundamentalists who represent his base. This was a clear message that with Goodyear at the helm, funding to scientific research would become a thing of the past.

Unless that research was to prove their theory, that mankind evolved from one man and one woman, Adam and Eve. The fact that if this were true, early generations came about as a result of incest, did not factor in.

Courting the Theocons

In 2003, Stephen Harper gave a speech to the secretive Civitas Society, of which Jason Kenney is a founding member. Donald Gutstein, author of the book Not a Conspiracy Theory* (another must read), covered the meeting and reported on Harper's views:

The state should take a more activist role in policing social norms and values, Harper told the assembled conservatives. To achieve this goal, social and economic conservatives must reunite as they have in the U.S., where evangelical Christians and business rule in an unholy alliance. Red Tories must be jettisoned from the party, he said, and alliances forged with ethnic and immigrant communities who currently vote Liberal but espouse traditional family values. This was the successful strategy counselled by the neocons under Ronald Reagan to pull conservative Democrats into the Republican tent. Movement towards the goal must be "incremental," he said, so the public won't be spooked. (3)

Marci McDonald also mentions that meeting:

The only route, he [Harper] argued, was to focus not on the tired wish list of economic conservatives or “neo-cons,” as they’d become known, but on what he called “theo-cons”—those social conservatives who care passionately about hot-button issues that turn on family, crime, and defence. Even foreign policy had become a theo-con issue, he pointed out, driven by moral and religious convictions. “The truth of the matter is that the real agenda and the defining issues have shifted from economic issues to social values,” he said, “so conservatives must do the same.”

Arguing that the party had to come up with tough, principled stands on everything from parents’ right to spank their children to putting “hard power” behind the country’s foreign-policy commitments, he cautioned that it also had to choose its battlefronts with care. The social-conservative issues we choose should not be denominational,” he said, “but should unite social conservatives of different denominations and even different faiths.” (4)

Exploiting religious beliefs is unconscionable, but just how far is he willing to take this? One of his mentors, through Charles McVety, is John Hagee who believes in "God's Foreign Policy". And what this means is that Israel should be left alone to do their job, which he explains is to launch a nuclear attack in the Middle East. Are those the foreign-policy commitments of the "theocons" that he's willing to endorse?

Goodyear Does not Disappoint

Carolyn Abraham wrote a comprehensive piece for the Globe and Mail, concerning the attack of Gary Goodyear on Canada's scientists. Mike Harris himself couldn't have selected a better soldier for the mission.

The screaming erupted last Wednesday afternoon, just down the street from Parliament Hill, in the offices of a Conservative cabinet minister. Two officials with Canadian Association of University Teachers sat on one side of a boardroom table and on the other sat Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology, his policy adviser Wesley Moore and a civil servant ready to take notes.

CAUT, a lobby group that represents 65,000 staff at 121 colleges and universities, had planned to raise concerns over the government's handling of research funding. But within moments, it became clear they wouldn't get very far. “The minister was very angry,” said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. “He was raising his voice and pointing his finger … He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, ‘A lot of our members don't love it'… and he said, ‘That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.'” The talks, Mr. Robinson said, went from bad to worse. In 15 years on the job, he “never had a meeting like that.” (5)

The battle lines were clearly drawn and this was going to be war.

James Turk, CAUT executive director, said the meeting with the minister typifies the chill many scientists feel coming from the government, calling the reception “nasty pit-bull” behaviour.

... The most common complaint since the Conservatives came to power in 2006 is the lack of support for the three arm's-length agencies that finance basic research: the National Science and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

After years of double-digit budget increases in the early 2000s, government contributions in recent years to NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR have barely kept pace with inflation – and last year they underwent a government-mandated strategic review to reduce their spending. (5)

And while the government claims to be investing in 'science', and have indeed poured millions into the ministry, much of it has gone into the repair of buildings which should have fallen under a different mandate.

The Only Adversary in a Culture War is Secrecy

The media has recently begun talking about a culture war, between the Reform-Conservative Movement and the opposition parties. No doubt Harper will try to paint this as an assault on Christianity. He is already suggesting that his caucus is under attack because they go to church.

But it's not as simple as that.

This is not about their religious beliefs but the secrecy. If they really believe that this is what Canadians want, why not lay it out there. Tell us that they think that homosexuals should be "cured". Or that they not only oppose abortion but contraception and any form of family planning, that goes against "God's plan", which is for women to keep popping out babies until their uterus explodes.

And they don't just want the Canadian government to only consist of Christians, but they have to be "Born again" Christians. Lay that out there.

And if the reason why the Religious Right in Canada is accepting millions of dollars from the Religious Right in the United States, is because they believe that we are Narnia of the C.S. Lewis novel and that Canada will play a significant role in the end times, lay it out there. Shouldn't we get to decide whether or not we want to host this little shindig? I may be busy that weekend.

But the one I have the most trouble with is that they don't believe there is a place in the world for Muslims.

Link Byfield was an early Reform party supporter. He is also a member of the Civitas Society, and his father was a founder. Several years ago he and Stephen Harper helped to found the Northern Foundation (6) which was to be a vanguard group for the Far-Right. He is also on the executive of the new Wildrose Alliance Party in Alberta.

He spoke at a REAL Women's** conference about three possible outcomes to our future.

Scene I. If Islam Prevails ... "An invasion by Islam will not be by force of arms, as they do not have the technology for that. The power of Islam is in its birth rate. Islam cannot be removed or replaced, and it grows by way of its large families ...

Scene II. If Materialism (Secular Humanism) Prevails ... To populate the nation, society has implemented the ideas set out in Aldous Huxley's book, "Brave New World." For example, we are increasingly playing with providing babies in nurseries without mothers and fathers and families, just as predicted by Mr. Huxley ...

Scene III. If Christianity Prevails ... Christianity is about God saving man from himself. God saves us out of an unfathomable love. He saves us from idolatry. He saves us from our enemies. Will we win? Who knows? Looking at the Christian case, it seems to be the weakest. But Mr. Byfield believes Christianity will prevail.

And yet there is no 'Scene' where harmony will prevail. Where Christianity and Islam can both survive. And what about Judaism? Buddhism? Hinduism? What they see is a final, no holds barred, contest between Islam and Christianity. A fight to the finish.

I'm revisiting some of my old postings on the threat of the Religious Right, because it appears that we may finally be debating this issue in Canada, and that's a good thing.

Because all Canadians have the right to believe what they want. It's the beauty of a free society. But they don't have the right to force those beliefs on the rest of us, and by cutting funding to areas that are important to all Canadians, their "forced beliefs" could have devastating results.

So I just want some honesty. Is that too much to ask?

Footnotes:

* Not a Conspiracy Theory: How Business Propaganda Hijacks Democracy, By Donald Gutstein, Key Porter Books, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-55470-191-9

*REAL women were also under the Northern Foundation's umbrella.

Sources:

1. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 174-175

2. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada, By: Marci McDonald, Random House Canada, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-307-35646-8

3. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy: Close advisers schooled in 'the noble lie' and 'regime change', By Donald Gutstein, The Tyee, November 29, 2005

4. Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons: The rising clout of Canada’s religious right, By Marci McDonald, The Walrus, October 2006, Pg. 2

5. Researchers fear 'stagnation' under Tories, By: Carolyn Abraham, Globe and Mail, March 2, 2009

6. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper demonstrates continued ultra right wing affiliations by blocking pro social justice Toronto candidate, By Dr. Debra Chin, The Canadian

7. REAL Women of Canada 2002 Conference, "The Impact of Feminism on Society".