51. Comment #122253 by DamnDirtyApe on February 5, 2008 at 2:30 am

I was about to say 'this wouldn't happen at my unversity' but after looking on the student society pages quickly - there are no dedicated secular student groups. The closest we get are a few secularish* charities and persuits. There's plenty of representation for religions, sports, and pirates...

This is in Southern England by the way.

*sorry for inventing and embiggening words.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

52. Comment #122259 by Incredulous on February 5, 2008 at 2:57 am

But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time.

Priceless.

Not only priceless, not only hypocritical and not only worryingly intolerant, but cowardly and dishonest.

I thought logic and integrity underpinned the process of education. How wrong could I be!!

Disgusting!

Other Comments by Incredulous

53. Comment #122302 by zferrari on February 5, 2008 at 6:56 am

Of course you know this calls for our super hero intervention !

Let them apply and join the club of the Flying Spaghetti Monster !

cheers

Other Comments by zferrari

54. Comment #122315 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 7:23 am

Re: post #43

If your club's proposal and goals were to be revised to include only the promotion of your own beliefs, instead of the active promotion of living life "without religion", then your club's proposal would pose no problem as I see it.

As hideous as this blatant discrimination is, the person who wrote this has a point somewhat. As non-believers we ought to stand FOR something, not just against something else. If the goal statement was revised to "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life" and drop the religious bent, this may be better. I know, I know, this is like giving in, but I think we need to start by sneaking in our views as discreetly as possible. With atheist groups being banned from MySpace and other social networking sites, and now being left out of campus activities, I'm beginning to think we need to be as sneaky as the religious believer in getting our views out there. Being forthright and honest doesn't seem to be getting us very far. Perhaps I'm just frustrated.

Other Comments by Fedler

55. Comment #122322 by Steve Zara on February 5, 2008 at 7:33 am

As non-believers we ought to stand FOR something, not just against something else.

Sorry, but this is a hobby horse of mine. There no reason why we should stand for something (or against anything) because we are non-believers in Gods. (Other than the right not to be discriminated against because of that non-belief). We should stand for (or against) things because we are (hopefully) decent people.

I feel uncomfortable when someone says:

"As atheists we should...."

Other Comments by Steve Zara

56. Comment #122330 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 7:41 am

Steve,

I understand your point and wholeheartedly agree. However, to the religious mindset of North America, being a non-believer means being an angry, hate-filled, baby-eating cretin. That's their perception, invalid as it may be.

If we say we stand FOR something, I think we're more likely to be taken seriously, and then we can sneak in the non-belief. Being decent people and standing FOR things because we're decent people is nice and should be done, but I doubt it will help promote the logic, reasoning, and superstition-free world non-believers want.

Other Comments by Fedler

57. Comment #122337 by wednesdayguevara on February 5, 2008 at 7:44 am

The group does stand for, rather than against something: "a good life without superstition." This is a positive position. Fedler, your frustration is understandable, but it's important to remain forthright and honest. The godless are not trusted, at least in America. How would it improve on that perception if we were to engage in sneaky, underhanded marketing tactics?

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

58. Comment #122343 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 7:50 am

wednesdayguevara,

I'm not thinking covert ops, or Watergate or anything. But, for instance, the U.S. House of Representatives recently introduced HR888, which is a nice revisionist piece of legislation stating how wonderful Christianity is and how the U.S. is based on Christian principles. Perhaps the freethought community should push for a science resolution advocating science, rational thinking, and no superstition. Or perhaps a national atheist association could open up drug treatment centers so we could help treat drug users, while promoting the scientific worldview (much like the religious do promoting god on drug users and prisoners). That's the kind of sneaking I meant. Perhaps sneaking was the incorrect choice of words.

Other Comments by Fedler

59. Comment #122366 by aquilacane on February 5, 2008 at 8:03 am

I've just sent my letter of concern to:

Ms. Nashifa Carter
Instructor SBE(MOB)

Other Comments by aquilacane

60. Comment #122368 by aquilacane on February 5, 2008 at 8:07 am

Send letters to:

Ms. Nashifa Carter
Harassment and Discrimination Co-ordinator
email: nccarter@wlu.ca

Other Comments by aquilacane

61. Comment #122369 by annabanana on February 5, 2008 at 8:07 am

Fedler,

H.R. 888 has not been passed, only introduced. Please don't confuse the two as this is extremely important. It hasn't been voted on yet.

Other Comments by annabanana

62. Comment #122372 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 8:08 am

Thanks for the clarification, Anna. I've revised my previous post.

Other Comments by Fedler

63. Comment #122381 by annabanana on February 5, 2008 at 8:13 am

Thanks :)

Other Comments by annabanana

64. Comment #122387 by wednesdayguevara on February 5, 2008 at 8:17 am

Perhaps the freethought community should push for a science resolution advocating science, rational thinking, and no superstition. Or perhaps a national atheist association could oepn up drug treatment centers so we could help treat drug users, while promote the scientific worldview (much like the religious do promoting god on drug users and prisoners)

Oh, I see what you mean! These are some excellent ideas.

Wrt the drug treatment centers, there's an org called SOS, and another called LifeRing ( http://www.unhooked.com/index.htm ). In Texas, SOS is the secular alternative for drug treatment in the prison system. More could be done to promote organizations like these. Probably one would have to lobby state by state. It would take some real effort, but it would be worth it in the long run.

EDIT: Though it just occurred to me that unless HR 888 passes, maybe the last thing we need to do is clog up the House with more non-binding resolutions.

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

65. Comment #122401 by Fedler on February 5, 2008 at 8:30 am

SOS and LifeRing seem like great organizations to support. I'll have to research if they have anything like that here in Iowa.

Perhaps if the freethought group at Wilifrid Laurier University advocated themselves as a secular worldview alternative (not necessarily for or against religion), they might achieve some level of success. In that sense, too, they would not need to say they are FOR anything (per Steve's suggestion), other than a secular worldview. Just thinking out loud...

EDIT: Good point about the resolutions :-), however those resolutions are the sorts of things the religious could cite to back up their case for a theocracy.

Other Comments by Fedler

66. Comment #122496 by MelM on February 5, 2008 at 10:54 am

http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/

(bold, mine.) The council has already expressed the reasons behind your proposal's rejection, which amounts to little more than the wording of your club's proposal. ...

Believe me, I do not truly believe that you will be going around harassing religious organizations. If your club's proposal and goals were to be revised to include only the promotion of your own beliefs, instead of the active promotion of living life "without religion", then your club's proposal would pose no problem as I see it.

In one place the writer claims that "little more than the wording" is the problem but later he wants the club's proposal and goals to be revised. If the club changes the wording of the proposal but not it's goals, they could be setting themselves up for future trouble.
Frankly, it's hard to see, as the present rules are being interpreted, how ANY atheist club could be approved on this campus.

Other Comments by MelM

67. Comment #122504 by Thelonious on February 5, 2008 at 11:03 am

I sent a protest email to the departments of Public Affairs and Public Accountability at

tfrost@wlu.ca; wpirker@wlu.ca

Making noise might help

Other Comments by Thelonious

68. Comment #122593 by TylerJames on February 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Here's the email for the clubs coordinator:
campusclubs@wlusu.com

Remember to be respectful. Enjoy!

Other Comments by TylerJames

69. Comment #122615 by Sally Luxmoore on February 5, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Here is the text of an email I have just sent to the clubs coordinator:

Dear Sir or Madam,



I write from England concerning the proposed new freethought group at your Wilfrid Laurier University and the decision of the campus clubs department not to allow the official formation of that group. My source is: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2218,Admitting-that-you-have-no-religion-is-not-politically-correct,PZ-Myers-Pharyngula,page2#122593 .



I am greatly troubled that a university in a nation that supposedly believes in free speech should take such an attitude and that you should have given such a shamefully weak reason for your refusal: -due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time-.



There are several comments to be made on this point.



1.Holding an opposing viewpoint does not indicate lack of respect or intolerance; it is a necessary part of all debate in a free society.
2.Using this logic, the religious groups should be banned too, so as not to show disrespect or intolerance to freethinkers.
3.A certain nervousness about (or even fear of) freethinkers is implied. The easiest way to dispel such anxieties is to allow the group and see for yourselves that the members are ordinary, normal people, though maybe just a little more intelligent and original than the common herd.
4.A sneaking suspicion arises that you think the faith groups perhaps are not strong enough to stand up to any opposition? If they stand on such weak ground they deserve to fall!
5.You are a university, for goodness sake. Don’t you value thought and debate in your students?
6.Maybe this is the most telling point, though it is also the most shameful possibility… Do you have religious sponsors whose funding you are afraid to lose? Would you want the students to suspect this?


Do you really want the outside world to be thinking all these things?



Do the decent thing, please!



Yours Faithfully,

Sally Luxmoore,

BA (Hons) Oxon, PGCE, LLB.

Kingston upon-Thames, England.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

70. Comment #122654 by Hobbit on February 5, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Hi All,

It has been quite a will since I posted, although I have been reading the various threads with great interest.

A simple way to check whether or not the CC is discriminating against non believers is to re submit the application exactly as it was, but change:

"to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief."

To: "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life with the need for superstition or religious belief."

If the application is accepted, then we all throw our arms up and start yelling loudly.

It would be an interesting exercise.

Other Comments by Hobbit

71. Comment #122881 by Fedler on February 6, 2008 at 8:51 am

Hi Hobbit,

I had thought of that myself. The other thing I had thought of was to somehow get hold of the goals, etc. from the University's religious club (Campus Crusade for Christ), copy them word for word except changing any reference to religion/Christ to secularism, then see if it gets accepted. That would be interesting to see what happened.

Other Comments by Fedler

72. Comment #122915 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 6, 2008 at 9:17 am

A handy trick would be for all the secular types to join the Campus Crusade for Christ group, stack one of its meetings, throw out the committee, elect one of its own, change its constitution and rewrite its mission statement in more enlightened terms.

A group of my friends did this at uni in 1971 to a right-wing fundie political group. It threw the loonies into paroxysms of anguish for months. Jolly good fun!

i think that constitutes a cout.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

73. Comment #123093 by MelM on February 6, 2008 at 12:56 pm

It looks like the club will be approved, but...

http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by MelM

74. Comment #123448 by pkruger on February 7, 2008 at 7:41 am

A local newspaper writes:

Blogs blast snub of atheist club

MATHEW McCARTHY, RECORD STAFF
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction
View newspaper PDF
Email the author More Stories
• Blogs blast snub of atheist club
• Ontario: Paramedics allege patients ...
• AFGHAN SHOWDOWN
• Region OKs $54.5M bridge
• Afghan showdown
• Police used firearms more in 2007
• Tories demand Senate pass bill
• No election goodies, Flaherty says
• FBI agent posed as single mom in Internet ...
• Driver denies liability in deadly wedding ...WLU student who founded group 'sickened' by Internet response

February 07, 2008
BARBARA AGGERHOLM
RECORD STAFF

WATERLOO

The rejection of a group for atheists and other "freethinkers" as a campus club at Wilfrid Laurier University has touched off a firestorm on the Internet.

Angry e-mails and at least 19 blogs, some with international readership, are sizzling the e-waves.

Writers professing "atheism, agnosticism, humanism, or just general non-belief" are blasting WLU's students' union for intolerance toward people with no religious affiliation, said Anatolijs Venovcevs, co-founder of Laurier Freethought Alliance.

The writers are particularly incensed that religion-based groups, such as Laurier Christian Fellowship, have campus club status at Laurier.

"It has been so widespread, so rampant, so angry. Honestly, I did not . . . expect it to be blown up to this proportion," said Venovcevs, adding he's "sickened" by the response.

"Many of them started writing hate mail to people in administrative positions, which is insane."

However, both Venovcevs, 20, and an executive of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union -- which oversees and funds campus clubs -- say it's all a misunderstanding.

Both sides believed, erroneously, that the other was showing intolerance, they said.

Now, it's agreed that if the group adds a line that says it's open to every student regardless of belief or non-belief, the campus club executive will reconsider, said Sanjay Ojjo, the students' union vice-president of finance and administration.

That's the crux, he said.

"The clubs are funded by the students' union, which is funded by the students," Ojjo said. "So clubs are open and accepting of all.

"I myself have attended a Ramadan dinner and I'm a Catholic."

Campus clubs receive benefits such as funding, space and the right to advertise on campus.

Venovcevs, a second-year international student, said his group resubmitted its application yesterday with the addition.

"We would be welcoming to everyone," he said."We envision the LFA to be an organization of people who profess no religious belief or maybe even mild religious belief, but who support the concept that they want to promote science and reason on campus.

"And (we) also believe that one can live a happy and fulfilling life without any belief in an organized religion."

He said he first raised the issue in his blog last week after the group was rejected as a campus club.

The campus clubs' executive, a part of the students' union, took issue with the group's goal to promote "a meaningful life without superstition or religion," he said.

"When we submitted the paperwork, they thought that it would be just an exclusive organization of people that professed no religion. We would be excluding people who have a religious belief.

"They then replied to us in a manner that we thought was being exclusively intolerant of us as people of no religion because they saw that we would be actively against religious belief."

The result is "the stir you're seeing right now across the Internet," he said.

The issue has attracted blogs with names like Canadian Cynic, A Creative Revolution, Pharyngula, Sandwalk, and Friendly Atheist.

Meanwhile, the university is confident its reputation as a diverse, welcoming community will stand up against "incorrect information" spread by bloggers, said dean of students, David McMurray.

Adam Lawrence, co-ordinator of Laurier's Office for Student Diversity, said he's satisfied students are handling the controversy well, but he'll be watching how the group engages Laurier's community.

Venovcevs said he thinks the Laurier issue became a lightning rod for some atheists who are feeling "oppressed" and under attack.

"The people who are non-religious, atheists especially . . . feel like a very repressed minority in very Christian-dominated societies like in Canada and the United States," he said.

"There have been many instances where they have been openly discriminated against. . . . They see this as yet another major attack."

Venovcevs said he hopes the controversy will die after his group is accepted as a campus club.

"Moderates and liberals like us say rational and peaceful discourse" get results, he said.

baggerholm@therecord.com

Other Comments by pkruger

75. Comment #129117 by Ereshkigal Girl on February 18, 2008 at 4:22 pm

I got an account here specifically to post to this article (apologies for being a bit late).

I went to WLU and graduated last year from archaeology. I stayed well within that little bubble, as well as the Rainbow Centre bubble.

And let me say this: I am completely and totally unsurprised by this.

WLU is...not a very welcoming school for anyone who is at all different. I was able to find a niche in the new Rainbow Centre (for LGBTTIQQ2S people and allies), as well as us nerds and general weird people in archaeology. But I avoided the rest of it like the plague. There's only so many cookie cutter business students one can take. I wish that I was still there so that I could try to help these people get this off the ground, and I'll ask around to the people I know who are still there to see if anything can be done.

(However, there are other issues brewing there, as the Contract Academic Staff might be striking after reading week to protest the ABYSMAL treatment they get from the administration, so that will probably be first and foremoest on everyone's mind at the moment.)

Other Comments by Ereshkigal Girl