Bhagat Singh was an Indian revolutionary socialist who, along with Shivaram Rajguru and Sukhdev Thapar, was sentenced to death on March 23, 1931 for assassinating a British police officer. Their execution was a pivotal moment in the struggle for Indian independence and his life is celebrated by parts of Metro Vancouver's South Asian community.

While in prison, Singh was asked whether his atheism stemmed from his vanity. This was his reply.

A new question has cropped up. Is it due to Vanity that I do not believe in the existence of on omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God? I had never imagined that I would ever have to confront such a question. But conversation with some friends has given me, a hint that certain of my friends, if I am not claiming too much in thinking them to be so-are inclined to conclude from the brief contact they have had with me, that it was too much on my part to deny the existence of God and that there was a certain amount of vanity that actuated my disbelief. Well, the problem is a serious one. I do not boast to be quite above these human traits. I am a man and nothing more. None can claim to be more. I also have this weakness in me. Vanity does form a part of my nature. Among my comrades I was called an autocrat. Even my friend Mr BK Dutt sometimes called me so. On certain occasions I was decried as a despot. Some friends do complain and very seriously too that I involuntarily thrust my opinions upon others and get my proposals accepted. That this is true up to a certain extent, I do not deny. This may amount to egotism. There is vanity in me in as much as our cult as opposed to other popular creeds is concerned. But that is not personal. It may be, it is only legitimate pride in our cult and does not amount to vanity. Vanity or to be more precise "Ahankar" is the excess of undue pride in one's self. Whether it is such an undue pride that has led me to atheism or whether it is after very careful study of the subject and after much consideration that I have come to disbelieve in God, is a question that I, intend to discuss here. Let me first make it clear that egotism and vanity are two different things.

By Justin H G Williams, University of Aberdeen

Empathy, the ability to understand others and feel compassion for them, is arguably the most defining human quality – setting us apart from smart machines and even other animals. Without it, we couldn’t function in social areas such as the schools, court rooms and office workplaces that are the cornerstones of our society.

But babies and toddlers are generally poor at showing sensitivity to other people’s feelings. So how do they develop this crucial skill – do they learn it gradually or is it just an innate ability that kicks in at a certain age?

By Chris Cocking, University of Brighton

The world is rightly shocked by the immense pain and suffering caused by the deadly attacks at Zaventem airport Brussels and on the city’s metro. But it is also important to consider that while such acts need to be condemned in the strongest possible terms, the way people respond to them can also illustrate a more positive side to human nature.

People affected by attacks such as those in Brussels often behave much better than is traditionally expected by the authorities and in popular discourse. People tend to come together en masse to respond to such incidents and support each other in the face of adversity.

In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, the provincial governments continue to fully fund separate Catholic school boards. BC partially funds some independent faith schools.

While the Catholic schools are enshrined in the constitution, an editorial in Metro news last week makes the case that rolling those schools into the secular, public boards would be both easy and popular.

I'm always looking for more good stories to share on social media. Feel free to email me if you spot something you think our group might be interested in.

By Kristin Aune, Coventry University

Faced with religion, what’s a good feminist to do? Some strongly reject religion of all kinds as oppressive to women, while others celebrate faith as part of human diversity. Others try to forge a middle ground. But sometimes feminists can wade into complex religious debates without a full understanding of their history and context – and the impact of their intervention.

Feminists need to understand the complexities of religion rather than swapping a blanket condemnation of religion for a blanket embrace – they need to develop better religious literacy.

By James Dyke, University of Southampton

And another one bites the dust. The year 2014 was the warmest ever recorded by humans. Then 2015 was warmer still. January 2016 broke the record for the largest monthly temperature anomaly. Then came last month.

February didn’t break climate change records – it obliterated them. Regions of the Arctic were were more than 16℃ warmer than normal – whatever constitutes normal now. But what is really making people stand up and notice is that the surface of the Earth north of the equator was 2℃ warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. This was meant to be a line that must not be crossed.

Saint George’s school is a two story, red brick building in the Georgetown district of South Seattle. In 1946 it had eight grades, four on the ground floor and four on the second. Each school day began with students marching silently into school in two files, one for boys and the other for girls, grade ones leading and grade eights last. Up the stone steps they marched, past the principal, Sister Mary Justin a symbol of authority with her arms folded, and past the wind-up Victrola playing John Philip Sousa’s “Stars and Stripes Forever” at full volume.

The government is working hard to draft legislation to regulate physician-assisted dying in Canada. We need to make sure those rules put the rights of patients first. 

Church leaders are already trying to dictate what choices patients should have in religious healthcare institutions, like those in BC that receive $1 billion in public funding.

We, the public, should have the final say over what happens in publicly-funded hospitals, not Bishops in Toronto or the Vatican.

That's why we need you to write your MP today. Simply use Dying With Dignity Canada's tool and use any of the points in the letter we sent to all BC MPs today.

Posted on March 12, 2016

Most of us try to lead our lives with integrity. But what does that mean?

Recently I was thinking what a waste of time Facebook can be, and asked myself how a medium that simply connects people based on an ‘algorithm’ that assesses their interests, preferences and ‘friends’ can be anything but beneficial?

The short answer is: It lacks integrity. I’m not saying the people who come together on Facebook are any less worthy or complete than anyone else; just that the medium is not capable of conveying or cultivating integrity, and worse, that it could distract and prevent us from getting there. Integrity is face-to-face. It lies at the heart of relationships that have been built over time and proven through action. The main aspects of integrity cannot be established through a medium like Facebook.

Honesty, forthrightness, self-awareness and vision are all qualities part-in-parcel of integrity; they can only be expressed, believed and proven through direct, personal encounters over time. The marketer’s bland bandying of words like ‘integrity’ is an unsubstantiated claim, which all too often proves untrue, and cheapens the very meaning of the word.

We tend to emphasize only honesty when we talk about integrity, as if the two words were synonymous. But, though you cannot have integrity without honesty; speaking the truth isn’t – in and of itself – enough to earn the trust that comes with integrity. You must speak the truth consistently, over a long period; and be fulsome in speaking true, not selecting facts to suit your present purpose; the truth you speak has to be durable, not changeable from day to day; and your truth had best be connected to a larger truth, augmenting and augmented by a common purpose.

These are some of the attributes of integrity. They are qualities that emerge and are tested over time, in direct encounters. It’s next to impossible to convey anything but an unsubstantiated assertion of integrity via a medium as fractured and purposefully casual as Facebook – to which devotees might retort: That’s not the point or purpose of the medium.

Agreed, but that doesn’t prevent people from using Facebook as if it could establish the kind of credibility that comes with integrity. And the observation needn’t be narrowed to Facebook only – social media in general, and traditional media too, pretend to be channels that convey messages of integrity in one way or another. In general there is an inverse relationship between the value of a perception about someone or something, and the number of channels or people it has passed through getting to you; integrity is best established eye-to-eye.

In closing, it’s worth making a distinction between what can be called ‘intentional’ and ‘natural’ integrity. A person who consciously strives to conduct his affairs with integrity is intentionally so; a person, who by nature, exhibits the hallmarks of integrity is naturally so. One version isn’t better than the other, as far as I can tell, but the person who acts intentionally with integrity is more likely to look for ways to strengthen and deepen that aspect of his being and think of it as a measure he expects to be judged by.

Upcoming Ideas: Who am I? / Nothing out of Nothing – so every thing’s always been / The four aspects of living spirit: Physical, Emotional, Intellectual, Spiritual / ‘Til death do us part – the inalienable nature of Natural Rights / Ego: The necessary illusion / Just because or jest because.

When good intentions aren't supported by social science evidence: diversity research and policy

By Alice H. Eagly, Northwestern University

You’d be forgiven for assuming a quick and sure way to multiply profits and amplify organizational success is to increase the gender and racial diversity of any group. According to claims in the mainstream media, the effects of gender and racial diversity are universally favorable. News stories tend to mirror this 2014 Washington Post article’s claim that “researchers have long found ties between having women on a company’s board of directors and better financial performance.”

And as Nicholas Kristoff wrote in The New York Times in 2013:

Scholarly research suggests that the best problem-solving doesn’t come from a group of the best individual problem-solvers, but from a diverse team whose members complement each other. That’s an argument for leadership that is varied in every way — in gender, race, economic background and ideology.

The truth is there’s actually no adequate scientific basis for these newsworthy assertions. And this lack of scientific evidence to guide such statements illustrates the troubled relations of science to advocacy and policy, that I have analyzed in an article in the current Journal of Social Issues.