Terahertz

I didn’t get a chance yesterday to transcribe the letters that came out in the Gateway, in support of the secular convocation op-ed I had written. And as I expected, the Gateway followed last Thursday’s negative letters with some positive ones.

First, from John Douglas Crookshanks:

Mierau misses the point on convocation concerns

I agree with Mierau (re: “Liberal secularists want to impose their views,” 18 September) that debate on the religious nature of convocation is needed, but he seems to miss Ian Bushfield’s point that the University administration is actually stifling debate on this issue.

Mierau is also off the mark when he says that secularizing convocation discriminates against religions. Removing the reference to God doesn’t force anyone to disbelieve or deny God; rather, it acknowledges that convocation at a public university is neither the place nor time to invoke any one religion. Despite what Mierau believes, neither this University, nor the government, operates on a purely majority-rules basis. Otherwise, we’d also be worshiping Jesus at convocation, to the discrimination of even more students and faculty.

Further, Mierau falsely assumes that the religious majority all support the current convocation charge, ignoring the point that many religious people recognize that this is already a secular university and that if they wanted a religious convocation, they could go to King’s, Augustana, Concordia, or have convocation ceremonies at their places of worship – something that already takes place. Removing the reference to God also takes into account those religious people (who I presume are also entitled to Mierau’s “unalienable rights” to religion) who don’t worship God. Thus, making convocation inclusive doesn’t just appease atheists or “leftists” (as Mierau incorrectly assumes are synonymous, yet I know many right-wing atheists and left-wing Christians).

Ultimately, for Mierau, having a “traditional” convocation, whatever that means, is all or nothing. He doesn’t understand that we can still respect worthwhile tradition while having it reflect that our “current civilized world” is constantly changing. All culture is dynamic. Imagine how “civilized” we would be if we were so inflexible and couldn’t see when a particular tradition is no longer representative of who we, as a diverse University community, are. If adapting to new circumstances works for the University of Calgary, it can work for us too.

John Douglas Crookshanks
Graduate Studies

And from my favorite libertarian atheist, Paul Welke:

Convocation issue has been long ignored

Regarding Ian Bushfield’s article (re: “There’s no ‘God’ in graduation,” 16 September); I made the original complaing in 2004, and it appears the administration is still doing nothing regarding these types of complaints, despite the fact that they are becoming more numerous.

I have not been to a Convocation ceremony for this very reason. I refuse to have that charge bestowed upon me. I was in Bosnia on a NATO mission when I got my degree (I finished classes and got on the plane shortly thereafter). They mailed my degree along with a copy of the Convocation program. I was told that because of my unique situation, that I’d be allowed to cross the stage at a later ceremony when I returned from my peacekeeping tour.

After reading the program, I got in touch with members of the SU Executive with my objection to the charge. They dutifully brought my concerns to the Administration and were basically shut down. We were told that “the word ‘god’ isn’t used in a religious context here” and that my objection was not valid. I’m sorry, but claiming that there is a way to use the word “god” in a non-religious context is like saying that there’s a nice way to call someone a “douchebag.”

For the record, I would still like to go through a Convocation Ceremony, but not until the charge is modified.

Paul Welke
Alumnus

Also, if you go to the original article, you can read an increasing number of positive responses, not subject to editorial filtering.