Athée Canadien
Posts tagged activism
Missed the boat this year
Sep 17th
Many Humanists and Atheists are increasingly trying to put our actions where are words are. We say we can be good without god, and now we’re ready to prove it.
The Edmonton Atheists have been on the ball with this, organizing an annual highway litter cleanup.
I just came across another great project that I may try to get involved in next year – the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup, which starts tomorrow and runs for a week at beaches across the country (and yes, we do have beaches in Canada).
The entire process looks pretty simple, just register yourself as a coordinator, and then go pick up garbage.
There’s already a number of religious, community, and government groups involved. Why not atheists?
Of course, there’s many other possible projects we can get involved in – the BC Humanists are supporting an anti-bullying day in December (which coincides with a Solstice party we were already having). The Harvard Humanists also made 9110 meals for 9-11.
What projects can you suggest?
Much ado about the ‘nones’
Mar 26th
Hi Everyone!
I just did a quick interview with Ben Mercer of Newstalk 1010 in Toronto, regarding the recent study on the potential extinction of organized religion.
My interview will follow a discussion with a U of T sociology prof who addresses some of the nuances of the study. I didn’t have to be very nuanced in my interview, as I mainly talked about the stigmas of being an atheist today, and the need to have our secular voices considered in the public sphere.
Anyway, if you’re in the Toronto area (or awake anywhere in the world) and want to listen online, it’s scheduled to be on AM 1010 during the 7AM EST hour — that’s 5AM Saskatchewan time, so perhaps I’ll just await the producer emailing me a clip of the interview.
Skeptivism: yay or nay?
Feb 21st
This afternoon Deepak Chopra stopped his woo woo train speaking tour here in Saskatoon to give a seminar on “Healing Transformation and Higher Consciousness.” [I find it really telling that the website for the event describes the afternoon in this way: "Dr. Chopra’s seminar begins at 2:30 pm. The onsite bookstore will be open at 1:30pm. Arrive early for a chance to browse Deepak’s latest titles." -- note the plug for consumerism! Ah, so much for transcendence.]
I’m not a fan of Chopra, though several of my friends are. And while I view most of his claims with rolled-eyes, I don’t see the harm in some of what he says. If reading his books makes you a better person, then more power to ya. But that said, if reading his woo woo causes you to forsake medical treatment for serious physical ailments, then we run into problems.
This afternoon several people from CFI Saskatchewan stood outside in the freezing cold to hand out flyers that questioned the legitimacy of Chopra and his claims. [there's a bit about Saskatoon's response to Chopra on the February 20th broadcast of Global Saskatoon (clip starts about 8:30 in)]
I feel kind of conflicted about this skeptivism (skeptical activism). While I agree with the content of the flyers that were passed out, and would happily discuss this issue with someone, there’s a part of me that doesn’t like the idea of standing in front of the entrance to an event, handing out this kind of material. It feels — dare I say? — evangelical. How is it any different than a bunch of Ray Comfort-esque folks handing out flyers in front of a venue where an atheist/skeptic is speaking? Do people who paid to attend such an event even take this kind of activism seriously?
This isn’t to say that I’m against vocalizing dissent, speaking out against pseudoscience, or talking one-on-one to others about where Chopra goes wrong. I’m just not a fan of this particular approach of skeptivism: blanketing ticketholders with pamphlets the day of a show.
But I’m up for being persuaded that I’m wrong.
[picture taken from this Skeptic North post on Chopra, which you all should read]
The next step
Feb 3rd
PZ Myers asks why you’re an atheist. In the process he craps over everyone who doesn’t agree with his definition of atheism, even though he admits he doesn’t even like the real definition in the dictionary.
He continues:
There are a fair number of adults who ought to know better who insist on the dictionary definition, too. They’ve been brought up without god-belief, and some of them may not have even considered religion much at all. Unless they are real lightweights, genuine feathers adrift in the wind, they also carry a set of values that incline them towards godlessness…otherwise you’d expect them to fall on their knees and turn Christian the instant they first hear about Jesus. They don’t, and why? Probably because they learned some critical thinking skills from their parents. They carry positive values that make them resistant to the cheap promises of faith.
Not exactly- but I see his point. I’m probably a fourth or fifth generation atheist so I don’t have any family traditions or connections to religions of any kind. I consider myself atheist by default since I don’t have any experiences that would suggest otherwise. I’ve never considered my options, or looked into the facts, or had any deep philosophical meanderings that would lead to my non-belief. I’m an atheist simply because believers haven’t convince me otherwise.
I don’t see why atheism needs to be defined as a holistic worldview. There are already well defined philosophies and political stances that atheists can follow. To me, atheism is just a starting point in a discussion- a set of initial assumptions that guide the process of figuring out how to solve the world’s problems. When I’m arguing with an atheist, I know there won’t be any silly, annoying muses like “God did this” or “God wants us to..”, etc. The discussion can then elevated to a more meaningful process where we can better come up with the agreements and compromises necessary to make the world a better place.
I understand that sciency types like PZ Myers want to classify everything into neat little groups because science requires clear definitions in order to make the assumptions necessary to conduct experiments. But when we’re dealing with complicated social issues like atheism, a different approach is needed because people won’t be easily categorized.
What I think we’re really talking about is the next step in atheist activism. If New Atheism is about the popularized mainstream rejection of religion, the next step could be for atheists to actively start promoting what we believe and how atheism influences our decisions. If this is the case, PZ Myers’ attempt to standardize our beliefs is his foray into the identity crisis atheism is headed towards. What does it mean to be an atheist? I don’t have my answer yet but at least the discussion is more interesting than talking about religion.
Support skeptical education in Uganda
Jan 10th
Yes, it’s been a while since I’ve posted. I blame the holidays and then a subsequent lack of motivation to write, but hopefully that will slowly dissipate and I’ll return to my regular frequency.
For now, care of the Atheist Alliance International, I direct your attention to their commendable efforts to rid Uganda of superstition by building a school and teaching critical thinking.
Uganda has recently made headlines for its abhorrent attempt to enact a bill to make homosexuality a crime, punishable by death. While we may lament pseudoscience in Canada like Wi-Fi fears and homeopathy, they are small fish in comparison to the damage that this bill is presenting.
Since schools aren’t free, they need your support to help continue the fight against dangerous superstition and intolerance, so go and donate what you can today.
Are we preaching too much?
Oct 27th
There’s an interesting article on the Guardian Science Blog about the UK Skeptics movement and how it’s spending too much time in the pub and focussing on in-group activities rather than public outreach, specifically education of children.
He has a couple good points, but misses a couple key things too.
I like that he draws attention to issues of racism in the groups, especially about the need to reach out to minorities which typically are far more woo-infested than white cultures. We’re all human and we’re all capable of critical thinking, so failing to reach out to those communities only strengthens religion and superstition within their groups.
Similarly, his emphasis on the need for raising more critical thinkers is an important one. While our own Rebekah has started a successful parenting group and secular summer camp, how many other similar programs exist in Canada right now?
Finally, it’s important to remind people to get out of the pub and lecture halls once in a while. Most people likely still conflate skeptics with cynics or deniers, and far too often will claim us to be the closed-minded ones. These are major issues to address, and hosting a bigger TAM then last year isn’t going to change it.
However, without local community groups, online forums and conferences to preach to the choir, many more people are not going to get involved in activism.
Without a core group of people that actually feel a part of the community, it’s very difficult to enact social change.
People need motivation and they need coordination. Grassroots pub events can serve to put enough like-minded people together that an idea goes from being a lone nut trying to change the school system and enact evidenced-based policy to coordinated organizations lobbying for education reform or running for office.
So Alom does remind us to get out of the pub, and to be less racist, but somewhat downplays the importance of community building within the movement.
Should atheists enter discussions on faith?
Oct 26th
I think so.
Which is why I’m trying to persuade my local paper to let me have some space to contribute in its weekly “religion” pages of the paper (Saturday edition). I’ve been in contact with the main reporter for the section, though so far he’s said “it will not fly” to have a nonbeliever voice present.
What do you think? Is this a battle worth perusing?
I’m inclined to think so — if only to add another voice to the dialogue. The Star Phoenix is a pretty conservative paper, and Saskatoon is still a fairly conservative town. I think having an atheist (read: ex-believer) weighing in on issues could cause quite the ruckus — and not necessarily a bad ruckus.
I’m a bit of an evangelist when it comes to my nonbelief, but not in the sense that I’m out to deconvert everyone of their faith systems. Most of my family is still very religious, and I see my goal as one who destigmatizes the big-bad-scary atheist perception of people by showing them we’re not as bad as they think. So I do that not by accommodating their views, but through friendly (most of the time) conversation about who I am, and what I represent. That’s sorta the approach I would want to take if I got a chance to contribute to the paper. Plus, I’d like to stir the pot a little bit (okay, on some issues, A LOT).
It’s your turn to persuade me how I’m either very wrong or somewhat right in trying to get them to publish me.
Denominational differences amongst atheists
Oct 16th
Well, the sequel to the NYTimes article on the atheist “rift” is now available (Ian wrote about the first article here). I have to say, I’m disappointed. The first article in the series compared the supposedly-ousted Paul Kurtz (founder of CFI and a ton of other stuff) to the downfall of King Lear. This highly-sympathetic article appeared less than a WEEK before the huge 30th anniversary conference of the Council for Secular Humanism. For a situation that was already tense between the old and new leadership of the organization, the article’s timing couldn’t have been accidental.
And before heading off to the big Secular Humanism conference last weekend, I was more sympathetic to Kurtz’s situation. But now after witnessing his behavior at the conference, I’m not nearly as supportive. I think it’s interesting that this latest NYTimes article completely avoids reporting on how Kurtz attacked the hosting organization of the convention, not to mention the several times he attempted to commandeer panel discussions. While part of me can empathize with Kurtz and how upset he must be at letting go of his organizations, I’m also just weary of watching him destroy his legacy by acting out in such passive-aggressive ways.
But back to this latest article on the atheist ‘rift’ — the title of the latest article is “Atheists debate how pushy to be” (kudos to whichever editor came up with that lame title). The article itself is mainly a discussion of the Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation? panel, again stressing the supposed rift between approaches.
The disagreement was not, then, between atheism and humanism. It was about making the atheist/humanist case in America. A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?”
Here even the humanists got less humane, as each side stereotyped the other. Those trying to find common ground with religious people were called “accommodationists,” while the more outspoken atheists were called “confrontationalists” and accused of alienating potential allies, like moderate Christians.
Am I the only one who’s tired of this debate? If you don’t like the accomodationalist approach, DON’T DO IT. Likewise, if you’re not a fan of being confrontational, DON’T DO IT. Both approaches have their place.
There. I just solved the ramped-up divide amongst us atheists.
In case that’s not enough, here’s a bit of a quote from the last comment of the above panel discussion — here’s Richard Carrier, who says my above solution a bit more articulately:
Different members of our [atheist] community have different objectives. Eugenie & Chris [the "accomodationalists"] are talking about achieving specific political objectives, in which it makes sense to be diplomatic. I just want there to be more secular humanists, full-stop. So, for me, I’m an evangelist — a missionary. I have to be confrontational, because that’s the only way I’m going to make more of us.
[...] Now I don’t have a problem with the accomodationalist perspective, using it in a particular arena. In fact, I don’t even mind if we play “good cop, bad cop,” and you say “Richard Carrier is a complete asshole, and never mind him” and go on and sell your particular perspective and do it your particular way.
I think we can work together in that good cop, bad cop routine. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t think it’s an either-or option. I think some of us are evangelists, some of us want to sell the world view and are out there doing it. And some of us do get the broad experience and knowledge in the scientific views and different philosophies to actually confront Christians on every single issue that they argue.
And then at the same time, I can fully support Eugenie’s work. Just like she said earlier, about how she has to take a particular perspective and be quiet about certain things to achieve her particular job, makes complete sense and I fully expect that, using that diplomatic approach.
The religious right … in Canada?!
Sep 20th
As an American living in Canada, I have to admit that I’m always a little amused when I hear people up here complain about the religious right. I mean, I grew up as a Bible-thumpin’ girl in deep South of the US, where “voter’s guides” are periodically inserted into church bulletins and preachers have no shame in saying, from the pulpit, who is “God’s candidate” to vote for.
But as much as I want to claim Canada as a godless socialist paradise, the fact is that there is a movement of the religious right amongst us. Earlier this summer Marci McDonald released a book that detailed these right-wingers in Canada, The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada. (if you’d like a quick taste of some of her findings, read this Walrus article: “Stephen Harper and the Theo-cons” or listen to her interview from CBC’s program The Current)
Yesterday the Saskatoon Freethinkers group met to discuss some of the findings of McDonald’s book, and our afternoon’s talk was led by one of the author’s research sources, Tim Thibault. Tim is the webmaster behind The Miracle Channel Review website, which serves as a type of watchdog for the station The Miracle Channel. Tim has also filed several reports and inquiries with the CRTC and the Canadian Revenue Agency over the unethical practices of this religious network.
McDonald claims that her book is a precursory warning to what could happen to Canada, if the current trajectory of the religious right continues. She quotes one of the leaders of the Canadian religious right as saying that their movement is one that is “burgeoning” and that they are currently “30 years behind the States,” in terms of putting their activism into action. It would appear that her main concern is with the lobby groups that are gaining more influence and access in Ottawa.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with some of McDonald’s concerns — maybe it’s the newfound apathy I have for Canadian politics (a malaise I think I ‘caught’ from other apathetic, politically-disinterested Canadians), but I just don’t see the same kind of influence of the religious right here in Canada as I do in the States. For example, take this exchange from this interview with McDonald (around the 11 minute mark):
Steve Paikin: it’s probably fair to say that [Stephen Harper] is the most evangelical prime minister we’ve ever had, and he’s a huge disappointment to the evangelical movement. And if that’s the case, do people who don’t want this country to move to a socially-conservative agenda in their public life, do they really have that much to worry about?
Marci McDonald: I don’t know whether they do — it’s up to them to decide. But it’s important that somebody write about this, [to] connect the dots . . . people can do with it what they may.
I suppose what I find the most frustrating about what I’ve read/heard from McDonald (full disclosure: I haven’t yet read her book) and from yesterday’s talk is that there doesn’t seem to be anything specific to focus on, in terms of a “right wing agenda” at work in our government. McDonald herself seems hesitant to aim her focus in any one direction. I guess the skeptic in me wants something more concrete to focus my efforts on, other than the possibility that the religious right in Canada could turn out as ugly as it is in the US, 30 years from now.
That said, I’m open to being persuaded out of my ignorance and apathy (so feel free to correct me in the comments).
Anyway, here’s hoping that Canadians up here will keep up the mantra of separating their identity from the “big brother” to the South — and will reject the allure of the James Dobsons and John Hagees of the US religious right.
Back to school? Join the club
Sep 16th
Wow, it’s gotten a bit quieter here in the past week. This probably has something to do with the fact that around 2/3s of our writers are remembering that school destroys your life (or at least free time). Hopefully they find the time to squeeze out a post or two (and schedule a bunch more), but until then, faithful readers, you’ll have to get by with slightly less frequent updates until people get into their school grooves.
But I’m not here today to rant about my awesome co-authors. Instead, I want to encourage you all (at least those going to school) to get involved!
While internet atheism is great, and the anonymity can protect you when you feel like being an utter douche (which, let’s not lie, is often fun), there’s still some use and enjoyment that can be had in joining your campus or local freethought group.
And luckily today, unlike 7 years ago when I started university (why am I still in school?), it’s amazingly easy to find a local group.
The Secular Student Alliance lists 9 Canadian campus secular groups (scroll way down or search Canada on the page to find them) and CFI Canada has it’s list of affiliates broken down by province.
If your school isn’t listed there, search for it in google with the usual words – atheist, skeptic, freethought, freethinker, humanist, etc. – after. If that turns up nothing, expand your search to your local town and see if there’s a meetup for you. Also try Facebook for all of the above, as many groups haven’t expanded beyond there.
And if all of that turns up nothing, it’s time for you to start your own group. It’s not too hard, and if you’re on a campus you can usually get free money to have events (and make sure to affiliate with the SSA and CFI)! If that still sounds too daunting, email me or any of the authors here, since we’ve almost all either started or been heavily involved in campus or local groups.
So get active!
Comments