Terahertz

Last week a story broke from Nova Scotia that a high school student was suspended for wearing a t-shirt that said “Life is wasted without Jesus”.

The story went that the student wore the same shirt several days in a row (let’s assume he washed it or had multiple ones and wasn’t suspended for stinking up the place) and was suspended when he refused to obey a demand by the school’s principal that he no longer wear the shirt.

Quick to stand up for free speech and religious freedom, Centre for Inquiry Canada released a press release condemning the school.

"While CFI sponsored the Atheist Bus Campaign, we are a strong champion of freedom of speech and freedom of religion," said National Communications Director Justin Trottier. "This shirt causes no harm and is a perfectly acceptable contribution to the marketplace of ideas."

I could point out again how CFI did not sponsor the Atheist Bus Campaign (except in Kelowna) – the Freethought Association of Canada did – but that’s not my point here.

With any sensational news story, I think we all ought to put our skeptic hats and try to figure out what is really going on before we rush to comment. And in this case, it turns out there’s quite a bit more there.

Students said William Swinimer has been preaching and making them feel uncomfortable, and the shirt was the last straw so they complained.

"He’s told kids they’ll burn in hell if they don’t confess themselves to Jesus," student Riley Gibb-Smith said.

Katelyn Hiltz, student council vice-president, agreed the controversy didn’t begin with the T-shirt.

"It started with him preaching his religion to kids and then telling them to go to hell. A lot of kids don’t want to deal with this anymore," she said.

Furthermore, the students father has begun pulling William from any class beyond the basics.

"He will not attend this school unless they are having reading, writing and arithmetic — good old-fashioned academics," he said, waving a New Testament bible. "When they’re having forums, when they’re having other extra-curricular activity, he will not attend that school."

I guess that means no evolution, sex-ed, or critical thinking for poor William.

This background doesn’t change the fact that suspended a student for wearing a t-shirt is wrong, but it does give the context of why such a seemingly disproportionate measure was taken. The school was fed up with an obnoxious Jesus freak shoving his religion down everyone’s throats. The school administrators have a duty to ensure that all students feel welcome and safe at the school and are able to learn, if one student is compromising that security, then they’re bound to find a way to deal with it.

If anyone else had worn that t-shirt, they would have been fine, but couple it to a continued campaign of disruptions, and I can understand and potentially support the school’s actions.

Of course, we likely still don’t have a complete story. We don’t know the extent that William pushed his religion on others and we don’t know how many people complained about it. We likely never will.

But this is precisely why organizations that want to maintain some semblance of credibility on these issues ought to hesitate before crying wolf. It’s nice to be the first to comment, but without the full context, one can come off as ignorant and closed-minded.

Friendly Atheist and high school math teach Hemant Mehta was also generally supportive of the suspension.

I haven’t really written about Justin Trottier or CFI Canada since last December, so perhaps it’s a good time to do a “Where are they now” post.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have a huge 3000+ word post over at Canadian Atheist on drama at CFI Canada. If you dislike the messy underbelly of egos and in-group politics, take a pass.

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.

In December I’m going to be doing a sermon for a Unitarian Church in Surrey on Humanism as part of their interfaith series. In preparation for that, I agreed to do a Cafe Inquiry for CFI Vancouver on Humanism.

Realizing that we all (generally) agree that humanism is good, I decided to mix it up a bit and my topic is now more focussed on the continuing spat between Greg Epstein and PZ Myers. Here’s the abstract I threw together this afternoon.

Humanism and Interfaith

Humanism can be described as atheism with a heart. Yet some New Atheists and Humanists have sparred recently over a number of issues. Some of these key issues are how we structure of our communities; the legitimacy of humanist chaplains; and whether secularists should engage in interfaith dialogues with the religious. Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, calls humanism a faith in his 2009 bestseller Good Without God. He has recently announced plans for a new book to serve as a how-to manual to establish groups similar to his Harvard community. On the other side of the debate, many atheists recoil in disgust at terms like interfaith and chaplains. They argue that the unquestionable hierarchy of religion is antithetical to free inquiry. Such structures are to be demolished, not simply rebranded. Amidst the debates on Twitter and the blogosphere, humanist communities are thriving in cities and on campuses around the world. Progressive theists are also actively starting to seek out humanist representatives for interfaith panels.

In this discussion, I will attempt to weave our way through the arguments and concerns raised by both camps. What does a humanist community look like? Are humanists trying to create church for the unchurched? Is there a need for humanist chaplains and officiants? Is humanism a faith? And can, or should, atheists participate in interfaith events?

Some related reading and viewing:

Do Atheists Belong in the Interfaith Movement? Christ Stedman, 15 June 2011

Transfaith, The New Atheist Interfaith, Ed Clint – Secular Student Alliance, 18 August 2011

Nonbelievers striving for humanist connection, Boston Globe, 17 October 2011

Atheist church? NO THANK YOU. Pharyngula, 17 October 2011

Just don’t call it church then, Canadian Atheist, 17 October 2011

A Successful Humanist Community in Boston, Friendly Atheist, 18 October 2011

Just call me a Quaker, I guess, Pharyngula, 18 October 2011

What #HumanistComunity? Pharyngula, 19 October 2011

#HumanistCommunity, Twitter, ongoing

The event is scheduled for Saturday, November 19th at 11:00 am at SFU Harbour Centre and there should be coffee and donuts.

I haven’t written the talk yet (that has to wait for the 18th of course), so I’m open to any and all suggestions.

And I’ll post something about the Unitarian event closer to that date.

I don’t usually cross-post with Canadian Atheist, but I think this is an important, and ambitious campaign.

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.

Yesterday was the 2010 Vancouver Pride Parade.

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)

Read the rest of this entry »

A small crowd of about 8 people showed up for the CFI Vancouver volunteer meeting that was held this morning, but a lot of great ideas and plans were generated.

A few key committees and positions were formed, including my new role as secretary (which now has me taking minutes at both BCHA and CFI now).

There’s some great speakers coming up including PZ Myers, Christopher diCarlo and Harriet Hall.

Further, Sonia and I will be launching our freethinker book club on August 14th at The Grind Cafe on Main St. We’ll be discussing Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s first book Infidel, so grab a copy from a bookstore or the library soon. We’ll follow this up with Nomad in the future, but Physics of Star Trek (spare copies available through CFI Vancouver) will likely be for September and potentially The Armageddon Factor in October leading up to a potential talk by author and journalist Marci McDonald.

Things are definitely looking promising.

Coming up this Saturday I’ve offered to moderate a CFI Cafe Inquiry at Harbour Centre on the topic of whether or not religious symbols in public matter.

I’m going to use this post to get my thoughts in order for Saturday, so if you don’t want a spoiler, don’t read the following until after.

This topic is especially topical for myself as this morning I got a call from one of the Wardens from the Corporation of the Seven Wardens – the group that oversees the Iron Ring Ceremony.

First some history. The Iron Ring is a ceremony dating to 1922 for engineering graduates in Canada that symbolizes their commitment to upholding the high standards required of their profession (as in we want bridges that don’t fall down). The process to obtain a ring (upon successful graduation) begins with signing an obligation which features the following lines:

…I will henceforth, not suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an Engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

…Upon Honour and Cold Iron, God helping me, by these things I propose to abide. [emphasis mine]

In the spring of 2009, I requested the option to strike the words “God helping me” from the obligation. When my request was turned down, I walked away from the Iron Ring. I soon typed a letter about the ceremony and forwarded it to the Corporation and various engineering bodies (including the UofA Engineering Faculty of Engineering who promotes the Iron Ring and provides space for sizings and APEGGA – Alberta’s engineering professional association). The letter made the rounds and the Corporation discussed it at a meeting last October but then I didn’t hear any more from them.

Then this morning, I got an update. The delay was no one’s fault (a medical issue), but I did get some good information. The Warden admitted that adjustments have been made to the obligation in the past (about a decade ago), mostly to respect women in engineering by moving to gender-neutral terminology. And while it didn’t sound like change was planned, the issue will be discussed at their upcoming plenary meeting.

He also stated that the only other time it has really been brought up was when a pair of Muslims objected. Their complaint was withdrawn when they agreed to interpret the God of the obligation (likely Kipling’s Freemason deistic God) as Allah.

I guess the only reason I was privy to a return call after these months was how impressed the Wardens were with my letter and approach to the situation. I guess there is still something to be said for a rational, well-worded letter in some instances.

So, getting back to the topic at hand, why does this symbol, and ones like it, matter? And, perhaps more importantly, is this something that atheists should get up in arms (note: “fundamentalist” atheists are prone to write books when they’re angry, as opposed to some other worldviews) about?

Obviously, given my history, my answer is yes.

My general response is that the invocation of religious language actively alienates a portion of the population. This portion is as high as 1-in-3 among young-adult Canadians (those who would be convocating or earning Iron Rings).

Events like convocation from a university degree, singing the national anthem, or earning an Iron Ring are cultural rituals. The point of these rituals is to unite people and develop a sense of community. While using religious language can strengthen that connection between theists, it prompts reactions from rolling eyes to righteous indignation in non-theists.

Another issue I noticed while attending my fiancées recent convocation, as the Chancellor used her opening invocation to give a little prayer to “our Creator” (perhaps to spite His reduced role later in the ceremony), was that religious language devalues the effort and hard-work of the people who have earned their degrees, rings, or founded this nation. By focussing on the supernatural, we neglect the natural.

I understand that we are supposed to feel humbled by the good graces that are bestowed upon us from up high (whether it be God, the universe, or even just our elders), but in ceremonies that are meant to honour achievements, shouldn’t the focus be on those who have made the achievements?

Some will want to share their moment, and recognizing friends, family, and other support networks, and that’s fine – but it’s worth recognizing that not everyone has the same networks. Some are religious, other are not. By presuming the religiosity of the audience and attendees, those in charge of the ceremony belittling the accomplishments of those who aren’t religious.

Now, what about atheists who just aren’t bothered by God in ceremonies and speeches? The live-and-let-live apatheist type.

For them, at very least, parts of the ceremony or anthem are of little to no value to them – and are therefore a waste of time to repeat.

But more importantly, it’s worth recognizing that members of the Religious Right utilize religious language in public ceremonies as an argument for more public pronouncements of faith, or for scripturally-inspired laws.

Should Canada ban abortions? It says God in the anthem and charter, so Canada must be a Christian Nation, which ought to follow Christian laws.

Finally, on a purely strategic note, going after these symbols nearly always gets press attention, and if utilized properly, can be very positive for a group. The media still loves the God debate and atheists fighting to kill God gets attention. The UofA’s convocation charge received national media coverage both when it was initially brought up, and when the changes were finally approved (convocating last, I chose not to release a statement as I crossed the stage).

With all of that said, I think there are a lot of challenges out there for secularists and atheists. We each have interests and cares, and many campaigns only take a few people (but showing your support for such movements helps) to at least bring attention to the offending language. I can understand the desire not to take on some long established symbols, but in other cases, like the Iron Ring, I could not sign the obligation without violating the very intent of the document.

Symbols are important, but only so long as they are still applicable to the communities they represent. Values progress and change, and our ceremonies and rituals ought to reflect that progression.

Apparently the easiest way to get out of a parking ticket in Toronto now is to claim you were with a religious group at a worship service.

I guess the best way to see if this law is truly discriminatory or not is for humanists meeting at the Centre For Inquiry Ontario (just blocks from the University of Toronto campus) is to try to get parking exemptions.

Parking fines either apply universally (people can walk/ride/transit to church) or they don’t apply to anyone.

What’s the point of a law if you just give exemptions left, right and centre?

(h/t Friendly Atheist)

I had an idea today. Like most ideas, it’s not original, and builds a lot on work that others have done, but it’s one that hasn’t been applied within the freethought movement yet, to my knowledge (at least in Canada).

The idea is, as I’ve now learned, based off the growing social enterprise movement which seeks to have companies run for financial, social and environmental gain – the triple bottom line. In many cases the corporation is actually a non-profit or charitable organization which runs a business to fund its work and expansion. A highly successful model of this sort of idea is the Salvation Army’s Thrift Stores which finance much of their missionary and religious work.

So the idea that I had today was sparked by a desire within the Vancouver skeptical/freethought community to have a place of our own, that is a venue where we can routinely host out discussions, meetings and set up an office or two.

Currently CFI Vancouver meets sporadically in cheap or free spaces that are provided by campus groups or rented at reduced rates (through its charitable status) and the BC Humanist Association meets weekly at the Oakridge Senior’s Centre through a deal they have there.

CFI is committed to seeing something more permanent in the next few years be established and while the Senior’s Centre is a great venue for the BCHA, there is the justified concern both inside and outside the organization that the word “senior” in the venue’s name is a deterrent.

So the idea I had was that these organizations ought to found a coffee shop/cafe, which during regular hours can be open to the public for coffee, cookies, and what-have you, with an extra influence of humanism and skepticism present (such as a resource library for the curious and some science-inspired artwork or something). Then, during evenings, weekends, or whenever it is needed, the shop can close up, move the tables aside (or not) and serve as a meeting venue for the invested groups.

There’s a few bonuses in this format. First, the coffee shop serves as an advertisement and fundraiser for the associated charities. Second, the venue would accommodate the majority of the events being held (the larger lectures and debates will always require large campus lecture halls), and would have coffee and snacks available, and could even be potentially licensed.

The drawbacks are the large initial investment required (likely a few $100,000 which none of these organizations have), and the requirement that someone will actually have to manage the business end of things.

However, with a strong business plan and the right people, it should be possible to raise the requisite funds via government grants, personal donations, and loans if necessary.

It’s also worth noting that under Vancouver’s basic commercial zoning laws [pdf], most of these types of spaces can be used for the categories of cultural and recreational (including clubs and community centres), institutional (schools), offices, retail and services. So there should be no difficulty with this portion.

Now, who has some entrepreneurial experience and wants to get this started?