Promoting Life Without Religion is Disrespectful & Intolerant
This appears to be what's happening in Canada where a student freethought group has been denied official recognition. Even though it's a public rather than a private, religious institution, the university has concluded that one of the group's goals — to promote "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition" — is incompatible with the ideas of tolerance and respect.
Anatoly Venevcev, vice-president of the student group "Laurier Freethought Alliance," writes about how the group was rejected for official recognition:
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. [emphasis added]
Anatoly's reaction to this was "So because we don't base our worldviews on dogma and wish to promote that ideal we are intolerant while the Muslim, Jewish, Sikh, and Christian (including the Campus for Christ group) can? That is quite absurd" He's right — it is absurd. How can anyone claim that there is a lack of respect and tolerance for the views of others in saying "you can live a fulfilling life without superstition and religion" but not in saying "you can live a fulfilling life without your false religions" — which is essentially what the message of evangelistic groups is?
This story has, naturally, gotten a lot of attention from lots of different atheist bloggers, all expressing the obvious outrage at how ridiculous the administration of Wilfrid Laurier University is. I don't disagree with any of their comments or criticism, but I would like to add something which I don't think I've seen addressed: what if the administration is completely sincere in its perspective?
It is possible, of course, that they are simply misreading the group's mission statement. Maybe they read "promote ...a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief" as a call to harass believers (as if religious evangelists aren't already annoying) and burn churches. That seems a stretch, though, and I believe it's reasonable to think that the administration read the mission statement correctly, understood just what it meant, and sincerely thinks that it is indeed disrespectful and intolerant to promote that idea that people don't really need religion to live fulfilling lives.
That is absurd, as everyone has pointed out, but simply saying that it's absurd doesn't get us very far. First, I'd like to understand more about the psychology of a person who thinks it is disrespectful and intolerant for secular atheists to tell people it's OK not to believe in gods or have a religion, but at the same time doesn't think it is disrespectful or intolerant for Christians to tell people that their religion is false and Christianity is the only valid, legitimate, or true religion. What sort of anti-atheist and anti-secular assumptions are necessary in order for such a perspective to develop?
Second, I'd like to learn more about how these anti-atheist and anti-secular attitudes are expressed. I can't believe that the only time they have any influence is when a freethought group applies for official recognition. Such attitudes surely come into play when evaluating the status of nonbelievers in society, when considering the arguments in atheist books, and perhaps even when dealing with atheists personally. If that's so, I really worry about how atheists are treated at this university — if I were there, I don't think I'd be able to trust them to treat me with the same dignity and respect as they treat theists?
Finally, I'd like to know what it would take to get people like this to realize not only how absurd their position is, but how fundamentally bigoted it is. What would get them to realize that if they said the same thing about a Jewish group, they would quickly and rightly be called anti-Semites? What would it take for such people to pull their heads out of the ground and treat secular atheists like they treat religious theists?
Comments
Ah,come on Austin. Every officially atheistic government has been a bloody totalitarian dictarship.
In Red Chine, which has pretty effectively imposed atheism on the Tibetans to destroy their cultural identity (Amnesty International, so don’t tell me its propanda) they are persecuting Christians, using prisoners for labor and body parts.
I see no atheist superiority.
In fact, the contrary.
Who ya kiddin?
Can you name one that was only “officially atheistic” and nothing more? No? Well, then, you don’t have an argument — unless you can attribute the totalitarian dictatorship to the “atheistic” part rather than the “more” part. Can you? No, you can’t.
Red…. as in communist. Are you going to try to argue that the problems with China are due to atheism and not communism? Go ahead and try.
That’s because you are looking in the wrong place. Is that deliberate? Atheism isn’t a theory of government, it’s the absence of belief in gods. Atheism is superior only insofar as it’s unreasonable to believe in gods. If you want to see atheist superior, just pay attention to the fact that there’s no good reason to believe in any gods.
I should ask that of you, given how you posted a comment unrelated to the article in question. Was it the case that you simply had nothing relevant to say, so decided instead to just make up nonsense? “Kansas City Anti Atheists” isn’t even a real group, is it? Curious that you would post such poorly-reasoned assertions without being willing to put a real name to them.
Kansas City Anti Atheists. I believe that if the truth were known, we would discover that most of our congressmen and senators are atheist.
(Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” (Seneca the Younger, 5 BC - 65 AD)
FYI to Ron, It’s 5 BCE (before the common era and 65 CE (common era).
Why do the religious assume communism and atheism are always the same? Certainly one can be an atheist and communist but atheism is not required for communism. Communism bears striking similarities to religion only its the state instead of god in control, another form of authoritarianism.
Since the former USSR is used as an example of “atheistic government” by theists, it is true that Stalin was an atheist who was in charge of a communist bloc. However, his motivations did not derive from atheism but his political ambition to acquire power over others. He shared a typical trait of all dictators who when gaining power use whatever means necessary (i.e. secret police) to eliminate any opposition who could threaten their power base.
So what if they were also communist?
The people who committed these mass murders were atheists, weren’t they?
Communism does not have to be atheistic, it was BECAUSE of their atheism that they hated all religious expresson. Lenin and Trotsky were quite plain about that; they could have been communists and not atheists at all. (There are powerful Christian Socialist parties in Europe.)
For hundreds of examples of Christians being murdered by atheists because the atheists hated them for their beliefs, take a look at the GULAG ARCHIPELAGO by Solzhenitsyn.
And the more recent example I gave was of RED China using ATHEISM specifcially…not COMMUNISM…as a means of destroying the cultural identity of the Tibetans.
Quit pretending like you have some position of moral superiority.
To do so would actually give you more credibility.
Ron, can you give me some evidence for your claim?
You don’t want me to take it on “faith” do you? Bahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!
You don’t seem to comprehend the importance of the question of the reasons for their actions.
I expect they also bathed regularly. Is that relevant, or not?
OK, prove it — prove that it was because of their atheism and not something else.
Given that atheism is merely disbelief in gods and thus makes no philosophical, ideological, religious, or moral claims, I suggest that your task is impossible. However, until you come to terms with that and retract your claim, you’re obligated to try.
When did I do that? I might suggest, though, that having enough confidence in my views to put my name to them is a step or two above using fake identities.
I did not make a claim. I simply voiced an opinion which I BELIEVE is close to the truth. If some wants to produce evidence that this is a wrong opinion, I am prepared to be enlightened.
Gee…Red China is simply stating they are communists which the “Red” references their own social revolution. The Soviet Union did help China in achieving a communist government by supplying arms and other forms of aid.
Stop attempting to associate atheism with mass murder when the underlying reasons are political or social though largely political. Atheism is not a ideological, political, social system merely a lack of belief in gods as Austin states. It can be easily pointed that Christians have murdered large groups women during the witch hunts of the Middle Ages, or killed Muslims during the Crusades because they thought the Holy Land shouldn’t be in the hands of heathens though obtaining the resources in the Middle East was certainly a motivating factor.
Pompus? Was he a Roman general?
I think it’s the singular of “Pompeii”. Maybe Stephen thinks we’re all Italians who are going to be buried in lava?
Stephen
I have a question for you. Who do you think has healed the greater number of people? Jesus Christ? Or, Benny Hinn?
Benny Hill? I thought he cured people with laughter? Isn’t there a saying about laughter being the best medicine?
Benny HINN!
I don’t think that anyone who is forced or fooled into adopting any beliefs can be said to be much of anything - except unlucky, obedient, or lazy.
I recall a comment made by the Ayatullah Khomenei. He claimed that Communism was just Christianity stripped of God.
This might have been a big misunderstanding by both parties, here is an article from the Kitchener Waterloo Record explaining.
http://news.therecord.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/305774
Did everyone forget the original post? We as free-thinkers need to resist being drawn into illogical and unproductive banter with emotionally and psychologically unstable individuals whose only motive is to instigate! UPDATE!! Laurier University changed it’s constitution and has accepted the “Freethought Alliance” club! Bravo!! congratulations to Anatoly!! Keep up the good work!!
There is a very simple reason that communist governments have chosen to be atheist. They want to keep complete power within themselves, and do not want to share any power with a religious group (e.g., the Catholic Church, or the local priest). They want to be the only ones controlling the flow of information to individuals, and so one of the necessities in this is to stamp out any religious structure which may upend the communist power structure. Hence forced atheism. It has nothing to do with any inherent properties of atheism, but rather the fact that religions tend to be more political than spiritual.