Former astronaut Julie Payette to be Canada's next governor general

283 posts / 0 new
Last post
Debater
Former astronaut Julie Payette to be Canada's next governor general

Jul 12, 2017

Former astronaut Julie Payette will be the Queen's new representative in Canada, CBC News has confirmed.

The 53-year-old Montrealer, who speaks six languages, will be named the 29th governor general, a position that comes with a $290,660 annual salary and an official residence at Rideau Hall.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will make the announcement Thursday.

CBC News caught up with Payette at a downtown Ottawa hotel before a source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed the news.

"Oh my goodness, you know a lot more than I do," Payette told the CBC's Katie Simpson, before walking past without further comment.

Payette, who is also an accomplished athlete, pianist and choral singer, will succeed outgoing Gov. Gen. David Johnston.

 

Full article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/governor-general-canada-julie-payette-1....

NorthReport

Good on Payette - we need to be challenging fake news everywhere, every chance we get.  This dickin' around with junk science has to be stopped.

Julie Payette takes on junk science—and tests the limits of her job title

Opinion: The Governor General caused a stir with comments about climate change, evolution and medicine. But it’s the tone, not the facts, that should rankle

http://www.macleans.ca/opinion/julie-payette-takes-on-junk-science-and-t...

NorthReport

Right on!

Payette scoffs at climate change skeptics during science conference

“Can you believe that…we’re still questioning whether humans have a role in the Earth warming?” the Governor General asked

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/payette-scoffs-at-climate-change-skeptic...

Rev Pesky

And is being raked over the coals for it. I certainly wish someone from the NDP would stand up and defend her.

abnormal

The first I heard of her comments was this article.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/governor-general-speech-julie-payette-cli...

Basically, how dare she criticize someone's beliefs?  

For the record, it turned up on my Facebook feed and the individual that posted it decided to focus on:

... had Payette flippantly dismissed traditional Indigenous healing methods instead of cancer patients taking sugar pills, I doubt she'd be afforded the defences she's currently enjoying from many observers ...

In any case, the individual that posted it was extremely upset because he concluded that "traditional Indigeneous healing methods" fall under the heading of "alternative medicine" and were therefore being ridiculed.

 

Rev Pesky

For the record there is no such thing as 'alternative medicine'. There is medicine, and alternatives to medicine.

One of the indicators of how well medicine works is child mortality. Over the last 50 years the rate of child mortality has dropped dramatically all over the world. 

The under-5 child mortality per 1000 live births in the world has gone from 93.4 in 1990 to 40.8 in 2016. That's medicine, or perhaps I should say medical knowledge.

abnormal

Rev Pesky wrote:

For the record there is no such thing as 'alternative medicine'. There is medicine, and alternatives to medicine.

My thoughts exactly.

WWWTT

Rev Pesky wrote:

And is being raked over the coals for it. I certainly wish someone from the NDP would stand up and defend her.

Why should they? She's not elected. She's appointed and represents colonialism!

6079_Smith_W

Well.... until the study come out showing there are fewer deaths, interventions and complications in planned home births than planned hospital births.

Sorry, but there are alternatives to mainstream medicine. Some of them are snake oil, but some of them work as well if not better than drugging people or cutting them open. For that matter, accepted medical practice is sometimes found to be ineffective, or harmful - for instance the revision of rules for child cough medicines in 2009. 

So sure, there is only medicine. But in a lot of conditions there is a range of available options, however you want to frame it.

Payette called out using sugar pills to treat cancer, and belief in creationism. Some religious people and political opportunists are trying to read a condemation of all believers into that. I don't plan on following their example. I'm glad Payette said what she did. She is right.

For that matter, the pope has acknowledged that evolution is real, and therefore agrees with her completely that there is no debate, and the Anglican church has declared there is no conflict between faith and evolution, so it is those with a chip on their shoulders who are offside here.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Sorry, but there are alternatives to mainstream medicine. Some of them are snake oil, but some of them work as well if not better than drugging people or cutting them open.

As far as I'm concerned, alternative practices can be based on prime numbers, or rhyming ingredients, or entrail-based diagnoses, so long as the ASSESSMENT of them is science-based (which is to say, results based) and that assessment shows they work.

If it works, it works.  Even if it's not older white men in lab coats doing it.

Does that include "placebos"?  Hells to the yes!  If a placebo works better than the medicine it was supposed to be testing then why would we choose the medicine that was supposed to work better but failed to?

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

Well.... until the study come out showing there are fewer deaths, interventions and complications in planned home births than planned hospital births.

What would be the difference between a planed home birth and a planned hospital birth? To begin with, an expectant mother with a diagnosed risk factor would more likely opt for a hospital delivery than a home delivery.

To carry that to the next logical step, expectant mothers with risky pregnancies would more likely have problems than those without risk factors. So as a general rule, those who opt for hospital deliveries would more likely have poorer outcomes, based on the risk factors associated with their pregnancies.

What is clear is child mortality rates are lowest in countries where medical help is readily available, and highest where medical help is not available. That would seem to suggest that having a modern medical system is a significant factor is child mortality rates. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

 "And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process."

This is a major oops, unless of course she was saying that the debate is over because we know God is supreme. I personally don't believe in god or goddesses but I am not the Head of State sworn to uphold the Constitution. 

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, maybe k. Though again, maybe someone should let the pope know too. cco posted something in another thread about this Power and Politics conversation where some talking head said Payete should be "defender of the faith" (and I guess as viceroy that faith would be the Church of England, right? They have also declared that there is no conflict between faith and evolution.

https://www.facebook.com/CBCPolitics/videos/1852428381452655/?hc_ref=ART...

And Rev, my point is not that modern medicine is a bad thing. I didn't say that at all.  But the fight over midwifery is the classic example of the medical profession trying to pathologize something that is not a sickness, and act like they were the only ones qualified to deal with it.

Until the reasearch showed that not only is that not true, the medical model can actually do more harm in the case of healthy pregnancies.

But then, Payette didn't say there is only medicine either. She said people shouldn't take a sugar pill and expect to be cured of cancer. I agree with her.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I found myself both cheering her comments and feeling that she was the last person who should be saying them.  But as far as alternative medicine, I would say that the scientific journey on a patient by patient basis can follow many branches. 'Alternative medicine' is often an early adopter of techniques (perhaps sometimes on tenous logic).  Pot as a pain medicine was poo-pooed by established medicine until the science caught up to it. Having lived with someone who went through a year of extreme pain such that she tried everything that had a shred of credibility I would say that a lot of what worked surprised me (admittedly pain is a special case where many of the solutions involve 'tricking' the brain).

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

And Rev, my point is not that modern medicine is a bad thing. I didn't say that at all.

Neither did I say you did. I merely pointed out that your 'instance' was faulty logic, and that child mortality rates are much lower in countries with a modern medical system. To be fair, the simple reason for that may be that people in countries with a modern medical system are generally much wealthier, and live in much better conditions generally.

Rev Pesky

From WWWTT:

Rev Pesky wrote:

...I certainly wish someone from the NDP would stand up and defend her.

Why should they? She's not elected. She's appointed and represents colonialism!

To be clear, I should have said someone from the NDP should defend what she said. It's not necessary to defend her position. 

But as far as her position, it has changed plenty over the years. Not necessarily legally, but in reality. The Governor-General (for the most part) acts on the instructions of the government of the day, yet at the same time provides a non-partisan head of state. I'll grant the office could be filled without all the pomp and circumstance.

Pondering

The pope does not deny evolution but neither does he deny that divine intervention created man. God just did it through evolution. Had she stuck to evolution she would have been fine. What she said is that God did not create mankind.

Rev Pesky

From kropotkin1951, quoting the Charter of Rights:

 Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

There isn't necessarily any conflict between what Payette said about the beginnings of life, and her sworn duty to uphold the Canadian Constitution.

​After all, God could have just 'tossed the dice' to see what would happen. God has plenty of time. In fact, God could have run this 'dice-tossing' many times before humanity appeared.

​I personally don't believe any God exsists, but it's true that some scientists, even some biological scientists do believe. How do they reconcile their belief? Perhaps by pushing God further back into the initial creation of the universe.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

Had she stuck to evolution she would have been fine. What she said is that God did not create mankind.

Um, what was wrong with saying God did not create mankind?

6079_Smith_W

@ Rev

In other words, your comment didn't actually have anything to do with my point .

I think Magoo got it. If it works it works. And in many cases research has shown that some of these things that were fought for years by the medical profession do actually work.

In this country low-risk births have a lower incidence of complications and invasive measures at home with a midwife than they do in a hospital with a doctor. So no, they aren't the only ones who know how to bring children safely into the world.

Same for Pogo's good example of the medicine which used to be a standard ingredient in medications, and then suddenly was branded a poison.

To repeat: I said nothing about modern medicine not being a good or an important institution, nor that it wasn't one of the things responsible for vast improvements in health.

 

 

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

Had she stuck to evolution she would have been fine. What she said is that God did not create mankind.

Um, what was wrong with saying God did not create mankind?

Because as GG she mocked the beliefs of a very large portion of Canadians who believe in God even if they also believe in evolution. I'm with you. I don't get it. Historically we know where the Bible comes from and all the other religious myths but people still believe in Him. Even indigenous peoples who you would think would really know better. It's a mystery to me. I can say that because  I am not the GG.  The GG is the Queen's representative in Canada. She remains as primarily a figurehead with some official duties. She isn't supposed to take political positions. As GG (and a scientist for that matter) she should have stuck to what she could prove.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

she should have stuck to what she could prove.

Please don't tell me we're having an invitation to the very debate that Payette (and I too) cannot believe some are still having.

In the first place I think it is up to people themselves to decide whether or not they are offended by this.

And in the second place the issues she was raising - in particular that of climate change, but also whether the earth is older than 6,000 years, and whether one should accept medical research - are frankly a bit more important than some people getting their noses out of joint. Again, especially if religious authorities like the pope agree with her.

Payette was chosen in large part because of her role as a scientist, and her job is non-partisan. That doesn't mean without importance, or without challenging anyone. Addressing issues that threaten our health, and our very existence on this planet is her job.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The pope does not deny evolution but neither does he deny that divine intervention created man. God just did it through evolution.

I wonder what he believes humans evolved FROM?

Quote:
Because as GG she mocked the beliefs of a very large portion of Canadians who believe in God even if they also believe in evolution.

Fortunately, the number of Canadians who believe that God literally created the universe and everything in it 6000 years ago is pretty small.  If Stockwell Day or Jason Kenney want to pitch a fit over it, let them. 

Meanwhile, anyone who goes to church and says Grace before dinner and prays for stuff, but also believes that dinosaurs existed and that the earth is older than 6000 years has no special reason to be offended.  Saying that humans weren't made out of dust and a rib bone 6000 years ago is not the same as saying there's no God.

Rev Pesky

From 6079_Smith_W:

@ Rev

In other words, your comment didn't actually have anything to do with my point .

Which explains why you responded to my point. Presumably if I had something that was 'on point' you wouldn't have bothered to respond.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Pondering wrote:

she should have stuck to what she could prove.

Please don't tell me we're having an invitation to the very debate that Payette (and I too) cannot believe some are still having.

In the first place I think it is up to people themselves to decide whether or not they are offended by this.

And in the second place the issues she was raising - in particular that of climate change, but also whether the earth is older than 6,000 years, and whether one should accept medical research - are frankly a bit more important than some people getting their noses out of joint. Again, especially if religious authorities like the pope agree with her.

Payette was chosen in large part because of her role as a scientist, and her job is non-partisan. That doesn't mean without importance, or without challenging anyone. Addressing issues that threaten our health, and our very existence on this planet is her job.

Absolutely. But that is where she should have stopped. There are people who believe in evolution and global warming and God. We can prove evolution. We can prove global warming. We can prove the activities of man are dramatically increasing the rate of global warming.

We cannot prove that God did not create the universe and everything in it including mankind (only that he didn't do it 6,000 years ago). At least not yet.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
We cannot prove that God did not create the universe and everything in it including mankind

So wait, though.  God "created mankind" but so did evolution?  OK, I'll wonder again, what did humans evolve from (which, in the cosmology you describe, God created and then watched evolve)?

Did God create a bacterium, and watch it evolve into a human?  Did he give the whole thing a head start and create a li'l monkey?  Did we begin as trilobites, and the Bible only got it all wrong by about 270 million years (plus or minus 6000 years)?

Thing is, I don't think I've EVER heard any religious person saying what you seem to be saying.  I'm really not sure who you're speaking for.

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

She isn't supposed to take political positions.

Suggesting life began because of a random process is a political position? Jeez, she didn't even mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for which there is every bit as much evidence as there is for God, or Allah, or Zeus. 

I'll also remind everyone that the religious have no compunctions about making fun of atheists, at every chance they get. Here's a common view of atheists from 'Answers in Genesis'.

Answers in Genesis

Rev Pesky

From Pondering:

We cannot prove that God did not create the universe and everything in it including mankind (only that he didn't do it 6,000 years ago). At least not yet.

If you believe in an all-powerful, omnipotent God, there is no reason that God couldn't have created the world as it exists 6,000 years ago. Scientific evidence for the age of the earth means nothing in the face of an omnipotent being.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

She isn't supposed to take political positions.

Suggesting life began because of a random process is a political position? Jeez, she didn't even mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for which there is every bit as much evidence as there is for God, or Allah, or Zeus. 

I'll also remind everyone that the religious have no compunctions about making fun of atheists, at every chance they get. Here's a common view of atheists from 'Answers in Genesis'.

Answers in Genesis

You are being deliberately obtuse. She should not have referred to divine intervention because she is not an expert on divine intervention. She is an expert in science. There was no need to refer to God in order to defend science which I agree is important and badly needed.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

We cannot prove that God did not create the universe and everything in it including mankind (only that he didn't do it 6,000 years ago). At least not yet.

If you believe in an all-powerful, omnipotent God, there is no reason that God couldn't have created the world as it exists 6,000 years ago. Scientific evidence for the age of the earth means nothing in the face of an omnipotent being.

I am an atheist. Your comment has nothing to do with whether or not it is a good idea for a scientist to claim something as fact that they can't prove.

 

voice of the damned

Magoo wrote:

Thing is, I don't think I've EVER heard any religious person saying what you seem to be saying. 

Do a google on "Pierre Teilhard de Chardin". Not saying I agree with his theories, in fact, I've heard they've been disproven, but as far as religious people saying things like what Pondering said, he would be an example. (Sir Julian Huxley wrote the intro to one of the editions of his major work, as I recall).

Also, it's arguable that Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick thought that the monolith scene from 2001 symbolized a real intervention by higher powers in the evolution of man. Kubrick's own statements on the issue are a little ambivalent. He seemed to believe in the possibility of God, but as a material being(which in philosophy class you're taught is something he cannot, by definition, be).

http://tinyurl.com/y8qzvceq

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
She should not have referred to divine intervention because she is not an expert on divine intervention.

Then nobody, EVER, should mention divine intervention because -- sorry! -- who can claim they're an "expert" in divine intervention??

"Oh, I've read ALL the books on divine intervention, so now I'm qualified to talk about whether it happened or not!" -- LOLZ.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
She should not have referred to divine intervention because she is not an expert on divine intervention.

Then nobody, EVER, should mention divine intervention because -- sorry! -- who can claim they're an "expert" in divine intervention??

"Oh, I've read ALL the books on divine intervention, so now I'm qualified to talk about whether it happened or not!" -- LOLZ.

There is a difference between public officials and "everyone".  As an individual of course she has the right to free speech like everyone else. In this case she was speaking as GG not as a private individual. It totally creeped me out when Harper said "God bless" at the end of an early speech. He never did it again. I don't think public officials should be declaring the existence of God or the non-existence of God.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There is a difference between public officials and "everyone".

Of course there is.  But it's not a reason for anyone to bloviate about divine intervention, is it?

Do you believe that some "non-public officials" are, in fact, experts?  And if not, why should they open their pie-holes about it?

cco

Rev Pesky wrote:

I'll also remind everyone that the religious have no compunctions about making fun of atheists, at every chance they get.

"Making fun of" is rather an understatement. On a weekly basis, they call for us to be tortured eternally, and in 13 countries, including the one Trudeau sold "jeeps" to, our existence is punishable by death. As someone who doesn't subscribe to their ideologies, the eternal torture's not something I'm particularly concerned about on a personal level, other than the bloodthirstiness it demonstrates in such a large majority of the population.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I'll also remind everyone that the religious have no compunctions about making fun of atheists, at every chance they get.

And to paraphrase what some smart person once said, if there are 1000 possible Gods, atheists disbelieve in 1000 of them, while the tolerant faithful only disbelieve in 999 of them.

WWWTT

Pondering wrote:

There is a difference between public officials and "everyone".  As an individual of course she has the right to free speech like everyone else. In this case she was speaking as GG not as a private individual. It totally creeped me out when Harper said "God bless" at the end of an early speech. He never did it again. I don't think public officials should be declaring the existence of God or the non-existence of God.

Yes this comment sums up how I feel. She totally screwed up! It’s not her place to ridicule people’s beliefs.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
There is a difference between public officials and "everyone".

Of course there is.  But it's not a reason for anyone to bloviate about divine intervention, is it?

No being a private citizen is not a reason to bloviate about divine intervention. Private citizens don't need a reason. Public officials do.

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Do you believe that some "non-public officials" are, in fact, experts?  And if not, why should they open their pie-holes about it?

There is no requirement for private citizens to know what they are talking about in order to make factual claims. As they are not public officials they are free to claim gravity is an illusion. If the GG claims gravity is an illusion I will object.

The GG is very lucky the Paradise papers are dominating the political news.

Pogo Pogo's picture

She is the GG of all Canadians including the stupid. She should have found a way to state the principles without kicking the people who hold these views.

It is easy for us to say good on her for attacking this stupidity.  However, what happens toworrow when she talks about people holding stupid marxist views. She shouldn't have the ability to pass judgement on the views of other Canadians. We have 30 million other Canadians for that job.

bekayne

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

She isn't supposed to take political positions.

Suggesting life began because of a random process is a political position? Jeez, she didn't even mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for which there is every bit as much evidence as there is for God, or Allah, or Zeus. 

I'll also remind everyone that the religious have no compunctions about making fun of atheists, at every chance they get. Here's a common view of atheists from 'Answers in Genesis'.

Answers in Genesis

Christian cartoons are the worst (Jack Chick excepted)

6079_Smith_W

Well I don't think Payette is going to claim gravity was created by some god anytime soon.

But there is a precedent for people in her line of work taking controversial stands in Prince Charles's advocacy of homeopathy. So I don't see a problem with her taking this stand, especially since it is part of the reason she got the job.

And in fact she didn't say anything about politics. She questioned how there can still be a debate about evolution. Fair question. And frankly, I thought the evidence vs. faith question was one that Augustine settled over a millenium ago.

I can appreciate that some here are upset, if for others. But considering how many religious leaders agree with her, who are we really taking about? Should she also avoid controversy and not question how people can believe the earth is flat? That is bound to upset a few Canadians too.

It seems to me the question is whether you think she should do anything of substance at all or just act like a glass of water. I think a lot of the outrage, particularly on the part of the Conservatives, is just opportunism. As for those who are offended, if the rest of us can deal with an anthem that praises god, then they can deal with this. The stakes are a bit too high to pussyfoot around this nonsense.

Evolution is real. And considering so-called intelligent design was only cobbled together as an attempt to get around school regulations, I don't see how it should be regarded as any different that literal creationism here.

(edit)

I wonder if the true believer in that comic is supposed to be Ken Ham. Looks a bit like him, but with glasses.

Just checked the organization. He's the CEO, so I guess that is him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But considering how many religious leaders agree with her, who are we really taking about?

Not a single mainstream religious leader agrees with her. Not one. They accept evolution but they still believe God created mankind, just not in seven days.

Rev Pesky

From Pogo:

However, what happens toworrow when she talks about people holding stupid marxist views.

Well, that would be political. 

Meanwhile, some dipshit wanders into a church, a building devoted to God, filled with people devoted to God, shoots and kills 26, with a further 20 non-fatal casualties.

Now, if you are a believer in an omnipotent God, you must believe that your God knew what was going to happen, had the ability to stop the shooter, but chose not to. I would like to have a believer explain to me God's purpose in allowing this to happen. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Not a single mainstream religious leader agrees with her. Not one. They accept evolution but they still believe God created mankind, just not in seven days.

Six.

6079_Smith_W

Really.  Well they are taking their time saying anything about it, considering that religious authorities have in the past interfered in politics to the point of  denying church participation to Canadian politicians for their support of marriage equality.

The only thing I have heard from a leader is Andrew Scheer's concern trolling, and he is a political leader.

As for some people's hurt feelings and sudden dedication to protocol, I think devout christian Michael Coren puts things in perspective: 

If most Christians could work up that kind of rage over racism, poverty, war, social injustice and inequality at home and abroad, the world would be a far better place — and the world would have a lot more respect and regard for Christians and their beliefs.

http://ipolitics.ca/2017/11/06/payette-was-rude-but-that-didnt-make-her-...

Rev Pesky

Mr. Magoo responding to a quote from Pondering:

Quote:

Not a single mainstream religious leader agrees with her. Not one. They accept evolution but they still believe God created mankind, just not in seven days.

Six.

In fact humans weren't created until the sixth day, and the seventh day was rest, so God only took a single day to make humans. Maybe God should have taken a bit longer and done a better job.

So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

...Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

... God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

 

Rev Pesky

And the one I was really looking for:

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Not a single mainstream religious leader agrees with her. Not one. They accept evolution but they still believe God created mankind, just not in seven days.

Buddhism rejects the existence of a creator/deity and Hinduism's Advaita Vedanta (non-dual) branch also rejects the existence of a creator/deity.

WWWTT

Pogo wrote:

She is the GG of all Canadians including the stupid. She should have found a way to state the principles without kicking the people who hold these views.

It is easy for us to say good on her for attacking this stupidity.  However, what happens toworrow when she talks about people holding stupid marxist views. She shouldn't have the ability to pass judgement on the views of other Canadians. We have 30 million other Canadians for that job.

so who are the stupid Canadians? The people who have beliefs that you feel are stupid or the Canadians that do stupid things like attacking Canadians who have the chartered rights to practice their beliefs?

voice of the damned

Rev Pesky wrote:

From Pondering:

She isn't supposed to take political positions.

Suggesting life began because of a random process is a political position? Jeez, she didn't even mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for which there is every bit as much evidence as there is for God, or Allah, or Zeus. 

I'll also remind everyone that the religious have no compunctions about making fun of atheists, at every chance they get. Here's a common view of atheists from 'Answers in Genesis'.

Answers in Genesis

Well, I don't think the public-intellectual atheists, who are really the targets of that cartoon, ever claim to be neutral on the question of whether or not God exists, or religion is harmful, etc. The fact that they take public stands on those issues would seem to indicate that they are not.

What they(and many non-atheists as well) claim to be neutral about is "religion in the public square", or more precisely, they want "the public square" to be neutral about religion, eg. no prayers in school, no laws based on biblical morality etc.

WWWTT

Wow I can’t believe so many posters here think the GG is some kind of non partisan branch of the government! Didn’t know that part of the responsibilities of the GG were to also double as Canada’s official science officer? Oh and by the way she’s an engineer with computer background. If you consider that being a scientist than I guess the term scientist has next to no requirements. So how scientific is that(ohh the irony). She also spent time with the Canadian military, so as far as I’m concerned she’s also a war pig!!! She took the job to be a representative of colonialism in Canada, therefore she has very poor misguided low morals!

Shes doing the job that her liberal master Justin Trudeau appointed her to do,indirectly  attack the conservatives and Jagmeet Singh.  

Time for the sorry  lame ass excuse for a Governor General to leave!

Pages