The premise of the post seems to be that religion alters “traits” rather than current state, and that these altered states are a good thing.

I disagree with both of these assumptions.

Did good ol’ fashioned religions cause people to “radically re-think the social order”? Not really. When religions are adopted by the state, they preserve the social order. Think of Islam or Catholicism. Universal suffrage, the (US ethnic) civil rights movement, and abolitionism were artifacts of their time that were adopted by populist religious groups.

When religions are used as tools to change the social order, are the results necessarily positive? No. Just take a look at the crusades or Iran’s Basij (volunteer religious vice squad). We can toss Afghanistan’s Taliban or any number of other self appointed moral police forces throughout history.

The West’s move away from organized religion probably has more to do with the US anti-establishment backlash of the 60s and the Christian church’s failure to keep up with current morality (viz the Catholic church’s various sexual abuse cover ups, and the spasms of hate reacting against gay marriage and the ordination of women). At the same time, less and less of our lives need a mystical explanation, and people are finding it easier to operate without the small scale mutual aide that religion once provided.

Religion isn’t falling to mysticism, established religions are creaking under the weight of an open and accepting society. As time goes on, either religion will become more personal (meaning fewer organized religions) or organized religions will adapt to our progressive social landscape. Or we’ll fall into a spasm of social conservativism and the old-skool religions will suddenly be relevant again.

PS: Is the “the Market” a religion? No, not really. Fervent belief isn’t a religion any more than believing in Santa Claus or cheering on a sports team.

1. At some point in the early 2000s, Canada joined the US invasion of Afghanistan. Part of our exit strategy was to say that we wanted the Afghan policy/army to become professional enough that they could handle their own detainees.
   
2. In January of 2006, a Conservative government came into power in Canada after 12 years of Liberal rule. Our Conservatives/Liberals are like a really left wing version of your Republicans/Democrats.
   
3. In early 2006, Richard Colvin (a no-name Canadian diplomat), see was sent to Afghanistan as a diplomat. He was apparently the #2ish Canadian civilian official in the country.
   
4. In a roughly 18 month period between early 2006 and late 2007, Richard Colvin saw evidence that the Afghan authorities regularly tortured prisoners. Under the Geneva conventions, a country cannot knowingly hand enemy combatants over to authorities that will torture them. That’s a war crime. Colvin sent a number of memos back to Ottawa informing them of the situation. At some point in 2007, he was told to stop writing his complaints down, and told to voice them over the phone.
   
5. In late 2006, early 2007, a Globe and Mail reporter broke the story that Afghan authorities were torturing prisoners given to them by Canadian troops. The Canadian government initially dissembled, then eventually decided to improve their procedures to ensure that detainees were being treated fairly.
   
6. At some point in 2009, Richard Colvin was subpoenaed to testify before a Parliamentry committee (like your congressional committees, with equivalent powers) to say that his superiors must have known about the torture going on in 2006-2007, but did nothing to stop it. If his allegations can be shown to be true, then members of the Canadian government may be liable to stand trial for war crimes. Note that Canadian soldiers themselves would not be guilty of war crimes – only the (civilian) policy-setting oversight bodies, since those bodies controlled what happened to detainees.
   
7. This is where things get murky. The Conservative government circled the wagons after Colvin’s testimony. They implied that anyone who cares about Afghan detainees is either woolly headed or a Taliban supporter. They didn’t supply a number of documents requested by the Parliamentry committee (which, if it’s intentional, is illegal). The conservative MPs sitting on the Parliamentry committee didn’t show up to the last meeting in December, which prevented quorum, which prevented the committee from planning its next move. Then our Prime Minister essentially dissolved Parliament on New Years’ eve.

This is where things get partisan. Folks who are generally opposed to the Conservative government are squealing that there’s a cover-up going on. Those who support the Conservatives are saying… well… they’re saying that it’s perfectly legal for a Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament at any time. Which is true.

In the wake of the prorogation (a fancy term for the dissolution of Parliament), a bunch of uppity folks which include a number of Conservative-supporters, turned out for fairly massive protests in late January. Many of the protesters feel that the prorogation served no discernible purpose other than to hit the pause button on the detainee issue until March, when the federal budget may distract the media from embarrassing questions.

Of course, there’s some context here:

• Regarding the military: In the mid 1990s, some Canadian troops were dispatched to Somalia on a peace keeping mission. Sadly, the troops in question had discipline issues and (alleged) white supremacist tendencies. Time passed, and a couple of Somali kids turned up dead in the Canadian camp, and a bunch of photos surfaced showing Canadian soldiers torturing at least one of the boys. More time passed, the government of the day (Liberal, this time) was finally coerced into calling an inquiry. Over the course of the inquiry, it appeared as if the government (or Defence Department) was executing some kind of coverup. Despite that a number of low-ranking soldiers were found guilty guilty, and the unit was disbanded. Canadians view themselves as a nation of peace keepers, so that was like an itty bitty kick to the national gonads.
  
• Regarding our Parliament: Effectively, Canada has a two-party state. Usually, one of those parties (overwhelmingly the Liberal Party) has a majority of seats in Parliament. At the moment, the Conservatives have a minority government. If all of the MPs in the House decide to pass a non-confidence vote against the government, a federal election will be forced. Which means that the Conservative government is walking a knife-edge of governing the way they want to, versus appeasing the rest of the political leaders to prevent a non-confidence vote. If any one of the parties senses political advantage (ie, pulling ahead in the polls), then they will force an election.

I’m referring, of course, to the allegations that Col. Russell Williams killed Jessica Lloyd and Cpl. Marie-France Comeau, and sexually assaulted two others. The Citizen has trumpeted the story on their front page for three days this week. The CBC radio news has found reasons to mention it in most of their news casts, going to far as to refer to it as the colonel case. Coverage has been heavy enough that General Walter “there-are-no-allegations-of-torture-whoops-yes-there-are” Natynczyk gave a press conference yesterday about an anti-military backlash.

Amid this rash of coverage, it’s easy to forget that the accused hasn’t been convicted. We don’t know what the evidence is. We haven’t heard anything more than allegations. We must consider Williams innocent until he is proven otherwise.

For that to happen, our news outlets have to learn some self control. The case has everything an editor could ask for to boost ratings: beautiful women, sex, violence, a fall from grace, and a small-town celebrity. But that doesn’t excuse the feeding frenzy going on right now. Williams may turn out to be innocent: the police may have made a mistake, new evidence may come to light, or the evidence provided may be insufficient.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I assume that the police are doing their job, and that they have strong evidence, and are likely to win a conviction when this comes to court. If Williams is guilty of these horrific crimes, then I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and his life is ruined. But until he has his day in court, we must give him the benefit of the doubt.

Highly recommended:

• Planet Money (by NPR) – I can’t recommend this podcast enough. It’s a lay-person’s economics show, covering current issues relating to the US economy. The hosts are to economics what ninjas are to kicking ass. And they do it without being boring.
  
• The Age of Persuasion (by CBC and Pirate Radio) – An insider’s view of advertising. Given that it’s produced by an advertising writer, it’s not surprisingly that it’s really, really fun to listen to. A little short on content, but the production value makes up for that.

Recommended:

• Search Engine (by TVO) – A current affairs show dealing specifically with internet-related issues. It’s pretty geeky, which is probably why CBC dropped it, but the host is knowledgeable and (kind of) funny.
  
• This American Life (by NPR) – A general interest show. Each podcast features four or five stories relating to a theme. It’s kind of humorous, but occasionally dips into serious topics. About half the episodes are too saccharine for my taste.
  
• White Coat, Black Art (by CBC) – A current affairs program about health related issues. The host, an ER doctor, interviews doctors and other health professionals for their perspective on various issues. The show is interesting, but rarely looks at the public policy side of medicine (such as lowering cost, improving quality of service). Worth listening to, nonetheless.

Recommended with reservations:

• Shot of Jaq – A show about open source from a couple of Ubuntu employees. Each show covers a specific topic, and is intended to get listeners talking on the show’s website. The shows are quick (which is probably the best thing about them) but tend to ramble. The hosts rarely offer much insight into the issue they’re talking about.
  
• The Current (by CBC) – A middling current affairs program. Each podcast is about 20 minutes long, in which the host tries to conduct at least two sets of interviews. The interviews usually sound rushed, and the guests are of variable quality. At the end of each program, I feel like I’ve been given a quick overview of the given topic, but without any real depth. I’m not sure why I keep listening to this.
  
• Quirks and Quarks (by CBC) – I really, really want to like this show. It’s CBC’s sole science show. It features interviews with various boffins about their latest discoveries. But it’s really, really dry. As much as I try to listen to it, I find myself tuning it out. Which is too bad, since the quality of reporting is top notch, and the host does a great job at making complex information accessible.

Terrible:

• The Moth – Imagine the worst whackjobery of CBC’s Ideas, mixed with the bland self-adulation of CBC’s Tapestry. Each relatively quick episode is supposedly a true story from some egoist’s person’s life, being told on-stage without props or a script. It’s like nails on a chalk-board. I suffered through four episodes before I finally unsubscribed. Why did it take so long? Because I’m a masochist.