Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Atheist organization speaker: “religious and disabled groups should not be able to influence government policy”

arroba Email
Gary Bauslaugh

Recently, we’ve covered eugenics, including an interview with Jane Harris Zsovan, and she now writes to say,

Chair of Sociology emailed me to invite me to attend this a public lecture with Gary Bauslaugh at the University of Lethbridge yesterday. (The U of L has applied for a huge lot of money to study eugenics.)

(One wonder’s if that’s due to Harris Zsovan’s much-noticed book on the subject …. ).

He was discussing his pro-euthanasia book: `Robert Latimer: A Story of Justice and Mercy.`

Robert Latimer was a Saskatchewan (Canada) farmer who rigged up a death chamber in his truck for his badly palsied teen daughter, who was then living in a group home. He was no longer responsible for her care, but felt convicted that she should die. His conviction in this matter was not shared by the Supreme Court of Canada, and he served his sentence.

I could not believe my ears when Bauslaugh insisted that religious and disabled groups should not be able to influence government policy (although he back tracked when challenged by at least four people who reminded him that Canada was a democracy.) (Much of what he said about how the poor and the unsophisticated fare in the justice system is true. But Latimer did get his case before the Supreme Court. The poor and unsophisticated usually do not.)

And, as far as I can tell, he gives none of the Crown’s case against Mr. Latimer in his book and treats the Crown Prosecutors and Parole Board with disdain. (Apparently, only criminologists should be alllowed on the parole board.) Apparently, he’s part of the Centre for Inquiry and has written anti-ID articles and book chapters.

We don’t know, but welcome to the world of new atheism, and the kind of government Canada will have if they prevail.

Mr. Bauslaugh really hates hard questions. He got angry when I reminded him that ‘eugenics’ laws were created out of ‘compassion’ and was equally nasty to the Director of the Lethbridge Association of Community Living and the Chair of the Sociology Department (Of course, he didn’t know she was the Chair or he wouldn’t have been so rude.)

One day he may feel free to be that rude, and even more so.

Latimer’s main problem was that few Canadians – of whatever religious or philosophical viewpoint – agreed with his judge-jury-hangman approach to his daughter’s life.

UD News staff once interviewed the Canadian cabinet minister to whom Latimer appealed (for a print publication). About that case, he said, thoughtfully, “The man seemed to have no sense that he had done anything wrong. If he had only asked for mercy, I could have helped him. But what he wanted was agreement that he had the right to kill his daughter. That I could not and would not do. So I couldn’t help him.”

It seems the national atheist community has chosen to kick in, and it will be part of their legacy.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Gary Bauslaugh has clarified some of his statements. We've had a good and respectful debate that respects our different world views and our differing stances on this issue. And thanks to Denyse for defending my book and kicking me in the pants to write the book proposal in the first place. Read Gary's clarifiations and my own perspectives here: http://eugenicsandthefirewall.blogspot.com/. Comments from all points of view are welcome. My only rules are: no personal attacks, no libel, and respect for all individuals on the site. Kindness is not weakness. jane-harris-zsovan
Mr. Bauslaugh has contacted me. His perspective of what he meant during his presentation differs from mine, of course. But I am glad to hear him out. I will post shortly, my response, on my own blog http://janeharriszsovan.wordpress.com/ and add a comment here as well. It's highly unlikely that I am going to agree with his position. That said, I appreciate him contacting me with his clarifications and I will consider carefully what he has to say. Debate is good. Will be back to you shortly. jane-harris-zsovan
Sad. And sadly predictable -- ever since Plato. (What, you have not read that part of Plato in The Laws Bk X yet? You need to remedy that gap in your education immediately -- just one click away . . . [And, follow up with the bit on the Parable of the manipulative shadow shows in the cave; resemblance to the current shadow-shows confused for reality media culture is NOT accidental.) kairosfocus
Happily, here you are among friends, Robert Byers. Not in increasing numbers of ivory towers, as Harris Zsovan is discovering.The students will one day seek to be your rulers. News
It is the right of any citizen to influence this nation. Its his right to organize with like thinkers. The motivations of such people are nobodys business. Its as citizens/as people that we influence and not our presumptions. Watch the equation here. its not right for any religion/philosophy/group to establish itself in power but it is right for citizens, regardless of motives, to establish themselves in power. The left, or anyone, always tries to discredit people's right to influence anything by saying its illegal to impose ones ideas if from illegal motivations. The motivations are not illegal only organized imposition. Saying religious groups can't influence is saying citizens can't influence. They can. Robert Byers
I wonder if he criticizes the Leftist Churches who support Darwin Day, abortion, "same-sex marriage," etc. when they get involved with politics. My experience with the "separation of church and state" crowd is that they only object to the Bible-believing Christians letting their religious views inform their political views. homerj1

Leave a Reply