Related to the entire theme though is a recent Dan Gardner article on leadership in isolation. In it he discusses recent studies that have found that we make poorer decisions the more power we get.

The concept can be understood in Darwinian terms. Ideas, like organisms, compete for their environment. A bad idea with a lot of competition will die off, while it may have a better chance if not exposed to variation. I’m not talking about memetics, since we actively select out good ideas when we can contrast them with bad ones.

If a leader is surrounded by yes-men and women who agree with him or her, the landscape of ideas generated will be very small. Meanwhile, when people are able to disagree without fear of punishment, more ideas can thrive and compete.

This is why, regardless of one’s own aptitudes and skills, power corrupts. Everyone is susceptible to it.

Being good skeptics, we need to identify and be aware of issues like this when we design our organizational structures. The root causes of the ongoing CFI Canada debacle are a lack of trust, transparency, and accountability. Without an open exchange of ideas, corruption and acrimony spread.

Such drama isn’t the exclusive purview of CFI and it’s corporate structure. Humanist Canada was embroiled in a strikingly similar controversy a year ago when their board split over the actions of their executive director. HAC seems to be getting back on track, potentially a testament of the ability of the membership to throw the board out and elect a new slate.

I don’t know the perfect solution to these types of divisions. I think there needs to be clear lines of accountability, and a means of dealing with divisions in boards that doesn’t make every issue so personal. I’m wide open to any and all ideas, and I’m definitely willing to try anything to ensure the stability and longevity of the BC Humanists for years to come.

I’ve had my differences with CFI Canada in the past, but we are on the same side, and they continue to do the most for freethought in Canada. I therefore urge you to donate to their “Next Big Step” campaign to help raise half a million dollars, enough to lease or buy physical locations for each of their centres in Canada.

So go and donate now, and again, and get your friends to donate to the Next Big Step campaign.

The deadline is September 30th, so there’s not a lot of time to reach this goal.

Surprisingly, for PostMedia (which owns the Calgary Herald which routinely bashes atheists in its editorials), the comments were roughly split between pro and anti-secularists, although both sides featured numerous ineloquent trolls. Some like this are a bit troubling to me [all quotes are exact and any emphasis is my own]:

I truly believe that knowing the religious affiliations of any residents as well as "open access" to view through the freedom of information act any individuals' tax returns should be part of this country's policies and enshrined in the constitution. Too many are getting away with ridiculous exemption claims on their returns based on religious allowances and as far as I'm concerned, all religious claims should be disallowed.

The reason that many churches are given a tax-exempt status is that they must be involved in helping and supporting their community. This reduces the cost of "social programs" for the government, since churches don't charge for this service. They are paid for by donations. These social programs must be "proveable" to Revenue Canada, whether it is sponsoring youth nights, food banks, shelter, etc. in order for donations to count as tax exemptions.
I, for one, would rather see local communities helping local residents in need, than increasing our already bloated bureaucracy.
As for knowing religious affiliations, how do you define that? We all hold some type of world view which influences our decisions or behaviour, whether we are Humanist or Christian. Should we request everyone to state this on any government job application, so we can "vet" them for possible biases? People are individuals, and even within organized religions (i.e. Muslim) there are con

I would question whether religious social programs are as effective, or even moral (since they often come with some proselytizing), as government (or secular private) charities and programs. As for defining “religious affiliation” I think we have ample ways (since we fill out a census, although I do not advocate open access to people’s census or tax returns) to identify that; however, what I’m more concerned with is beliefs. It’s a subtle distinction, but what I was trying to get at was whether there are hidden and unquestionable motives operating behind any of our leaders. Our approach to policy should be based on evidence and reason, not faith and dogma.

These two are funny to me:

That has to be the most boring article I have ever read. What a waste of time and I would like to sue Ian for wasting valuable minutes from my life.

Is it just me or does Ian Bushfeild look like he could be Igantieff's son.

Then there’s pleas to tyranny of the (false) majority:

The writer of this article says : "McDonald credits evangelical Christians with rallying behind the Harper Conservatives, propelling him to victory" Umm I am not an evegelical Christian, but I did vote conservative. I voted for the best man for the job. It is clear that people wanted Stephen Harper in. Even if some of their reasons were based on his religious "views" so be it! That is democracy and that is what the people who voted want and/or believe in. This is a Christian Nation whether people like it or not and it shows in our desires for our country.

I thought this was a “multicultural” country. Originally it was a mosaic of many different aboriginal cultures (many of whom are fighting to keep that culture alive today), then imperialist Anglicans and Catholics arrived and fought it out, and now we have many different faiths and non-faiths. The appeal to democracy is also flawed since Harper’s Conservatives have never received >50% of the vote (they’ve at best gotten in the high 30%s, not an overwhelming majority by any definition) in a federal election (the last time a party got at least that was the PCs in 1984, and before that in 1958).

So, what is Mr. Bushfield’s hidden agenda? From now, on he should start his “objective”, “innocent’ commentaries with his own beliefs and religious convictions (theistic or other). Unless he does that, he has no ground to stand on.
He writes: “deeply held beliefs will not affect the policy positions once in power”. Hmmmm, other personal things also have effect on people’s decisions, many of them much deeper than religion. According to this brilliant idea, people should be questioned about whether they were abused as a child, whether their parents were alcoholic, whether they are materialistic or greedy, whether they cheat, what their sex life is like, just to name few things for starters.
What a profoundly inane idea!
As for his statistics about 1 in 4 Canadians not believing in God, it shows how accurate, trustworthy and/or reliable his comments are. And he is worried about other people’s hidden agendas? He should go and by a big mirror, and look into it first!

What’s with the scare-quotes? I didn’t suggest that I was being objective or innocent, and when it says I blog at “Canadian Atheist” I think we can figure out my own beliefs (if that’s not clear enough, I’m an atheistic secular humanist and naturalist). As for those other issues, my point was religion is a taboo subject while there’s few issues questioning past criminal or racist remarks (see any number of candidates that get dropped by the major parties each year). My agenda is quite clear and not hidden, I want to see a world where reason and evidence guide our actions, not dogma and blind faith.

Maybe Ian Bushfield should spend more time not in university and blogging and get out in the real world. He might realize there is a Christian left as well.

I know full well that the CCF and early NDP were guided by Christians and that Tommy Douglas was a pastor – it’s possible to be right (pun intended) for the wrong reasons.

Does everyone agree that Canada is a great country?
Then stop trying to change things.

Shit, I didn’t realize that we’d reached perfection and eliminated poverty, homelessness, and are no longer poisoning our environment. I guess I’ll just give up trying to make the world a better place.

Why all the attacks on people of faith? Each to his own. If you don't believe in God or creation that's your business, but mocking and putting down Christians or others who believe in God isn't very tolerant now is it...

It’s everyone’s business when you enter the public sphere and those beliefs affect policy – that’s the entire point of the article. If my government is run by people who think the world is going to end in their lifetimes, I can imagine they’d be a bit more careless in their foreign policy and environmental platform than those of us who realize that we’re responsible for this planet and ensuring that it’s worthy of our future generations.

Why do you feel that atheism or humanism has a greater 'right' to influance our politics? Are you and those of such persuasion greater than the creator? Sad state to be in Ian. I know for I once was blind myself and I thought I was seeing clearly. Remember this saying; God shows grace to the humble (before God)( by opening their eyes) but resist the proud (so that they remain in the dark) I sincerily hope you come to grasp this saying one day.

Harper shocked the nation with God bless Canada! Why ? As you said it yourself 1 in 4 believe in God. Much of this uproar comes from the atheist-left in Canada. Why do you think your way is better? Why should we move toward policy based on reason and not are judo/Christian roots? Only a concieded person would make such proposal.

Would it be conceited to point out spelling (and grammar, “1 in 4 believe”) mistakes? I would suggest my way is less bad since it’s amenable to new evidence, and it’s very easy to be of “persuasion greater” than a creator who doesn’t exist. Christianity in charge gave us the dark ages, reason gave us the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. Although I am tempted by returning to our “judo” roots.

I crack up when I hear atheists and agnostics yelling to keep religion out of politics. Their own post-modernist secular worldview is just as much a religion as any. The difference is so many of them don't have the knowledge or insight to understand that.
Policy based on "reason and evidence" is what the French revolutionaries promoted. However, the "Age of Reason" resulted in the Vendee, the Reign of Terror and ultimately Napoleon. God help us. The humanist atheists certainly won't.

I didn’t realize I’m a post-modernist. Nevertheless, it’s worth remembering that the cause of the French Revolution is generally attributed to the policies of the monarchs (who claimed their authority from God), which led to a secular overthrow. Unfortunately, years of austerity allowed (as is often the case) cruel power-mongers to rise. I don’t see how this commenter is suggesting that Robespierre was guiding by reason or evidence in his massacres, perhaps he might shine some evidence on that assertion (oh wait…).

Interesting that the rabid attacks here seem to be against Christians only. They are clearly arguments looking for a fight, not a discussion, and the intolerance shown in those postings shows how dangerous it would be for society if secularism was all that was allowed.

As opposed to Christianity’s tolerant track record?

Then there’s historical revisionism:

The truth to be said is every one has deeply held beliefs that affect their policy positions . Had Canadians known about Paul Matin hidden agenda I think he would have lost the election . Consider the poll of the time, 93% against samesex mariage yet Martin's humanist views were imposed! Why? Pure arrogance. Yes we were victim of his ideological 'reasoning'.

Maybe in 1911 were 93% against same-sex marriage, but a plurality has been in favour since roughly the mid 1990s. Further, Paul Martin is Catholic, not a Humanist. There are currently no openly atheist MPs in Ottawa, a point that I neglected to include in this article (wasn’t sure how to include it, but will likely write it up later).

And finally, one who gets it:

this article did not put down people of faith, what it did do was call on belief systems to be openly discussed. After all, we should see that an evangelical Christian or other fundementalist religion sees non believers as sinners going to hell. That is part of the operating system we should talk about.

Tl/dr: In a nutshell, internet comments (even the atheists) are generally a waste of time and intelligence.

Lying for Jesus

You may not have heard, but last week was proclaimed “Jesus Week” by the Christian student groups on campus. The week featured a variety of events for these evangelists to spread their faith.

On Wednesday they put together a panel of four SFU professors to explore questions about Jesus. Unfortunately, the panel was dominated by white Christian men, none of whom were theologians, religious studies professors, or even historians. To speak about religion and history, the best professors SFU’s Christian clubs could find were two mathematicians, an economist, and a political scientist affiliated with the right-wing Fraser Institute.

Yet, despite these lacklustre qualifications, the Christian ad-machine was in full force with posters displaying quotes by Katy Perry, Bono, Albert Einstein, and Richard Dawkins. Unfortunately, only half of these quotes were honestly chosen. While she gave up gospel singing to pursue stardom, both Katy Perry and Bono are at least nominally Christian and definitely theists. The same can’t be said for the other two spokespeople.

Einstein’s poster sports the quote: “No one can read the gospels without feeling the presences of Jesus. His personality pulsates with every word. No myth is filled with such life.” While a true quote, Einstein was merely conveying respect for the Christian myths. He later made his view very transparent, stating: “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Misquoting Einstein tends to be popular among Christians who desperately hope to add the credibility of an agnostic Jewish physicist to their arsenal, but as with any lie by omission, this is dishonest and un-Christian.

But the dishonesty goes deeper with their quote from Richard Dawkins, snipped from his satirical article “Atheists for Jesus” in which he stated, “[Jesus was] . . . a charismatic young preacher who advocated generous forgiveness, [he] must have seemed radical to the point of subversion. No wonder they nailed him,” which neglects the fact that the actual point of the article was to suggest that, were he alive today, Jesus would likely have been an atheist.

Buried on one of their many Facebook pages is the explanation that all quotes are chosen to show how Jesus’ teachings have reached and touched us all. Yet, when taken out of context and plastered across campus they appear as little more than desperate attempts to steal endorsements.

But wait, there’s more. Friday featured Kirk Durston, a recent PhD graduate of biophysics from the University of Guelph, attempting to rebut Stephen Hawking’s recent book The Grand Design. Hawking’s book argued in laymen terms how the universe could feasibly arise without God.

Never mind how disconnected modern cosmology and biophysics are: academic qualifications are apparently unnecessary during Jesus Week. Durston continues to argue that evolution is too complicated to happen and has previously suggested that genocide is just peachy if God Himself legitimately tells us to commit it. Someone who has failed to grasp the basics of evolution from first year biology thinks he knows better than the world’s preeminent astrophysicist? And here I was thinking Christians were supposed to be modest.

From the crosses that adorn the relic SFU crest, to Christmas and Easter vacations, Christianity is deep-rooted in our culture. I really have to question whether last week was at all successful at making even one person aware of Jesus who had never heard of him before February 14.

It’s generated two responses so far: David Minor’s Jesus is not a four letter word [7 March] and Kristen Soo’s Jesus’ message can be for anybody [14 March]. Also, it got the following responses in the “Reader Comments” (aka letters section)

Ian Bushfield’s opinion piece ‘Lying for Jesus’ is one of those bizarre ramblings reminiscent of Gadahfi’s recent speeches.

Bushfield presents himself as a champion of truth, yet writes an article replete with misrepresentations and sketchy half-truths.

He did not attend my lecture on Hawking’s and Mlodinow’s Grand Design. Instead, he made up an absurd report, throwing in words like ‘evolution’ and ‘genocide’ that had no association with the lecture.

It appears the ‘genocide’ comment was obtained from a gross misrepresentation originating out of an atheist blog a few years ago, which Bushfield seems to have uncritically swallowed as gospel to spice up his rather dodgy article. The actual lecture presented last week reviewed some of the major ideas advanced by Hawking and Mlodinow in their recent book Grand Design.

- Kirk Durston

And:

Taken out of context, the Einstein quote does make it sound as if he believed the gospels to be true. It is misleading.

You claim “everything [most SFU students] have heard [of Jesus] is cast in a negative light”, despite that mainstream media and North American society as a whole are still pretty Christian-friendly.

Growing up in Canada, I certainly heard more good things about Christianity than bad, and I bet it was the same for most SFU students. University is one of the few settings in which people freely but intelligently discuss and criticize Christianity, and Bushfield’s concerns over the methods used to convey Jesus Week messages are a legitimate part of such discussions.

If Jesus week really were an honest “invitation to dialogue”, perhaps its supporters shouldn’t rush to accuse students of being part of some evil Christianity-bashing movement when they speak up.

- Monica W.

I can’t promise how much more I’ll post here, since I like the communal, grassroots nature of this new project, and it' pays off with more page hits than my own site. I also have my personal blog, which covers more mundane aspects of my life which leaves little space for this site, although I may still do the occasional overtly partisan rant here.

So check out the new site, it has a lot of great writers, and I have a series of posts coming up on the intersection of politics and atheism in anticipation of the VanSecular Party meeting on Tuesday.

There was a total of 146 entrants, of which the 135th scheduled entry was the BC Humanist Association. With the BCHA marched the SFU Skeptics and CFI Vancouver.

I had previously marched in the 2008 and 2009 Edmonton Pride Parades with the Society of Edmonton Atheists and they marched again this year with a great FSM sculpture (write up and photos). Our first year there was a bit tame, but we had a table and showed some spirit. It looks like they’ve gotten really good at parades since then.

I’m proud to say that yesterday’s turnout was fantastic. We had almost 20 people out, facepaint, banners and lots of dancing. We unfortunately weren’t quite organized early enough to get a table (I brought this idea to the BCHA in early June and the entry deadline was June 30).

(video and photos below fold)

There’s a few good write-ups already out there at Crommunist Manifesto and Intellectual Waste, and Crommunist has a video online (forgive the shaky hands since its hard to film while dancing):

And now for some photos:

(Photo credit: Glenn Hardie)

And our biggest fan (photo credit Crommunist):

About once a year some pious public library banishes Huck Finn from its children’s department, and on the same plea always—that Huck, the neglected and untaught son of a town drunkard, is given to lying, when in difficulty and hard pressed, and is therefore a bad example for young people, and a damager of their morals.

Two or three years ago I was near by when one of these banishments was decreed and advertised, and I went over and asked the librarian about it, and he said yes, Huck was banished for lying. I asked,

“Is there nothing else against him?”

“No, I think not.”

“Do you banish all books that are likely to defile young morals, or do you stop with Huck?”

“We do not discriminate; we banish all that are hurtful to young morals.”

I picked up a book, and said—

“I see several copies of this book lying around. Are the young forbidden to read it?”

“The Bible? Of course not.”

…

I can’t wait to do this with the book club (although in the end it will be 3 volumes and half-a-million words).

After I’ve hopefully identified my chief concern, hypothesis about the issue and presented the first steps to rectifying the issue by building positive-action centred communities (in addition to and not in replacement of the existing organizations), I want to turn my attention to one more concern that should be addressed. This final concern is about diversity.

Hemant Mehta posted a very illuminating picture a few days ago from a Skeptics Conference in 2006.

He asked if we could notice anything “manly or white” about it…

Of course the diversity question is slowly being addressed and people are more willing to talk about it now, but that doesn’t mean our work is done.

Doing the same things and expecting different results is Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity, so it’s well worth recognizing that to appeal to a greater demographic, our events are going to have to be more appealing than to just our current members – predominantly 18-35 year old white males, which, coincidentally, appeals primarily to other 18-35 year old white males.

While finding positive activities to focus on should help, I think we can be even more successful if we work on finding niches that need to be filled.

I’m not claiming my ideals are novel or that none of this is being undertaken. CFI Vancouver is launching a book club under my fiancée and my coordination next month, and the Saskatoon Freethinkers have been pioneering secular parenting in Canada with a Secular Parenting meetup and a Freethinker Family summer camp.

Not every event needs to be about debunking woo or bashing religion or drinking in the pub. We need events for mothers, fathers, singles, women, and children.

Heck, even just having a secular equivalent to Sunday School would allow many parents to come to events who wouldn’t otherwise make it.

These things aren’t hard to do (first-aid training and child care licensing are not difficult to obtain) but are just not always in the minds of people who mainly plan events to fit what they would want to do (something I’ve been guilty of too). On the basis of the increased membership alone, it’s worth at least trying to diversify our appeal.

So far I’ve discussed the issue of non-active atheists and how the cynical skeptics and their tone may keep them from joining and being active in our organizations. Today, I hope to outline some constructive ideas for starting to build these communities.

The benefits of community building that result from collectively bashing religion are not limited to negative activities. It is very possible, and in fact relatively easy to build a community on positive and constructive discussions. There’s a few ways to build such a community, and I think each of them can help a group break out of a funk of deconstructive cynicism.

A great example is that of the Students for Freethought (notice their relatively kick-ass website) at Ohio State University. For two years in a row, their group has paired with a campus Christian group and travelled to New Orleans to help with the ongoing reconstruction efforts since Hurricane Katrina. While not every group needs to pair with Christians, the positive emphasis on charity work and (literal) community building is something I think every secular group out there should emulate.

I also appreciate non-religious groups that participate and support local Pride Parades (Edmonton, Toronto, Vancouver, etc.). It’s great to defend our own community, but the true nobility comes from the solidarity we can show to other minorities who’ve been victim to relentless religious discrimination.

One final thing that I think is of vital importance to establish in BC is a humanist officiant program, mirroring the successful programs in Ontario and several states. These officiants provide guidance and oversee major life events which don’t cease to happen when one leaves their faith. Marriages, deaths and even birth (or naming) ceremonies are already in a large demand for people who don’t want a church service but don’t find a civil / government ceremony to be meaningful enough for them. These ceremonies are a great chance to show how we can use humanism to build communities of like-minded individuals.

Of course there are many, many more ideas and opportunities out there, which all take money and volunteers. The lucky thing is the more services we start to offer and the more people who start to attend and take ownership over the community, the more resources that we will have available.

I’ve hopefully introduced my main concern in the discussion of the non-active atheists and cynical skeptics and how I think we as a community need to find ways to make them feel more welcome in our groups. Today I want to try to discuss one of the major roadblocks for the non-active atheists for them getting involved in existing groups.

I think the issue is not our overall message. There is a documented, large support base for secular groups in Canada, and especially in BC. The idea of limiting religious influence on government and society is generally popular here, and science still commands a reasonable amount of respect.

The issue that I think is keeping many from joining communities is a matter of communication and appearance.

To put it bluntly, the atheist community (science departments as well) suffers from a bloat of members with varying social deficiencies. We have a number of charismatic speakers (James Randi, Phil Plait) but at the local level, a number of people either forget or do not realize that many people are not won over by a mere resuscitation of facts and logical arguments.

What separates Phil Plait from an IRL internet troll is not an ability to create and use logical arguments, but the skill at which they are applied to discussions with other human beings. Being a douche bag may be very self-satisfying, but when a group is fighting for a broader social change, lacking the ability to actually interact with people is something that just needs to be accepted.

Hell, it’s even scientifically wrong to think that throwing facts at someone will change their mind. People get entrenched in their position and will defend it, no matter how irrational.

Tone matters

Don’t get my message wrong. I support the New Atheist approach to demonstrating that it’s okay to challenge the taboo of belief, but there is definitely a time and place for everything.

An organization that wants to be taken seriously as a community beyond belief needs to conduct itself differently than the members within it. If I want to make fun of religion and be a dick, that’s just fine, but I think larger groups need to be aware of what their audience is.

If we only want to appeal to hardcore, angry, stereotypical atheists, then attacking religion is just fine. But I think if our goal is to attract a larger audience, we need to tread lightly.

Perhaps it means that angry atheist groups and compassionate humanists groups would be more successful apart, but I think until our (active) numbers are much larger, fragmentation represents a reduction in the resources available to any one group.