20 Feb 20
For more information on the Cardus application, see the entry below. This is in response to arguments offered at city council for and against acceptance of the Cardus application. On 28 Feb 20 the application was accepted by city council.
Some members of city council skipped philosophy at school, and so are helpless when it comes to critical thinking. They resort to quasi-intellectual questions without merit or even meaning.
Just as Hamilton is Hamilton and not Toronto, so Cardus is a Christian organization and not an LGBTQ+ fifth column. Hence when Mayor Fred asks the Cardus representative if Cardus is an equitable employer, whether it has diversity among its ranks, and is inclusive of any group, what is the representative supposed to say? A critical thinker would respond with an impolitic, “What do you mean by ‘equitable’, ‘diversity’, and ‘any’?”
Councilor Nrinder Nann asked if Cardus would deliver the Balfour Estate as “a place of belonging for all?” A critical thinker would skewer the question by asking what is meant by the expression ‘a place of belonging for all.’ Considering that the use of the place by ten to twelve people is considered a significant intensification by the province, there is no chance that the estate could become a place of belonging for all, or even many.
The questions posed contained coded expressions anti-Christian and pro-LGBTQ+ bias, but I doubt the questioners understood the significance of their terms and the vagueness of their meanings. By the very definition of its terms, LGBTQ+ excludes 97 percent of the population, which also highly limits its diversity. They wouldn’t tolerate a real Christian in their midst, whom they would treat inequitably on the grounds of retributive justice.
All’s well that ends well, and Cardus got the approval. But some members of council did not distinguish themselves for critical thinking.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment