Monday, February 4, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

Print | Comments |

Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

by PZ Myers, Pharyngula

Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/admitting_that_you_have_no_rel.php

A budding new freethought group at Wilfrid Laurier University made a dreadful mistake in their application: they actually admitted that their goal was "to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief." I don't know about you, but I think that final clause is rather an essential one for a freethought group, and is an important premise to lay out clearly. On the other hand, when was the last time you saw one of the ubiquitous campus religious groups state that they want to promote science, reason, skepticism, and open inquiry? They generally seem to be dedicated to the opposite.

But anyway, student administrators dithered and fussed and fretted over it, and finally issued a denial with this bit of petty handwringing:

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club's vision is the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition". While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. 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. If you wish to adjust and rethink your club's application and vision, you may resubmit a revised proposal at any time.

What self-serving dishonest tripe. They've got a Campus Crusade for Christ group; did they send them a rejection telling them that Wilfrid Laurier is a secular institution and therefore cannot be seen as endorsing a sectarian religious club? Is there a contract incoming students must sign that says they must all forfeit any independent thoughts that might be perceived as reflecting something other than the university's mission statement? Apparently, the group organizers are thinking about rephrasing their application more diplomatically, but I think they'd be better off scouting the Canadian forests for a nice, sharp, splintery stick that they could send in with the suggestion that the prim and persnickety pecksniff who rejected their original application should sit on it and spin.

I'd also urge them to gather their potential members and protest publicly and loudly. There's nothing like a good fierce howl to get a group off with a bang, and who needs official recognition for your group when your first action is to rally in opposition to the sanctimonious fusspots of the administration? When the gatekeepers are the problem, don't pander to them, storm them.

(This is news all over the godless blogosphere: hat tip to Larry, Ron, Hemant, and a cynic.)

Posted: Monday, February 4, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 76 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #121950 by Friend Giskard on February 4, 2008 at 11:57 am

While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices.

But apparently secular does denote taking an active stance against secularism. Mind boggling hypocrisy.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

2. Comment #121952 by clunkclickeverytrip on February 4, 2008 at 12:00 pm

What self-serving dishonest tripe. They've got a Campus Crusade for Christ group; did they send them a rejection telling them that Wilfrid Laurier is a secular institution and therefore cannot be seen as endorsing a sectarian religious club? Is there a contract incoming students must sign that says they must all forfeit any independent thoughts that might be perceived as reflecting something other than the university's mission statement?

This says it all - how can they endorse a religious club and not endorse a club that is specifically non-religious? This is censorship and should be taken up by the campus ombudsman if they have one.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

3. Comment #121953 by jamesspills on February 4, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Nonsense. Try to start a club for satan worshipers and see how far that gets. I'd venture a guess that their tolerance for religious belief doesn't stretch that far.

The founders of this club need to stand up against this.

Other Comments by jamesspills

4. Comment #121955 by SamKiddoGordon on February 4, 2008 at 12:04 pm

I have 352 acres of nice Canadian forest, how many nice sharp splintery sticks would they like?

This land is available for any athiest that wishes to use it to help promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

5. Comment #121959 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Where is the "active stance in opposition...."?

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

not

"to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life against (the need for) superstition or religious belief."

Other Comments by PJG

6. Comment #121961 by HarryHUK on February 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm

I think it would be worthwhile investigating the student administrators.

Other Comments by HarryHUK

7. Comment #121964 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 12:26 pm

This is very worrying. I don't see how "without" can be seen as "an active stance in opposition to". All I can say is I am glad live in the UK right now.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #121965 by PJG on February 4, 2008 at 12:28 pm

It is coming this way Steve... slowly but surely!

Other Comments by PJG

9. Comment #121966 by clunkclickeverytrip on February 4, 2008 at 12:28 pm

In a democracy, a religious adult should have the same rights as an atheist adult, not more rights.

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

10. Comment #121967 by Fedler on February 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Such is the nature of religious belief that intelligent people cannot even conceive of an alternative. Does 'tolerance for others beliefs' not include tolerance for disbelief? Tolerance needs to flow both ways to be truly tolerant, otherwise tolerance is just a convenient excuse by which to exclude others. And I don’t know anyone, anywhere who would define tolerance as the exclusion of others.

Other Comments by Fedler

11. Comment #121974 by Goldy on February 4, 2008 at 12:39 pm

It is coming this way Steve... slowly but surely!

Not if the letter pages are anything to go by in the press. Even the DT has athiests and non-believers writing in :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

12. Comment #121977 by Deepthought on February 4, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Where is the "active stance in opposition...."?

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

not

"to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life against (the need for) superstition or religious belief."

For some reason people equate atheist with anti-theist. I told somebody I was an atheist and they said "So you hate religion right".

There is no actively against in the goals, but the assumption is that any such group is actively against religion. The fact they have a "Campus Crusade for Christ" doesn't paint a good image of this university. I think that anything with "crusade" in the title is far less likely "to respect and tolerate the views of others" then an atheist group would be.

Other Comments by Deepthought

13. Comment #121979 by MaxD on February 4, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Wow. This is not terribly surprising. Science dept bring in a great deal of money and prestige to universities, but the religiously minded, and the easily offended whine much much louder.

"We are technically a secular institution but...." Fucking priceless. That like saying I'm not a racist but.....

Other Comments by MaxD

14. Comment #121981 by bluebird on February 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Well pluck my feathers, this is absurd!

PZ's colorful repartee made me smile, tho.

Other Comments by bluebird

15. Comment #121986 by GoneGolfing on February 4, 2008 at 12:59 pm

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.

Outrageous hypocrisy !!

GG

Other Comments by GoneGolfing

16. Comment #122003 by notsobad on February 4, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Is that a state-administered university?
If so, please write a complaint to the Ministry of Education and specifically highlight that they label themselves as "technically a secular institution."

Can you give us an e-mail where we can write a complaint to the university?

Other Comments by notsobad

17. Comment #122007 by Synchronium on February 4, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Worst. University. Ever.

Other Comments by Synchronium

18. Comment #122026 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Do they have a Women's Society that the Islamic Society is, by its very nature, taking an active stance in opposition to? How about an LGBT Society that the Catholic Society are actively opposed to? A military cadet society of some kind which the Jain Society are opposed to?

Oh no, Silly me, I forgot - religious reasons for opposition trump all other kinds of deeply held sentiments don't they?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

19. Comment #122031 by Deepthought on February 4, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Cartomancer,

What if they were two religious societies that opposed each other by their very natures?
Oh, what is a LGBT society?

Other Comments by Deepthought

20. Comment #122034 by quantum tuba on February 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm

This university wouldn't happen to be owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp would it?

Other Comments by quantum tuba

21. Comment #122035 by cowalker on February 4, 2008 at 2:22 pm

http://www.wlu.ca/page.php?grp_id=965

I know that the link above refers to sexual diversity rather than diversity in regard to religious belief. However the powerful drive to be accepting of all different types of people that has affected many campuses can lead into a rather painful situation where one loses the right to disagree with anyone about anything.

I think the people who rejected the application are confusing the commendable goal of providing a safe, harrassment-free environment for learning, and the goal of discussing differences of opinion. Certainly the free thinkers wouldn't be allowed to demonstrate against religious activities. That would be threatening to religious students. But it is a curtailment of academic freedom to forbid a club to promote a religion-free way of life.

Other Comments by cowalker

22. Comment #122040 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Two religions with mutually contradictory doctrines about the nature of the world? Really? Could that happen, what with them all being divinely inspired and all? Well well, such peculiar thoughts we are all having...

LGBT is the usual initials for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (some people like to add a Q on the end too for "questioning" or some such).

Other Comments by Cartomancer

23. Comment #122042 by SilentMike on February 4, 2008 at 2:29 pm

persnickety pecksniff

Priceless. It isn't often that I have to go to the dictionary for to consecutive words.

This stuff is unbelievable. I just can't grasp this attitude towards people who's only crime is thinking clearly and wanting to express those thoughts.

Other Comments by SilentMike

24. Comment #122045 by Laurie Fraser on February 4, 2008 at 2:31 pm

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!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

25. Comment #122047 by Deepthought on February 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm

I just looked back over this and am now wondering if we are missing something. A group can't be this contradictory without their heads exploding could they?

Cartomancer,

I assume that was sarcastic. The annoying thing about posting is that it is hard to show you are being sarcastic.
I think a case could be made that a fundamental christian group and an extremist islamic group would oppose each other by their very natures.

Other Comments by Deepthought

26. Comment #122053 by Cartomancer on February 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Unless there is some good reason to think otherwise it is a sensible policy to assume that pretty much everything I say is delivered with a excessive degree of sarcasm. I'm like that in real life too. Or was when I still had one...

And yes, I personally think that ANY religious group which includes proselytising activities in its agenda would automatically infringe the university's stated policy on actively opposing the beliefs of others. Given the traditional tenets of both islam and christianity on these matters I fail to see how such religious groups could be otherwise.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

27. Comment #122057 by troyreynolds86 on February 4, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Pandering at its worse. It seems to me all the university is doing is keeping itself from having to answer question posed by religious alumni and students. A university is not only a lecture hall where knowledge is imparted, it is a hallowed ground where honesty and integrity are bestowed as well, best shown through example. By hiding their heads in the sand instead of taking the higher ground they have shown themselves to be moral cowards and intellectual frauds. Shame on them and the generation of gutless weasels they shall thrust out into the world, incubated in such a travesty of failed education.

Other Comments by troyreynolds86

28. Comment #122059 by Steven Thrasher on February 4, 2008 at 2:59 pm

As a Canadian University graduate I'm appalled at this.

Laurier University is in Waterloo, Ontario which is not as urban as Toronto, but not exactly Hicksville either. There is a generally high Christian population there.

Synchronium said: "Worst. University. Ever."

I wouldn't go that far, but its not one of the top ones either. From what I remember Laurier was one of the best business schools but is not really known for much else. If you wanted a top science or engineering education in Canada (at least Ontario) you would go to the University of Toronto or the University of Waterloo. For specifically Biology and Agriculture the University of Guelph is also well known. Laurier, Waterloo, and Guelph Universities are all located very close to each other.

I'd like to think if there is even a little bit of a stink made about this the decision by the student administrators will get reversed, either by them or someone above them.

Other Comments by Steven Thrasher

29. Comment #122063 by davem on February 4, 2008 at 3:07 pm

I suggest getting hold of the largest dictionary to hand, opening it at the entry for 'secular', then hitting the idiots very hard on the head with it until they understand its meaning.

Other Comments by davem

30. Comment #122065 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Can they not just go ahead and form a group anyway? What are the university's powers here? I guess they can stop them distributing leaflets on campus grounds, but it would make a good statement if they just went ahead anyway and formed a non-affiliated society.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

31. Comment #122075 by sarah95 on February 4, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Just this past week I started gearing up for starting a group like this on my campus. I talked to other club leaders and I'll be meeting with a professor interested in being our advisor later this week. I'm tempted to just adopt the same mission statement, along with an announcement of solidarity with the Laurier Freethought group. I know that many of you are shocked at this pandering by the University, but it's a policy to be a pussy on my campus. Everyone is so goddamn tolerant that you're literally punished for offending anyone in the slightest way. To see what I mean, you can watch this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hrR3Co8VAlo
done by the skepticists Penn and Teller on their show "Bullshit". The episode is about college bullshit, and my University is featured. Why not go to a different college, you might ask? Because my options are either go to school in my hometown and be hounded by my clinging mother, or go to school here for the next cheapest tuition in the state.

And if anyone has any tips on starting successful freethought groups, feel free to contribute them in this thread!

Other Comments by sarah95

32. Comment #122084 by pkruger on February 4, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Sir Wilfred Laurier University is in Waterloo Ontario,( pop. 100,000) about 60 miles west of Toronto. I am very familiar with WLU as I grew up in Waterloo, only a few blocks away from the campus.
I am however, rather suspicious in they referring to themselves a 'secular' university. As Stephen Thrasher mentioned, they are highly esteemed as far as a business college is concerned, but they do have a lutheran seminary on campus, and a signifigant theology department.
The university was originally founded and funded by the Lutheran church, and it's name before 'Wilfred Laurier University' was 'Waterloo Lutheran University'. In the late 60's the Lutheran church could no longer support the college, and since their sponsorship evaporated, the university wanted to keep the initials 'W.L.U.' Fortunately, former prime minister of Canada, in the early 20th century ( Wilfred Laurier ) who had initials ( 'W.L.' ) could be substituted for 'Waterloo Lutheran'--even though he had nothing to do whatsoever with that campus.

Other Comments by pkruger

33. Comment #122085 by Peacebeuponme on February 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

sarah95

To see what I mean, you can watch this video:

Thanks for putting that up. Excellent. Particularly part 2/3 and the piece about the "right not to be offended". Was discussing that on a thread a while ago and wholeheartedly agree with Penn's rant.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

34. Comment #122086 by LorienRyan on February 4, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Sarah95 - "And if anyone has any tips on starting successful freethought groups, feel free to contribute them in this thread!"

Yeah, name them the 'Chocolate Appreciation Society', oh but that might offend those who prefer jelly babies, but seriously, this is pure discrimination.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

35. Comment #122090 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Starting with:

...your club's vision is the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition".

And going on to:

secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices.

Then concluding with:

The "hate speech and persecution" card has been played based on something as innocuous as promoting "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition".

Other Comments by MelM

36. Comment #122091 by Bonzai on February 4, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Before we get carried away let's note that this was the decision of "student administrators", in other words,ultra politically correct student council types and probably was not reflective of the university's policy. I am willing to bet that if enough noise is made the decision will be reversed.

Other Comments by Bonzai

37. Comment #122095 by PrimeNumbers on February 4, 2008 at 5:03 pm

This is utterly ridiculous. I do like the idea of infiltrating the Christian Group.

This is one to fight all the way....

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

38. Comment #122097 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 5:23 pm

This university really really needs a visit from Hitchens. Perhaps he could give the speech he gave at the University Of Toronto.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html

I wonder if he'd be even allowed on campus.

Other Comments by MelM

39. Comment #122099 by Gymnopedie on February 4, 2008 at 5:35 pm

Student Administrators? I suppose they are just going to go to real administrators and get the organization started up.

Now, if the school administrators block it, then we have a real problem. Perhaps I'm interpreting the whole situation wrongly.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

40. Comment #122104 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm

The latest (Feb 4):

http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/

The Eye of the Hurricane
Day 3 since my first blog entry on our club getting denied recognition: Havoc

Other Comments by MelM

41. Comment #122112 by Frankus1122 on February 4, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I am willing to bet that if enough noise is made the decision will be reversed.

I am with Bonzai on this. I think it is a good thing this happened. It was a boner of a mistake on the part of the student administration. I believe they felt that saying you can have "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition" was attacking religion. They felt that this was religious intolerance and the application was rejected.
Good.
Good because the stink is raised and the truth comes out.
You can have a fulfilling life without religion and superstition and you can do it without being intolerant of others.
If we can have Crusaders for Christ trying to convince us that "Jesus saves" then we should be able to have the Laurier Freethought Alliance trying to convince us "Uh, no He doesn't".

I seriously think this could be a good thing. It is a fundamental right to be able to express your ideas freely in our society. There can be no way that this decision will not be reversed.

Now we need to look south to Resolution 888.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

42. Comment #122124 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Re: #41

Quote from the latest email from the CC department:

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.

43. Comment #122125 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 7:25 pm

MelM,

Can I have this deuchebags email? I am a little bored right now.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

44. Comment #122132 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 7:47 pm

al-rawandi,

Please check the link in #41 ( http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/ )

... and now some members of the internet freethought community have started writing angry e-mails about that. What does that say about us? I like your enthusiasm but it's getting out of hand and not helping the situation.

I don't think I agree with this guy's (the blogger) perspective but I think I will refrain from sending an an angry email at this point--thus respecting the club's wishes. But, I certainly note that the the CC department is not showing signs of backing off. Asking the club to drop a key feature of its vision and saying that it's just a matter of wording is--well, (respectfully) STUPID.

Other Comments by MelM

45. Comment #122133 by Dr Benway on February 4, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Priceless.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

46. Comment #122134 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 7:50 pm

I thought it might not help them to email our opinions. I was just curious.

What do you thin? Massive amounts of pressure will help?

Other Comments by al-rawandi

47. Comment #122141 by dragonfirematrix on February 4, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Okay folks, I know the content of my post is counter-productive to the ideals we believe.

As a Secular Humanist, I understand the need for the tolerance of others, which sadly includes the Christian and Islamic fascists, etc. I do want to be tolerant. I do try to be tolerant. I believe tolerance is the right thing.

That said however...

I believe the time has come for the non-Christians/non-believers of society to begin openly displaying to the intolerant of society that which the intolerant love most. In direct terms, we non-Christians/non-believers should start tomorrow displaying as much intolerance towards Christians as the Christians display towards us. We non-Christian/non-believers have been tolerant too long. Our tolerance only gets we non-Christians/non-believers kicked in the face. Is it not proper for us to defend ourselves and kick back?

As with Islam, tolerance is also not a Christian virtue. Maybe the students the can form an off-campus club not under the jurisdiction of the university. Go around the authority, come out of the closet, start their own website, and hold meetings off the campus.

Intolerance is not the correct or ethical way to proceed, but it seems to me to be the only alternative Christians are leaving the non-Christians/non-believers.

I hope I have this fundamentally correct, but is this not the same type of thing the EU is trying to balance with Turkey.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

48. Comment #122186 by MelM on February 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Intolerance can be moral
"Intolerance" covers a lot of ground and can easily become a package-deal. Basically, I must, should, and want to respect the rights of others. I don't block or disrupt meetings, make threatening phone calls or emails, throw rocks at peoples houses, scratch up cars or bumper stickers, do physical harm, or harass people. However, this does not mean that I should be respectful and tolerant of bad ideas. In fact, one should be intolerant of bad ideas. If you want to live in a sane and free world, it is important (and moral) to be intolerant of irrational nonsense. This does not mean that it's necessary to shout at every theist (or others) you deal with. If your silence will imply agreement, you can simply say "I don't agree." Books, articles, letters to the editor can all be forms of intolerance. So can an angry email because anger expresses moral condemnation, which is sometimes appropriate. There is a huge difference between thuggery and thought. If the two are confused in people's mind, we'll end up with no freedom of thought.

Disrespect can be just
It's a pet theory of mine that adult religious people are dependent on the respect they continue to get even after confessing belief in infintile myths. They can evade looking silly in their own eyes so long as they believe they don't look silly in the eyes of others. That's why I think that showing disrespect by the New Atheists is both just and a good tactic. Further, Hitchens' use of eloquent anger is often superb; the speech at the U. of Toronto was a polemical masterpiece in many ways.

Other Comments by MelM

49. Comment #122212 by sarah95 on February 4, 2008 at 11:41 pm

I read the guy's blog and it's really sad. Of course the people who sent e-mails of complaint meant well and maybe even thought it would help. However, religious moderates are DETERMINED to paint themselves as tolerant, enlightened people, who most importantly, are downtrodden and persecuted by the atheist minority. I think that in terms of tactics, we always need to be mindful of the perogative of these "tolerance-fostering" folks. They have a knack for making a something out of nothing (god, for instance) when no controversy is needed. The accusations of "intolerance", "harassment" and "negative tone" , vague though they are, they hold surprising sway with the mindless majority determined to be offended and smother out the opportunities for promotion that our minority groups seek to utilize.

Just my little rant.

Other Comments by sarah95

50. Comment #122240 by Apemanblues on February 5, 2008 at 1:18 am

Meanwhile religious groups on campus can continue to take "an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of" non-believers.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last