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, campus 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.)
In the interests of fairness, it appears that it was the WLU Student Union that denied the application — the higher-ups in the administration probably had nothing to do with it.
But the burning stupid is still embarrassing.
Yet another example of things that I would expect better of Canadians about.
Unrelated to this post, but have you seen this ebook, just published on the internet?CHRISTIANITY AS
MYSTICAL FACT
AND
THE MYSTERIES OF ANTIQUITY
BY
DR. RUDOLF STEINER
AUTHOR OF “MYSTICS OF THE RENAISSANCE,” “THE GATES
OF KNOWLEDGE,” ETC.
What a load of crap. I started a club to promote atheism at my university (in Australia), we got accepted without a second thought.
What we should do is get student freethought, secular, humanist and atheist groups from everywhere to contact the clubs department and protest this. It might not be much but it’s sometimes hard to help on the other side of the planet.
I thought that it was rather diplomatic of them to say “superstition or religious belief” rather than lumping the latter under the former.
Amy Winehouse asked the right question.
Frankly, I would hope that the religious groups on campus would protest on their behalf. Slippery slope, and all that; if this group is not allowed, perhaps theirs is the next on the block.
This is crap. Someone should tell them that by listing religion and superstition seperately it means the group thinks of them as seperate things. If one wanted to say that religion was simple superstition, you could just write “religious superstition”.
This sounds to me like there are some Christians on the board who don’t really know the meaning of “secular”. Perhaps they also want to keep promoting the false notion that the non-religious cannot lead fulfilling lives…. We must be angry, sad, depressed and grumpy like the atheists we see on TV and in the movies. We are not all Dr. Gregory House!
I agree with PZ here, they should make some noise about this. If they won’t, maybe the atheist blogosphere will.
the promotion of “a fulfilling life without religion and superstition”
The campus administrators are fucking liars. The correct quote is “a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief”, which a very different matter, as the latter has nothing to do with “taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices”.
I recommend open flame war! Letters should fly, and I wonder if the ACLU or some other advocacy group would threaten the School with a suit for advocating religion – SHUT DOWN the religious groups or face the flames of perdition. This course forces the religious groups to fight on the side of the secular group, cool huh? They allow the religionists to prosteletize while preventing secularists from meeting and advocating reason. Obscene!
But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others […]
Since when is respect and tolerance of the view of others part of the agenda of any religious belief?
This sounds to me like there are some Christians on the board who don’t really know the meaning of “secular”.
If you explore the college’s web site, you will see they have a seminary, so it would seem not to be a secular college in the first place.
On the other hand, according to Wikipedia, there is reason to believe that Wilfrid Laurier may in fact be the first atheist Prime Minister in Canadian history.
Curiouser and curiouser…
Four words: Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
“If you wish to adjust and rethink your club’s application and vision, you may resubmit a revised proposal at any time.”
…to thumb our noses at University administrators who refused our first application while promoting science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life which is possible – no matter what some schmuck administrators think – without the need for superstition or religious belief.
Oh my gosh! I’m so glad I came across this blog entry!
Why, just the other day, I stated my ability to live a happy and fulfilled social life without the need for alcohol!
I had no idea that by saying I could live well without a need for alcohol…I was descriminating against alcohol! Oh my goodness I’m in opposition to alcohol, and those who use it, just because I state that I don’t need it!
Worse, I’m implying that I don’t ever have alcohol, and that would be a lie!
I will never again publicly state that I don’t need alcohol, or religion, or vitamins, or anything else for that matter.
I just had no idea that professing a lack of need was so judgemental and offensive.
Thanks for enlightening me, Mark! I just KNOW I’ll be a better person now that I have this information!
Jumpin’ Jeezus! That’s what I’d expect to happen in the States, not in Canada.
Let’s not forget that in the not-too-distant-past this was Waterloo Lutheran University (I always wondered if Wilf rocks just slightly in his grave since he was apparently chosen for his ability not to mess with the school initials.) The religious bias is therefore long-standing. Not right, perhaps, just extant.
Pecksniff?……..oh…you mean pharisaic.
Ooops, sorry for calling you Mark, PZ. Apparently I thought I was over at Denialism.com. Not enough coffee yet this morning, I’m afraid.
If you explore the college’s web site, you will see they have a seminary, so it would seem not to be a secular college in the first place.
A lot of Canadian universities have affiliated religious colleges, which doesn’t actually detract one whit from the secularity of the institution itself, not unlike how the idea of G. Gordon Liddy in a teeny Speedo doesn’t affect the look of a teeny Speedo on, say, Obed Fehr…
If you explore the college’s web site, you will see they have a seminary, so it would seem not to be a secular college in the first place.
Oh, Laurier is a public university. It used to be Waterloo Lutheran, and the seminary is affiliated with the unversity, not part of it. Think of it as a vestigal organ.
campus administrators
Negative. Campus Clubs is run by the student union. The administration had nothing to do with this. It’s probably a case of over-sensitivity, not rampant Christism.
Here’s their webpage
With email contact.
Mwahahahahahahahahahaha.
Institutional policies in Canada are rife with political correctness and moral relativism, as is public sentiment for good part of the population (often to the point of stupid). Talking about religion in anything other than a vague, warm-and-fuzzy way is generally taboo just like in the USA, but perhaps for different reasons. I’d be surprised if the body denying the application was doing so because they are controlled by far-right religious lunatics. Since it is Canada we are probably dealing with it is far-left neo-hippy wingnuts.
This is ridiculous. I just never understand how people don’t see that disallowing atheists to speak their voice isn’t the same ‘disrespect for the belief of others’ that they claim we pull on them. Unbelievable. Makes me sad to be a Canadian, and Ontarian at that.
This must be illegal. If the university is secular, by definition such prejudice is illegal. Sue their asses, and use the money to finance even more superstition-free events.
Thank you for that image. I may have to go home sick, now.
Yes, indeed it is true that Wilfrid Laurier University used to be Waterloo Lutheran University, but that was changed back in 1973. I have been a member of the WLU campus since 1982, and I can assure you that its former church affiliation hasn’t had any serious influence for decades. Most students are completely unaware of what WLU used to stand for. Having said that, I agree with the earlier poster that the Student Union is either just extra sensitive or clueless. The sensitivity comes from incidents like this last year:
http://stolenfromafrica.com/forum/racist-student-group-wlu-t661.html
Just don’t pick on the university administration or their policies for this incident. Its the student representatives who are responsible for this.
Re: mdowe’s comment (#22) – don’t think so in general or with the student union clubs since there are, for example, Christian Clubs listed on the WLU clubs website. Which is fine by many who are atheist (me included). The problem is indeed that this means atheistic clubs or clubs formed to discuss religion or lack thereof should be allowed.
Hat tip to other commenters here regarding the fact that WLU admin was not the origin of the problem; it is the Student Union. I commented likewise on a couple of other blogs where this issue has been raised – the problem is real but it is not as far as I can tell caused by uni admin, which is rather important to those like myself who teach at universities [especially since I am right down the street from WLU at UWaterloo].
Sue their asses, and use the money to finance even more superstition-free events.
Oh hell, the settlement from an OHRC judgement wouldn’t pay for more than one good kegger.
Since it is Canada we are probably dealing with it is far-left neo-hippy wingnuts.
Well, they are Laurier students….
I dealt with my share of that when I was with the Laurentian student newspaper. We got accused of racism when we ran a story about some North African students getting frostbite. That was a couple of decades ago, so it’s not a new thing.
Can’t have people denying religion. After all that would be blasphemy and we can’t have that.
Does WLU have any evangelical clubs?
“G. Gordon Liddy in a teeny Speedo.”
Thanks a bunch. Next you’ll have Maggie Thatcher in a thong.
They could try to sneak “science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or Mithraism” by the administration.
I’d think a call to Nashifa Carter, Interim Harassment/Discrimination Co-ordinator, (226) 220-0689
would be in order.
http://www.wlu.ca/homepage.php?grp_id=355
The freethought club should kick up a fuss. No such thing as bad PR.
If they allow Xian clubs, not to allow a humanist club is blatant religious discrimination. So try to get the Xian clubs banned. It won’t work but it might set off a few thoughts in a few heads.
In the USA, if a university receives public funds, they would be in violation of US laws against discrimination.
The other tack is to list the universities that have such clubs. There are quite a few and they are not all obscure schools in obscure places.
You are dealing with young people who don’t quite know what they are doing yet. The process and results could be quite an education for them.
Well, you’ll notice the letter practically begs for a resubmission (for those of you unfamiliar with buerocratese).
This will be a great lesson for the students: their perceptions of fairness are governed by what appears to be “normal” and “acceptable” and “appropriate” rather than what is actually fair. Campus crusade for Christ? That’s fine. Campus crusade for Darwin? Now that’s just weird and seemingly hostile (to my presumptions). Let’s rationalize our gut reaction with a nice little letter.
This is how decision making takes place practically everywhere.
OT:
Mice will used to cure the cold. I hope they know how finely to grind them.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Mice_could_unlock_cold_cure_British_0204.html
G. Gordon Libby in a speedo and Margaret Thatcher in a thong? Are you trying to make me snort coffee through my sinuses?
Also, EEEEWWW!
I have my own arguments at the “frontiers of philosophy” about the issues of self-existence of the universe, anthropic design, etc. However, I fully agree that the freethought group has the right to promote a life and thoughtstyle based on not needing extra-wordly belief systems. It’s not as if they stated an intention to interfere with those who did promote extra-worldly beliefs. It should be symmetrical: if legit to promote a given religious idea, then should be legit to promote the “null set” example of same. I also consider this an affront to my Unitarian Universalits cohorts, most of whom look for meaning and values from the known world and their experiences. They (typically) respect my speculating about more, and I respect if they don’t.
They should have added a religion to the topic list. And then discussed it once. I.e.:
“To promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief. And Judaism.”
“Negative. Campus Clubs is run by the student union.”
Agreed. WLUSU (it’s so annoying that all Laurier acronyms have to sound retarded!) is a purely volunteer organization that directly oversees campus clubs.
The real bugger is the fact that there are numerous faith-based clubs and Christian fellowships and Muslim Awareness clubs, and so on. So the University, a secular institution, can officially support clubs for all religions denominations, but not those that don’t involve any denomination? It doesn’t make any sense.
Some of this apprehension to the freethinking club could be their wording, possibly interpreted by the WLUSU as being strictly anti-theistic. If the club founders could emphasize that a lack of theology is not anti-religious, they might get more leeway.
When I was an undergrad many moons ago I wanted to set up a club to satirise the hand-wringing hypocrisy of the Student’s Union rules in the UK. No club can refuse to admit anyone on grounds of nationality, race, faith, sex, sexuality or ability and yet there were many religious/international clubs that were exclusive in practise (there were exceptions though). So I wanted to set up the “English, Caucasian, Able-Bodied, Heterosexual Atheist Club” just to see how much of an outcry I could raise. Obviously we’d never refuse anyone entry, we’d merely focus of promoting activities consonant with the aims of the group of people outlined by the name of the club.
Our president was to be a wheelchair bound lesbian lay-preacher from Jamaica* who I knew.
Louis
*Seriously. The fact that we were mates and discussed the topic regularly when having beers was the obvious inspiration for the idea. Sadly we never got round to doing this, but it was a fantastic idea, usually around the three or four pint mark!
OMG! They’ve been Expelled!
C’mon Ben, time to make another movie!
When I started our on-campus group in 2007, I anticipated being turned down, but was relieved to find that they made our group official without any trouble.
Our mission statement:
The CAMPUS FREETHOUGHT ALLIANCE organizes campus freethinkers, challenges misrepresentations of non-religious convictions and lifestyles, cultivates a sense of responsibility to – and compassion for – humanity and promotes scientific reason as a worldview.
If Campus Cretins for Christ can have a club, anyone should be able to have one.
25 years ago I turned down a very nice scholarship offer at Wilfrid Laurier in favour of another one at a different university.
Looks like I made the right choice.
Another four words:
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu.
Google for it.
Another four words:
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu.
Google for it.
Is it just me, or has everyone in the fucking world forgotten somehow that a major tenet of the Abrahamic religions is that all other religions are heretical and wrong?!
How the fuck does Thou shalt have no other gods before me “respect and tolerate the views of others”?
Sorry to break the news folks, but if you’re a religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim, you are by default intolerant of other religious views. You can’t have it any other way. Your god demands it.
Oh, come on, Brownian… you are being too kind.
They cannot even be respectful of other Abrahamic sects.
Yes, Brownian. Let’s hear them hem and haw over Commandment Numero Uno.
#40 – Some friends of mine joked about a similar club, only lacking someone like your friend, our exceptions would have been spread out amongst the various executive positions, with the exception of the position of Token Minority, who would be the white male gentleman of anglo-saxon descent.
This was at the University of Waterloo, just up the road from WLU, where a couple of years ago there was a scandal, as it turned out that one of the religious university clubs was actually just a front for a local church, and was being used to book university venues at a greatly reduced price.
Although not an explicitly secular club, an advertising campaign by the CCC inspired some individuals to start the Campus Crusade for Cheese, also known as the CCCh. For a time, it was one of the largest clubs on campus.
Thanks a bunch. Next you’ll have Maggie Thatcher in a thong
If I weren’t gay already…..
I find the whole proposal description to be complicated. What’s wrong with using the words “humanist” or “atheist” or “non-theist”. Would be much clearer.
Nah Brownian, you just declare all gods as one god, even when no sane person would read anything about them and conclude this, then place all your efforts on attacking people that don’t believe in *any* of them. Simple (in every sense of the word).
Egads. Things were so much simpler in Leeds when I was an undergrad. We even voted the Anarchists more money, because their rep explained that bombs were expensive.
Bob
Nah Brownian, you just declare all gods as one god
Yeah, as a former apologist, been there, done that. Unfortunately, those pesky Hindus, Buddhists, and Miscellaneousists keep fucking it all up for the ‘Deep Down, It’s All the Same God’ moderates.
What is happening in this country?! There are things going on today that would never have happen’d 25 years ago–we are moving backwards, people! Like good little sheep, we are being quickly herded to some quiet, docile, obedient, Godly pasture…preferably located somewhere back in the Dark Ages. I find that a little unnerving myself-actually, I think it’s downright insidious. We are sacrificing our intellect, our identity and the knowledge we impart to our children all under the guise of political correctness & being inclusive–(HOGWASH!)–we pander to their quaint little piccadillos, but allow them to strip us of free thought, free choice and FREEDOM? What’s that all about?! Why are we allowing this?! We gotta wake up and start paying attention…in case you haven’t noticed, the United States is virtually a laughingstock to the rest of the world–we are actually entertaining the notion of “teaching creationism” to our children as an equally viable option to Darwin’s evolution! I guess “because God said so” is going to be good enough for our kids, afterall? And now we see that even admitting to atheism, will get you shunned…at least! What’s next? Public stonings?
ZeBamBam, it’s even worse than that. Wilfrid Laurier University is in Canada.
We should protest this type of blatant discrimination wherever it rears it’s ugly head. I will post a blog about this later today–once I get out from behind this damn firewall. All blogger sites have recently been blocked here…Argggg!
We should flood their email and their phone system with well thought out complaints. I hope the group takes a stand and does not agree to refrase the mission statement.
I just posted this blog up on digg. Here is the url for those of you who have a digg account.
http://digg.com/world_news/Admitting_you_have_no_religion_is_not_politically_correct
Actually, Brownian, you are incorrect. Judaism specifically dictates tolerance for and acceptance of non-Jews, provided they follow the rules laid down in the Noahic Covenant, which are much less onerous than those laid down for Jews. So according to Judaism, at least, non-Jews can be righteous and accepted in even the strictest Jewish societies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws
In mainline Protestantism, there are specific exceptions to the rules indicating who will be damned for not following Christ. These exceptions include Jews, as God’s chosen people.
In Roman Catholicism, there still exists the doctrine of the virtuous pagan, by which non-Christians may, through acts of good work, be admitted to the kingdom of heaven.
I don’t know much about Islam, but certainly in two of the three major Abrahamic religions, there are specific and very clear rules saying that outsiders may be just as righteous and deserving of grace (or the analogue) as believers.
“Thou Shalt Have No Other God Before Me” means that as an individual, you are required to be devoted first and foremost to God. But only God is permitted to judge whether any individual should be punished in any way for not adhering to that law. Individuals cannot do that, and therefore cannot decide whether someone is deserving of (spritual) tolerance.
This is all in theory, of course. In practice, as you have evidently observed, things are much different. :)
Meanwhile, in Turkey,
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=95333. How ironic both resort to the same pattern of exclusion.
Usually, its university administrators and faculty who promote the idea that education is about dehumanization, conformism, and absolutism. It’s rare to see a student union taking the same approach.
Says you, Jane E. Valentine!
Of course, you are right. However, I maintain that those are all heretical doctrines. Jesus told me so himself. Also, he calls himself, ‘Lefty’, for reasons known only to him (and presumably his alternate personas, God and The Holy Liquor).
Any theist or theologian here is welcome to prove me wrong, although I haven’t the foggiest as to how they’re going to disprove what Lefty has personally revealed to me. (Another interesting revelation: there are no Abkhazians in Heaven. Oh, there are members of that ethnic group there, but God really, really hates the word ‘Abkhazia’ and its derivatives, and everybody is forbidden to say them. (And we thought the rules he laid down for us down here were arbitrary.) Instead, every new arrival–yeah, try to reconcile ‘new arrival’ with eternal existence and you’ll soon find eternity isn’t nearly long enough to solve that paradox–is instructed to refer to the people from that region as ‘Jeffies’, things pertaining to them as ‘Jeffian’, and that region as ‘Jeffia’. Oh, and raisin toast is a sin.)
Brownian, thanks for that…
I suppose I should try n’keep my anger in check until after I’m done reading–it may help to improve my ability to actually comprehend that which I do read, ya think?
/;-)
Nonetheless, this “not perfect, just forgiven” insipid form of fascism needs to be immediately & without delay exorcised, no matter where it might rear it’s annointed head.
Instead, every new arrival–yeah, try to reconcile ‘new arrival’ with eternal existence and you’ll soon find eternity isn’t nearly long enough to solve that paradox–is instructed to refer to the people from that region as ‘Jeffies’, things pertaining to them as ‘Jeffian’, and that region as ‘Jeffia’. Oh, and raisin toast is a sin.
I have never decreed such a thing. While I may reign over baked goods, I have never explicitly condemned raisin toast.
Really?
On the other hand, the Jesus quote “nobody can come to the Father but through me” is officially interpreted so that the Jews already are with the Father.
That’s the Judge Not/Mote In Your Own Eye theory. Then there’s the God Hates Fags theory, which says that if a community tolerates others committing abominations, it will be collectively punished for this tolerance — and that one has plenty of examples in the Old Testament…
Bah. You just don’t know how to pronounce it. B-)
Really?
On the other hand, the Jesus quote “nobody can come to the Father but through me” is officially interpreted so that the Jews already are with the Father.
That’s the Judge Not/Mote In Your Own Eye theory. Then there’s the God Hates Fags theory, which says that if a community tolerates others committing abominations, it will be collectively punished for this tolerance — and that one has plenty of examples in the Old Testament…
Bah. You just don’t know how to pronounce it. B-)
That’s because it wasn’t necessary. That raisin toast is an abomination is self-evident.
That’s because it wasn’t necessary. That raisin toast is an abomination is self-evident.
I guess that kind of shoots the ‘Jesus is the only way’ concept in the foot. Along with kids getting a free pass.
And really it’s ridiculous to say the jews are with the father already when they disavow the son. Alot of disharmony in the family if thats the case.
I have never decreed such a thing. While I may reign over baked goods, I have never explicitly condemned raisin toast.
Of course you didn’t; Lefty told me that. And he warned me against the tricksy ways of the Biscuit God and his yeasty lies that rise in your stomach until you explode and have to spend forever boiling in a lake of buttermilk and roux.
Bah. You just don’t know how to pronounce it. B-)
Maybe, but it was revealed to me that the word, in any language and in any pronunciation (but especially the Danes’), was like the buzzing of locusts in God’s ear.
That Lefty. Same guy that hung out with Royko? Don’t trust him.
In 1967 at Florida State U the behind-glass-bulletin-boards in the student union were locked.
In order to post anything it was necessary to get an elderly non-academic employee lady to accept your posting according to her 1858 Florida Cracker lights.
I tried to post a mild criticism of the horrendous food service, but the incredulous and shocked censor lady told me that such negative criticism could not be tolerated or posted.
The chairman of the Florida Board of Regents was chief lawyer-whore for the food service contractor – Morrison’s Cafeteria.
The motto of FSU is – light and truth – and football.
I would like to point out that many of you are, again, incorrect. Most major sects of Jeffianism have scriptural references to the spiritual advantages of currants and raisins in their biscuits and breads. When we couple this with the fact that one of the major tenets of followers of the God of Biscuits is that recooking or toasting breads and biscuits is a holy practice, the only natural conclusion is that Jeff thinks raisin toast is mighty fine.
Duh.
the only natural conclusion is that Jeff thinks raisin toast is mighty fine.
With butter and cinnamon-sugar–just like gramma used to make.
And I just want to point out that Jeffians (Lefty Christ’s own name for the people of the Abkhazia region of Georgia) and the Jeffians (followers of the Biscuit God) are not necessarily the same.
And in any real religion worth its baking powder, raisin toast should be a sin.
Hell, in any civilization worth its salt, broccoli would be recognized as the inedible abomination it is and wiped from the face of the earth. But no, those bloody veggie people.
However, some scholars have suggested that “currants and raisins” is a mistranslation for “virgins rewarding”.
Others have argued that the praise of all sweet fruit is merely figurative.
I’ve found this to be extremely helpful in answering questions regarding Old Testament Law:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html
Oh, but Brownian, OM *genuflects*,
We have a saying here: “On Sundays the angels speak Funish.” (Not to be confused with ‘funnish’.)
Of course, in Funish ‘Abkhazia’ is pronounced ‘Jeffia’ …
However, some scholars have suggested that “currants and raisins” is a mistranslation for “virgins rewarding”.
Currants and raisins are far more desirable than virgins. (Experience and skill are welcome things.)
However did I mix up Jeffianism with Jeffianism? What a careless mistake on my part!
A dear friend of mine–not known for his political correctness–once compared virgins to mynocks, claiming that once you slept with one, they were “always hanging around, chewing on your power cables.”
Curiously, he’s silent on the subject of currants.
And speaking of raisins:
Luxenberg ‘s new analysis, leaning on the Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, yields “white raisins” of “crystal clarity” rather than doe-eyed, and ever willing virgins – the houris.
Suicide for raisins? Not so much. I hope this analysis gains currency.
Suicide for raisins? Not so much. I hope this analysis gains currency.
Oh no, you di’n’t!
MAJeff at #74:
Thou speakest sooth, O Jeff. (¿El Jeffe, yesno?) It’s quite beyond me how hard people find it to see the blindingly obvious.
You forgot tomatoes, though. Smite them too, while you’re at it. ¿Please?
You forgot tomatoes, though. Smite them too, while you’re at it. ¿Please?
Nay
That does it. I’m finding myself another deity.
Actually, I withdraw that. Your tomato soup is consistent with my gastronomical liturgy, as is just about anything made from tomatoes. As long as I don’t have to eat them raw — there’s no surer way to engage my gag reflex.
Broccoli has no such saving grace.
Evolving Squid #44, I was also accepted at WLU about 12 years ago, but went to McMaster instead. I apparently made the right choice, since my alma mater (a former Baptist seminary) has no issues with such organizations.
On the other hand, it’s nice to know that they don’t feel that “the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals”.
(eyeroll)
First they came for the brussels sprouts,
and I didn’t speak up because I hate brussels sprouts.
Then they came for the cauliflower,
and I didn’t speak up because I only like it raw and with a good dip, and not particularly often.
Then they came for the broccoli,
and I got a bit pissed off because everyone likes a nice thick broccoli cheese soup now and again.
Then they came for my tomatoes,
and there were no vegetables left for the antipasto.
and I got a bit pissed off because everyone likes a nice thick broccoli cheese soup now and again.
Make that beer cheese soup and we can talk.
Letter + Bullshit
Nough said
Jane E. Valentine :
No, no, no! Toasting anything is ungodly! I have proof! When I tried to make some raisin toast this morning, it was transubstantiated to carbon! ‘Twas a sign, I tell you!
No no no.
The substance was still raisin toast. Only the accidentals changed to make it appear as carbon (I think I’ve just used up my allotment of >em<s for the night).
Iono what that’s called – ‘transaccidentalisation’? – ‘persubstantiation’?
Shit, off I go to the irony meter store once again.
Epikt, I hope you didn’t then try to fish out the toast with a knife, or you could have transubstantiated a whole lot else at the same time.
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.
While I was at work I got to thinking on this trend and the thread on what motto to put on coins.. Forgive me for not knowing Latin well enough to get this right, but here is my take on it, since it pretty much covers all the stupid bases:
Front emblem: A football helmet with a cross on it.
Back emblem: The ten commandments (all three sets of them, preferably. You know, to be *inclusive*).
Front motto: E Pluribus Diety de Football.
Back motto: ….
The back motto is hard. Something inane and stupid, like, “People kill, not guns”?
I once had the image of the Florida raisin himself miraculously appear on my toast. Since it seemed to me to be blasphemous to eat it I sold it on Ebay for 30 pieces of silver.
I wrote the following email to the head of Student Diversity at WLU:
Dear Sir,
This letter is to relay my disappointment that your Campus Clubs department has denied the rights of the freethinkers to form a group at your institution.
Campus Clubs stated in their declination letter: “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,” and “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.”
However, the denial of this freethought group is disrespectful and intolerant of those who choose to live without a religious framework. Why is it permitted to be intolerant of non-theists? It is true that secularism does not denote an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices, it is simply the lack of religious belief and practice. Nothing more, nothing less.
Campus Clubs’ refusal to appreciate WLU’s freethinkers’ desire to form a group shows a complete bias against those who do not believe in the supernatural. Campus Clubs’ denial of this group denotes an active stance in opposition to freethinkers, and the stated justification for doing so is wholly hypocritical. I do hope WLU will reconsider.
Sincerely,
Sara
I got the following response:
Hi Sara,
Thank you very much for your email.
With respect to all Campus Clubs (and our entire university community), we promote an very inclusive environment. We pride ourselves on a very student-centered university, and we pride ourselves on the uniqueness of our clubs.
If you recieved your information from the many blogs posts that are surfacing, than you are mis-informed. The Freethinkers Club has been temporarily denied club status based on certain wording within their application. As a university, we want to maintain that each club is inclusive of all members of the Laurier community before it is granted status as a Laurier Campus Club. After talking to the vice-president of the Freethinkers and members of the Student Union, both sides have agreed to rework the application and work together in the creation of this club.
I hope that answers your question.
Adam
I think what Sara has posted, as written by Adam Lewis sums this matter up the best.
Sorry, but that response is a bunch of baloney as well. Just because the club has agreed to reword their application doesn’t mean that their admission standards have changed.
Somebody ask them this: if different club were to submit an application suggesting that they would be promoting something “without the need for superstition or religious belief”, would the application still be rejected?
And: if this present club, with an amended mission statement, tries to promote “a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief”, are they in violation of their charter?
They should just remove the last three words and see what happens. The meaning is EXACTLY the same.
As a university, we want to maintain that each club is inclusive of all members of the Laurier community before it is granted status as a Laurier Campus Club.
So does this mean that Campus Crusade for Christ will now admit Jews, Muslims and atheists?
What bilge.
Thanks for posting this, Sara.
My flatmate and I once tried to set up an Atheist club on campus, the Atheist Union (AU), named so after a group of particularly annoying god botherers called the Evangeligal Union (AU). We were planning T-shirts that read: “Jesus Christ is a swear word” and “we put the “fun” back in “fundamentalist dogma”.
We were also planning BBQ, with a poster that stated “Renounce your God: get a free sausage!”.
Unfortunately, we both decided to write a thesis… and there went any time to organise this…
Bozoids. Maybe this is the last gasp of a culture from when they carried on business as Waterloo Lutheran University.
“With respect to all Campus Clubs (and our entire university community), we promote an very inclusive environment. We pride ourselves on a very student-centered university, and we pride ourselves on the uniqueness of our clubs.”
Sounds like something out of the art exhibition at the University of Waterloo by Cathy Busby, BRANDED, “a critical reflection on “branding” and the influence of corporate culture on the university.
http://render.uwaterloo.ca/2008/01/25/cathy-busbys-branded-project/
Within the context of organizations that apply for status on campus, a mandate that cites “religion and superstition” (or “the need for religion and superstition”) strikes me as being as blatently cantankerous as would be “Christians against genetics and phrenology,” or “crustaceans against anemones and stinky floating seahorse poop, too,” all of which operate a rhetorical phallacy of false equivocation rather than set any working proposition (such that, whether the speaker posits self as in favour or not of the combination of elements, the combination itself is the “real” theme of the phrase, and the effect of the combination carries the speaker’s “real” intended meaning rather than the phrase it modifies).
This is a trope as old as Plautus; that it is used here as a gentle barb or verbal elbow-in-the-ribs of the freethinkers’ perceived enemy (the right wing Christian groups on campus) is non-controversial. Not so much as the “renounce your god for a hot dog” event planned by one poster, above, but a member of that same toungue-in-cheek family of “ways to annoy right wing Christians.”
How can we be sure? Here’s the acid test: how many on campus profess belief in a religion? Some. How many profess their belief in a superstition? None. So, to what end would the freethinkers explicitly rule out superstition if not to take the piss out of those who don’t like to see “superstition” paired with “religion?”
I posit that taking the piss, while good fun, is generally beneath us. I’m not saying I don’t approve — it’s good to keep them on their toes this way — but let us not delude ourselves: the mandate was worded not to outline the purpose of the group, but to goad the Christians. Goading the Christian, I humbly submit, is not on. Not cricket.
I don’t agree.
People engage in superstitious practices all the time. They read horoscopes. They avoid walking under ladders. Some carry four-leaf-clovers around. Or rabbits’ feet. (I always used to tell my young’un that those feet never helped the rabbit any.)
And atheism is, after all, defined as the absence of religion. It hardly makes sense to weasel around that point–it’s a touchstone, isn’t it?
Update of sorts: go read
http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/no-more-angry-letters-to-wilfred-laurier-university/
Theodore, i was the one who wrote that line. It was never my intention to piss off Christians by pairing superstition and religion. These happen to be two subjects our group is interested in. We promote scientific naturalism over dogmatism and skepticism over superstition.
Quote Dr. Dawg: 108
“People engage in superstitious practices all the time.”
Yes, but they do not [b]profess a belief[/b] in their superstitions. People do all kinds of things they’re not prepared to support rationally or spiritually. It’s the beliefs they cling to, despite abundant reasons to do otherwise, that are at issue; these beliefs are rarely called “superstition” — at least not by the people who hold them.
There are people who, reflecting upon their avoidance of black cats would call themselves “superstitious,” and you would group these among the folks who go to church on Sundays and willfully contort their perception of reality such that it accommodates the miracle of transubstantiation (for example).
I will agree that the two sets of behaviours / histories / beliefs overlap in some anthropologically revealing ways, but what kind of practical, dialogically productive common ground would you expect to find between the average black-cat-avoider and your run-of-the-mill, body-of-Christ-eater?
Quote Tyler, #110:
“skepticism over superstition”
Is it your club’s mandate to disabuse the over-the-shoulder-salt-tosser of her illusions? To show the ladder-walker-arounder the error of his ways? I submit that the vast majority of black-cat-avoiders etc. are in no way deluded as to the irrational nature of their behaviour; their superstition is not subject to modification through skepticism. It seems obfuscative to pretend otherwise.
You and I likely have the same idea of what “skepticism” is, but I suspect we’d diverge on the definition of superstition. Where I would think natural usage indicated that it was the actions of a person inclined to avoid the paths of black cats, etc., I’d be hard pressed to extend it to include the behaviours of self-identifying religious people. The only meaningful way I can see to do so is in the pejorative mode: as a gentle barb, a taking-of-the-piss.
I don’t know how to treat your claim that it was not your intention to “piss off Christians by pairing superstition and religion.” I mean, really? So this whole thing is just a phenomenal boner, a classic misunderstanding? What reaction had you imagined a campus Christian would have upon finding the thing in which they have been indoctrinated since childhood and which they expect to shunt them from the grave into an eternal paradise with their god and ancestors paired up with the casual acts of thoughtless habit executed by folks who knock on wood?
I know I’m late to this party; seems to be the way for me of late. Still, I wanted to drop my two cents in. Just to establish the perspective I bring to this:
I recently described myself as “a quiet atheist” in that while it’s something I deeply believe, it’s also not something I usually bring up unless asked. And while I am an atheist, I do not condemn religious faith; as I said in that same post, “I have known too many people for who their religious faith provided a foundation for a life of justice and courage to ever deny it can be a path for some.”
With that in mind, I find the decision by the Campus Clubs department to be utterly indefensible. It falsely claims the group expresses an “active stance in opposition” to religion based solely on the absurd and false equation of non-religious with anti-religious. The rejection of the application is not an endorsement of tolerance, it is an endorsement of intolerance against non-belief which demands that the applicants “adjust and rethink your club’s … vision” in order for it to be acceptable – that is, they need what we used to call “an attitude adjustment.”
Bottom line here is that it appears that while non-believers are supposed to tiptoe around, avoiding anything that could be interpreted as criticism of the validity of religious belief, the reverse is not true for theists, who are free to insist that belief, in fact their particular belief, is the only valid course.
Final thought #1: What if the phrase had been “without a need for superstition or religious belief” rather than “the need?” Doing so would clearly indicate the phrase was self-referential, i.e., describing the members, not superstition and/or religion per se. Would that have made a difference? Frankly, I rather doubt it.
Final thought #2: The rejection complained about “taking an active stance in opposition.” Why does religious belief get special protection from opposition? It doesn’t? Oh, well, then I guess the university has no political clubs.
And last, on another point entirely. Theodore Sills, your recent posts remind me of a case of constipation: lots of straining and grimacing without producing anything. You continue to insist, even in the face of a specific denial, that the reference to “without superstition or religion” was a conscious, deliberate shot at religion based on nothing more than the assumption that it was a conscious, deliberate shot at religion. It is, on this particular point, time for you to pack it in.
Quote LarryE, #112:
My work above reminds LarryE of “a case of constipation […] pack it in.”
That’s very funny. Did you intend it? Do you believe your intention changes how amusing it is? No, LarryE, it does not. Because shit jokes have been hilarious to our species for millennia, using one in an argument is going to get a laugh regardless of how specifically one might deny that it is funny. Likewise, I would advise you to treat with some skepticism the expression, “my words are not offensive because I did not intend for them to be offensive.”
LarryE, You have accused me of entertaining a tautology; I think you have deliberately misconstrued my careful paraphrasing for a circular argument. Let me give you a clearly non-circular “bottom line” of the sort with which you show some custom. When I say…
A)religious people resent being called superstitious, and
B)the text at issue pairs religion with superstition, and
C){A} is not a secret; in fact, a glass eye up a dog’s ass could see {A} + {B} will piss off some religious people,
…the only way left to treat “a specific denial” is by pretending that the speaker either didn’t know that religious people resent being called superstitious, or by positing that the denier is not being entirely forthright. In Tyler’s defense, I think he *can* see better than a glass eye up a dog’s ass.
But can LarryE? He re-reports his affiliation to religious people leading “lives of justice and courage,” yet the foundation of their just and courageous lives is indistinguishable (to LarryE) from the practice of not stepping on cracks. When next you meet one of these paragons, do please ask them to explain to you the difference between that which makes them just and courageous, and that which makes folks knock on wood.
And keep the shit jokes coming.
Theodore –
Actually, the “pack it in” was not “intended” in the sense of being connected to the constipation reference but in the sense of “give it up.” Which only goes to show again your tendency to reach a conclusion by assuming the conclusion. Thank you for demonstrating my point. You appear to have more in common with creationists than you realize.
As for the people living lives of justice and courage, it was in reference to people I have known personally, in some cases for many years. You are utterly ignorant of their lives, their convictions, and their actions and so utterly incompetent to judge them – and it is you, not I, who have equated their beliefs with “not stepping on cracks” and “knocking on wood,” neither of which beliefs, to my knowledge, have ever inspired anyone to go to prison rather than violate their consciences or walk into the middle of a riot in an attempt to calm things down.
No, it is by no means necessary to believe in a god to live such a life, nor did I in any way suggest that it is – still, such actions, which I have witnessed, do seem to point to that “difference” about which you proposed I inquire.
The wording was “”religion and superstition.” If the authors had intended to state that one was the other, Theodore, they would not have included both terms in this way.
Case closed, I think.
Good news!
They win. We helped.
Sometimes, the good guys win.