Dear Members,

As you are no doubt aware my term as Interim National Executive Director is quickly coming to a close. While it has been an honour and a pleasure to serve in this position, it is also the time to begin seeking my successor. Please distribute this newsletter as widely as possible to all those who would be interested in taking up this position.

Transparently Yours,

Michael Payton

—————————————————————————————————————–

Responsible to:

Board of Directors

Summary of primary job functions

The National Executive Director is responsible for establishing and executing major goals and objectives for the organization. Implements policies established by the board of directors. Provides leadership, direction, and guidance in CFI-Canada’s activities to volunteers and branches. Analyzes and evaluates the effectiveness of all organization operations. Develops and maintains organizational structure and effective personnel. Coordinates major activities through subordinates and appraises assigned personnel. Represents the Organization to regulatory bodies, community and civic organizations, donors, volunteers and supporters, and the general public.

Duties and responsibilities

General

• Executes board-approved policies

• Directs and oversees short and long term strategic plans

• Attends Board Meetings and prepares reports on financial and resource management of the organization

• Provides leadership to organization personnel and volunteers through effective objective setting, delegation, and communication

• Is ultimately responsible for financial performance of the organization

• Oversees hiring of staff. Hiring subject to board approval.

• Conducts branch leader meetings to disseminate pertinent information

• Ensures that appropriate salary and wage structures are maintained

• Delegates authority and responsibility to branch leaders

• Oversees the preparation of office procedure manuals, outlining specific duties and area responsibilities

• Ensures that job descriptions are current

• Conducts performance appraisals as required

• Formulates and implements corrective action as needed

• Develops and implements programs, policies, and goals that further strategic objectives

Administration

• Ensures administrative staff and volunteers remain current to organization business and Board directives/approvals that affect their functions and areas of responsibility

• Works with the Board of Directors on governance policy issues by providing support and by initiating approved recommendations or actions

• Ensures compliance to minimum standards in accordance with all government legislation, regulations and guidelines pertinent to the organization’s role as an employer and non-profit agency

• Recommends to the Board changes to policies and procedures that would improve the organization

• Maintains an effective and cost efficient office environment

• Develops, maintains, and up-dates job descriptions pertinent to the organization

• Determines staff training and/or equipment needs of clerical and administrative employees, taking into account annual budget allocations

• Submits all information, reports and records as requested or required by law to appropriate government officials or the board of directors

• Develops and implements operational plans, policies, and goals that further strategic objectives

Financial

• Maintains full awareness of the complete financial, statistical, and accounting records of the organization

• Ensures that operating results established in the annual budget are achieved and the control of operating expenses within budget

• Ensures the accuracy, integrity, and timeliness of all financial accounting and reporting • Signatory to all checks for the national and local offices

• Ensures the preparation of the annual budget for board approval

•Oversees record keeping and collection of records from branch leaders

• Ensures that branch leaders are aware of and compliant with financial reporting standards

• Prepares financial reports regularly for Board of Directors • In conjunction with the accountant, oversees the annual government filings.

Qualifications

• Experience in non profit administration.

• Familiarity in and experience with the Secular/Skeptical movement.

• Experience in volunteer management.

• Experience in strategic planning, marketing, and financial management in the nonprofit sector

• Basic Microsoft Office Skills including Word, Excel and Powerpoint Experience using and maintaining SQL databases (eg. MySQL) or similar technology

• Knowledge of basic accounting standards and quickbooks

• Knowledge of personnel tracking software such as MS Access

• Knowledge of Volunteer Management and experience in Donor Relations and Fundraising

• Experience in Project Management

• Working Knowledge of Online Marketing, including Youtube, Analytics and Social Media

TO APPLY

Please send all applications (cover letter+resume) to mpayton@cficanada.ca.

In a document released Sunday, the pastoral planning committee said the declining number of priests, church attendance and financial support, as well as increases in the cost of operating and upgrading aging structures, have forced the diocese to do something.

The fact that the number of priests, church attendance and financial support are declining is good news, and Robert Morley, the writer of this letter to the editor, agrees:

Perhaps part of the reason local churches are closing is that people are beginning to realize that the underpinnings of these edifices are based on falsehoods, myths and fairy tales, if you will.

Today ever-increasing numbers of people are at least exploring in earnest the doctrines and foundations of these various faiths that respectively ask us to suspend any objective analysis of fact and to instead place blind obedience in the belief that this vast universe was created by a being who supposedly knows our every thought and has ordained a divine plan for all of our actions.

Of course, there are those, like John Lyons, who disagree and want to make the broader argument: “All evil isn’t found in churches.” However, Robert Morley is not addressing evil; he is attacking the “falsehoods, myths and fairy tales” that are “the underpinnings” of churches:

Were these churches merely left solely for benign pursuits — such as suppers, festivals, concerts, and places for people to share celebration, grief, education and recreation — they would likely be better populated.

But when church leaders also insist on perpetuating myth as fact, exercising unjustifiable power over the weak and children, and telling all of us how to live with a retinue of ridiculous man-made rules dressed up to appear as divine direction, we should empty their pews and shed their authority as fast as would a mighty river flow down a mountainside. (My emphasis)

Now, I’m generally against eating the flesh of other human beings, mostly because there are so few volunteers… but also, given my own reluctance to be eaten, it seems like a good place to draw the line. From a strictly rational perspective, one source of sustenance is as good as another, but society needs rules, and I think many people would see eating any human flesh as either repugnant, largely due to cultural norms, or at least wrong due to that slippery slope… to carnage.

If we were starving in a life boat, and I died, eat me.

If we were starving in a life boat, and you died, I’m probably gonna eat you. Permission or not.

If we were starving in a life boat, and you were near death… hmmm …would I hasten your departure into the void? Well, that’s one of those questions I think can only be answered in a lifeboat.

Being in a lifeboat is important here, because when its just you, or you and me, we’re not really bound by the ‘what’s best for society in the long run’ talk, and we can get down to what we would do… without such constraints.

There are of course other ethical arguments… does respect for human dignity includes dead bodies? Most people won’t even send their pets to the landfill… let alone granny. That said, I can’t honestly care about what is done with my own corpse, apart from thinking it would be good if some nice doctor cut it up and used the pieces in a transplant.

Having said all that, I do live in a society where you have to treat corpses with respect. And although I can understand it on a emotional level, it still seems somewhat strange. We are social animals, societal norms are important, and even living in a democracy, we don’t always get to decide what those norms are. I’m a proud canadian citizen, but I don’t agree with every law, nor do I view my passport as a straightjacket when it comes to disagreeing with the status quo. Disagreement is good, it forces people to think.

This is why I don’t think we can hold every religious person responsible for the acts of every other religious person, or even those who claim the same affiliation.

I don’t hold all Muslims guilty for 9/11, nor do I think all Catholics are responsible for the child molesters in their midst. What I do is give credit, or discredit, where it is due.

And the following is worthy of recognition.

A Calgary imam will take the bold step of issuing a fatwa — an official religious edict pronounced by a scholar of the Muslim faith — against honour killings and domestic abuse on Saturday.

Imam Syed Soharwardy, who is head imam at the Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre as well as the founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, will deliver the fatwa at a mosque in Mississauga, Ont. He will be backed by more than 30 imams and Muslim scholars from across North America who want to send a strong message to other members of their faith.

Honour killing is murder, and abusing a spouse, male or female, is a shitty thing to do, and we should punish the perpetrators of these crimes. We should also support those who stand up against such things.

A group on Facebook called Atheist Republic – which has only been around for a few months but already has nearly 30,000 likes – held its first event last weekend. They went to Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside and handed out socks to the homeless.

You can see some photos of the event here (you may need Facebook for this).

Other engagements sadly prevented me from making it out to this event, but I wish them the best in the future.

Atheist Republic has members worldwide and is hoping to launch an international non-profit organization to help organize and rally atheists everywhere. Check them out (their website isn’t exactly ready yet), they’re already off to a great start.

Here’s a list of events going on around the country (feel free to add some that I’ve missed in the comments):

Friday, February 10th

• in Ottawa: Evolution and Diversity: A Darwin Day Celebration With Little Ray’s Reptile Zoo, 7:30pm at the Dovercourt Recreation Center

Saturday, February 11th

• in Vancouver: Darwin Day Weekend Skeptics in the Pub, 7pm at the Railway Club (sponsored by the Vancouver Skeptics)

Sunday, February 12th

• in Kelowna, Darwin Day 2012, featuring Darwin Day talks by Dr Jessica Theodor and Dr James Hull. Dr Theodor’s talk is: “Almost Like a Whale – Darwin and the Origin of Whales” and Dr Hull’s talk is: “Darwin, Nature and God” — 1pm, UBCO Science 337 (sponsored by CFI Okanagan and UBCO Freethoughts)

• in Saskatoon, 2012 Darwin Day Celebration!, featuring two presentations followed by discussions. Speakers this year are from the U of S Biology department: Prof. José Andrés and Prof. Dick Neal. Birthday cake and coffee will be available. (sponsored by CFI Saskatoon, Saskatoon Skeptics, and the University of Saskatchewan Freethought Alliance)

Wednesday, February 15th

• in Lethbridge, Darwin Day Movie Night, with film showing of “Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life” by David Attenborough and “The Genius of Charles Darwin” by Richard Dawkins, 6:45pm in Galileo’s Lounge, University of Lethbridge.

Keep an eye on the Darwin Day Events page for any additional events in your area. And hey, why not send that special person in your life a Darwin Day e-card? (sure beats a silly valentine)

adults who are uncertain or anxious about one or more areas of their life will often find another domain that acts as a certainty, and will exhibit “irrational conviction’ about that area.  Relationships are a popular outlet for such irrational convictions, as are religious beliefs. (My emphasis)

and

recent studies suggest the tantalizing possibility that goals may be managed so people could be shielded from anxiety . . . thereby removing the need for extreme beliefs. (My Emphasis)

While it is indeed “tantalizing” to believe that if uncertainty and anxiety are eliminated, the need for extreme beliefs, especially religious beliefs, would disappear, I fear the study’s findings are too optimistic.  Unfortunately, people use religion for more than “a balm to ease their anxiety.”

Do you have trouble indentifying exactly which fallacious argument is being used?  I do, and usually, I resort to Wikipedia to clear up my confusion.  However, the website Something Surprising has posted a useful crib sheet entitled “Delusional Logic” as a guide to the most common fallacies:

Do you spot logical fallacies everywhere you go? Download this unique new pdf file free and start to enjoy the fun.

h/t: Never Thought To Question Why

Anyway, I enjoyed the film so much that I started to read the 2003 novel it was based on, of the same name by the author Lionel Shriver.  As I read, there was a quote that caught my eye and caused me to pause — it’s a quote spoken by the mother/protagonist of the novel, reflecting back on her flaws as a parent. One shortcoming she muses about is the lack of a religious environment she exposed her son, Kevin, to:

Both of us were lapsed, so it made sense to raise our kids as neither Armenian Orthodox or Presbyterian. Although I’m reluctant to inveigh that youth today need to crack the Old Testament, it sobers me that, thanks to us, Kevin may have never seen the inside of a church.

The fact that you and I were brought up with something to walk away from may have advantaged us, for we knew what lay behind us, and what we were not.

So I wonder if Kevin, too, would have been better off had we spewed a lot of incense-waving hooey that he could have coughed back in our faces — those extravagant fancies about virgin births and commandments on mountaintops that really stick in a kid’s throat. [my emphasis]

As soon as I read this passage, I had to stop — if only because it resonated a little too much.  Is my little girl — being raised in a happily godless home — at a disadvantage?

I wonder.

Both my partner and I come from very religious backgrounds — in fact, most of our family are still  very religious and involved in church life.  Both he and I are fully aware of what we have left behind in walking away from our faith.  And while much of our apostate journey hasn’t been fun, it’s still a formative part of our identity, plus it gives us extra edge when discussing/debating religious issues with others who are still in the ‘flock.’

But my daughter won’t have this background. And there’s a big part of me who’s very happy that she’ll never experience the indoctrination of being scared of hell or the self-torture of recognizing yourself as “fallen.” But is she at a disadvantage not knowing and experiencing a faith system that she can reject all on her own?  As much as I loathe religious indoctrination, I also don’t want to be guilty of atheistically indoctrinating my daughter into rejecting all faith systems.

I’m still mulling it over.  I suppose it’s really a non-issue, since I couldn’t fake faith even if I tried.  My hope as a mom is that I’ll give her enough knowledge of faith systems to instill in her a strong religious literacy — and that this academic knowledge of religion will be enough.

But still I wonder … this notion of knowing “what lay behind us, and what we were not” is so powerful.

I know, intimately, that I am not a Christian. I hope that my decisions as a parent will also help give my daughter the tools to know who she is, and who she’s not.

If you’ve been involved in discussions of race-based (or really, any other kind of) bigotry, it’s a good chance that you’ve been accused at some point of being “the real racist”. The argument goes something like this: if everyone just acted like race wasn’t important, it would all of a sudden cease to be a factor. I will not bother detailing the number of reasons why this position is stupid - it’s the Wile E. Coyote school of debate:

However, the ubiquity and regularity of this completely facetious line of “reasoning” has left folks like me, who deal in racism on a regular basis, with a particular sensitivity about bogus “racism” calls. There’s nothing that undermines your completely legitimate argument faster than someone saying “yeah but soandso said the same thing, and ze was full of crap!” Then you have to waste time and precious consonants explaining the many ways in which your situation is not the same as theirs.

Which is why stories like this make me mad:

A lawsuit has been filed in California suing US comedian Jay Leno for what it calls “racist” comments on the Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar. Indian-American Randeep Dhillon says Leno “hurt the sentiments of all Sikh people in addition to the plaintiff”.

Sikhs have, of late, been facing ridiculous and utterly misplaced discrimination as anti-Arab sentiment has become mainstream. This is not to say that Sikhs were living on Cloud 9 before 2001, but the climate of hatred and suspicious of anyone who looks like they might be from one of those loser sand countries has made their marginalization even more extreme. It would, in fact, be incredibly racist to make a joke that plays into that ignorance. Despite the temptation to go for the easy laugh, it’s never a good idea to pander to the likes of those who cannot tell the difference between an Indian and an Arab (which isn’t to say that anti-Arab jokes are any less racist, I’m just saying be fucking accurate, Jay!).

Except that’s not at all what happened:

A recent Leno skit showed the shrine as the summer home of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Seriously. That’s it. He showed a picture of the Golden Temple, and made a joke about Mitt Romney being really super rich. Apparently, to Sikhs everywhere (at least, if you believe the claim), that is unbelievably racist! Mr. Depp, what do you think?

Yeah, pretty much my reaction too.

Now there have been a few others who have pointed out, correctly, that making jokes of this nature is protected by the First Amendment. Others have also made the case that “not being offended” is not a right. There are those who view any criticism or any unflattering reference to religion as inherently offensive and deserving of condemnation. Sometimes with sticks. A free society simply cannot knuckle under every time someone claims that they are offended by something – even legitimate criticism would be sacrificed on the altar of this kind of faux “tolerance”. That being said, I don’t think that either of these is the kind of “knockout” argument that sways me. Just because someone has the right to be racist doesn’t mean that they should, and when racist attitudes have negative impacts on already-marginalized groups, there must be some kind of response. Similarly, there is often no need to offend people when making jokes, particularly if the the joke props up existing prejudices and bigotry. Racism is destructive and deserves our strongest criticism.

Here’s the thing: this joke isn’t racist*!

The target of the joke is Mitt Romney. The thing that drives the punchline is the fact that Mitt Romney is a really rich guy. We can caricature the bucketloads of money that Mitt Romney has by portraying him as a guy who lives in a climate of extreme opulence. Maybe by showing him wearing a diamond-studded codpiece or playing polo on the back of an endangered species… or maybe living in a golden house:

Oh look... here's one

The Sikh faith is not part of the joke, nor are Sikh people being tarred with the same brush as Mr. Romney. This is a golden palace. The fact that it is a house of worship is completely coincidental. He could have just as easily used St. Peter’s basilica to make the joke (except then it would be racist against Catholics, I guess). There is no marginalization of Sikh people – I’ll be willing to wager that 90+% of Jay’s audience doesn’t know the Golden Palace from the Taj Mahal. There is no derrogation of Sikh beliefs or invocations of any stereotype, positive or negative, about the Sikh religion. The joke is completely unrelated to Sikhs. Claiming that this is “racist” or “offensive” is completely off base. Racism is inherently tied to events that exploit or otherwise exacerbate existing power imbalances between groups – this one is about a gold-plated house.

There is an abundance of racist content pumped out of the airwaves every day. We should be vigilant in examining it, not only in our media, but in our own personal lives. It is only by unearthing the subconscious prejudices that lie beneath the veneer of our professions of tolerance that we can move towards a world in which racism, both overt and otherwise, is rendered neuter. However, leaping wildly into the fray of “that’s racist” every time someone makes a comment that is not only unrelated to your group but carries with it absolutely no force or effect only serves to introduce turbulence into the already-challenging task of navigating the waters of racism.

*To forestall the fight that crops up in discussions like these, yes I am aware that Sikh people aren’t “a race”, but in this particular case their religion, culture and origin overlap in such a way as to make them “a race” for all practical purposes.