Atheism – This Magazine

Gender-neutral O Canada: An idea whose time already happened—130 years ago

luke champion — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:49:25 +0000

Hot on the tail of the reinvigorated nationalism left in the wake of the Olympics in Vancouver, parliament reopened yesterday with the speech from the throne given by Governor-General Michaëlle Jean.

Appropriately timed with said nationalism, the country’s National Anthem made its way into the hour-long allocution. The government would like to retool the English language version of O Canada ever so slightly, with the intent on a more gender neutral tone.

The line in question: “True patriot love, in all thy sons command.”

This is a suggestion that is bound to be met with resistance and controversy, but really it’s a non-issue. More symbolic than anything else and arguments can be made over political correctness vs. historic significance, but all in all I don’t really have a problem with a little tinkering. A fuss might be made by so called patriots who feel threatened by minor changes to any nationalistic customs, but supposing the lyrics were changed, a generation from now no one would know the difference and really, isn’t it a good idea to include the entire population?

That being said, it might be a good idea to re-examine “God keep our land…” as well. But that’s another debate.

One reason why this change shouldn’t be met with much resistance is that the original poem the lyrics are lifted from doesn’t include that line in the first place. The original poem, written by R. Stanely Weir and commissioned for the 300^th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City contained the slightly different, and wholly gender neutral, line “True patriot love thou dost in us command.” But even that is not the original version. O Canada began its life as a nationalistic French hymn in 1880, with music by French composer Calixa Lavallée and lyrics by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier, 100 years before it was made Canada’s national anthem. The French lyrics have remained unchanged since they were first written and bear no resemblance to English Canada’s version:

O Canada! Land of our forefathers
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
As in thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic of the most brilliant exploits.

Ch.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.

It wasn’t until 1901 that English Canada got its own version with translated lyrics by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson.

O Canada! Our fathers’ land of old
Thy brow is crown’d with leaves of red and gold.
Beneath the shade of the Holy Cross
Thy children own their birth
No stains thy glorious annals gloss
Since valour shield thy hearth.
Almighty God! On thee we call
Defend our rights, forfend this nation’s thrall,
Defend our rights, forfend this nation’s thrall.

Since then there have been many incarnations of the English language translation, some slight, some significant. Weir’s poem, written in 1908, became the favorite, and in 1927 the poem was published as part of the diamond jubilee of confederation.

Even then, it took until 1980 for O Canada to replace God Save the Queen as Canada’s official national anthem.

There is nothing sacred about the words to O Canada—they have been toyed and tooled with for a century now. Perhaps they should be a little fluid, evolving as the country does, changing to fit the nation it represents. If anything it is the melody that Canadians should hold dear.

If the decision is made to alter the anthem, it would be appropriate to reinstate Weir’s original line “Thou dost in us command,” it has historic significance, it’s gender neutral and it gives an element of power to the whole, rather than the individual, our new found post-Olympic national identity should appreciate that.

Of course, the whole thing is just a big distraction tactic by the Tories anyway. Mission accomplished!

Atheist bus ads may be crossing the pond

This Magazine Staff — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:01:20 +0000

Last week This editor Graham F. Scott blogged about a group of atheists in England who raised money to buy ad space on 200 London buses with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Now the Globe and Mail is reporting that the ad effort may soon be making its way to the streets (and subways) of Toronto. York University student Chris Hammond launched atheistbus.ca last week, and hopes to raise at least $6,000 to buy ad space on the TTC. The ads are meant to be a reaction to the Christian ads featuring Bible quotes that can sometimes be seen around Toronto. He told the Globe,
“There’s atheists that are out there. This will show them they are not alone.”

UK public transit ads promoting evangelical atheism

This Magazine Staff — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:04:52 +0000

A new ad campaign launched on British public transit systems today promoting atheism. The campaign was spearheaded by readers of England’s Guardian newspaper website Comment Is Free, who together raised more than £135,000 ($230,000 CAD) to pay for the campaign (they say their initial goal was £5,500 and 30 buses, a deliberately modest goal that they have far exceeded, as obviously intended). In London there are 200 buses sporting the ads, and more featuring quotations from prominent atheists throughout history (Emily Dickinson, Albert Einstein) will be put up in the London Underground next week. More are on the way in Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Cardiff, and several other cities.
Is the world ready for evangelical atheists? We’re about to find out.

The God Discussion

This Magazine Staff — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:31:38 +0000

Over the past month, I got into the habit of reading Richard Dawkins‘ book The God Delusion on the bus and streetcar most mornings. I try to walk to work as much as I can but it’s been just too cold!
It’s proven to be a very controversial book, and with its shiny cover with the title in big letters, I’ll confess I’ve been a bit afraid someone pious might come up and accost me as my Ossington Street bus roars through some of the more church-lined parts of the trip to the office. And there’s a section called “Stalin and Hitler were atheists, weren’t they?” that reproduces and later dissects some of the arguments of Hitler and Stalin. I’d hate to have a person sitting next to me read some Nazi propaganda over my shoulder and become hurt or offended.
Ironically enough, getting over the fear of hurt or offense is one of the key thrusts of Dawkins’ book. He believes that religion on the whole does more harm than good, and that people shouldn’t shy away from making that case. He also makes provocative arguments against the religious indoctrination of children.
After reading both the book and much of the hype surrounding it, the hype—including the argument that Dawkins is a “fundamentalist atheist”—doesn’t hold up. The God Delusion doesn’t mince words, is bound to offend many, and may in fact be “preaching to the (atheist) choir”—but it offers some fascinating challenges to progressives.
On the one hand, many people involved in movements for social change, and doing greatly valuable and important work, get their philosophical inspiration from a deep spiritual commitment. On the other hand, it is in fact problematic that religion is seen widely as the one area that is untouchable in terms of rational inquiry. Across history and cultures, different religions have been in various positions in terms of social power and in relation to one another. The bottom line is that all of them should be equally up for discussion.