Grrr.
Their reasoning:
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.
Is it simply a matter of wording? Is it because the university was previously a Lutheran university? Is it because atheists are some kind of social deviants? Is it because atheists offend worse than religions do? I don’t know - I don’t care either. A university isn’t a place to silence people with a voice and to shove aside groups like this. It’s to make the voices of people heard. To create groups of understanding and communication.
I really hope they don’t have to revise their proposal or purpose of the group. I think that it is 100% reasonable and I’d say the same if I weren’t an atheist (or if I didn’t know the president of the group). It’s strange that other groups with almost the exact same wording were given official status at many other schools across Canada - but at this small ex-christian university there are issues. Suuuuurprise surprise. It’s just flat out stupid, and infuriating.
For more on the issue see what Hemant has to say and the Vice President of the declined group.
I can see where they are coming from, and I do believe it is a matter of wording. The mission statement has a kind of affront tone towards “superstition and religion.” Which in it self is already an offensive statement towards religion, claiming that religion and superstition are on the same level of belief, which to some might be the case, but for many theists this can been seen as an insulting statement. The wording “a fulfilling life” is quite offensive as well, as if to say that one cannot live a fulfilling life with religion.
I think that most religious groups have in their mission statements the promotion of certain religious beliefs, but never say outwardly that they are going to undermine other beliefs. Even if some people believe that religion it self might do that. In this case the statement connotates exactly that. It’s akin to saying we are promoting “a fulfilling life without science and reason.”
As a university in the 21st century they are experiencing not the decline of voices from different plights and background, but an increase. And much of these voices are in opposition to each other. This has definitely put many universities in a tough position as they now have a responsibility to these organizations. Each group must be treated fairly and each group should respect each other. I point out Concordia University and their troubles with Middle Eastern student groups. Its a tough decision on their part, and we must be fair to them. I do not believe that a decision like this can be made quickly, and to say they were doddling or stalling (referring to Frame Problem statement) seems to be drawn conclusion.
Maybe the mission statement should only include “the promotion of science and reason.” Which they claim is not an illegitimate goal, since it is awfully similar to the goals of any place of higher education. But to imply the undermining of others beliefs seems to be going a little too far, even for my tastes.
All clubs at UWO must submit a mission statement within a club constitution. It is not simply the mission statement but also the constitution as a whole that must be evaluated. This is where the club must outline how they intend to achieve their goals as an organization under student union policy. It would be really interesting to see how they word their intentions.
Re: christian huynh, Christian
Here is their statement in question, which for some reason the author of this email to the LFA has horribly mis-interpreted: “To promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief.” http://acosmopolitan.blogspot.com/2008/02/campus-freethought-groups-intolerant.html
First of all, I do not see how you can conclude that their statement undermines other beliefs. No where is there a piece of sabotage or comment that could possibly weaken any religious belief (it may be a useful exercise to look up the definition of ‘undermine’). Granted, you probably only read the email that the LFA received, so you would probably change a lot of your comments after reading over what the LFA actually wrote. This statement most likely applies to my next response as well.
Secondly, I do not see the problem with listing religion and superstition in the same line. For those of you uninformed on logic, the word ‘or’ is very different from the word ‘and’. The way their goal is worded clearly shows that they are treating superstition and religion as two separate topics, whether or not the two topics overlap is still controversial by many.
Next, christian huynh mentions that “I do not believe that a decision like this can be made quickly”. And it wasn’t made quickly at all. It took nine months for them to get that ignorant response. Nine months is an enormous amount of time when it comes to approving clubs (longer then two terms). By the time they actually do get recognized, if the same trend follows, many of the club’s current members and executives could very well of graduated.
Christian Says:
“All clubs at UWO must submit a mission statement within a club constitution … It would be really interesting to see how they word their intentions.”
What exactly are you trying to imply? Why would it be interesting to see how the LFA “worded their intentions” in the constitution. As you can plainly read from the response email they were sent, the ‘problem’ is clearly with their goal (unless for some reason they failed to inform them about problems with their constitution or they did not read it at all, either of which is still their own ignorance).
If you find their constitution interesting then perhaps you should take a look at the Canadian Constitution or the American Constitution, both countries and constitutions founded upon secularism (along with many other countries). What a crazy concept. A constitution formed by secularists, how ‘interesting’.
[...] Liberal Debutante [...]
I’m not taking sides on the issue. I’m simply pointing out some of the possible reasons a secular institution might not grant a secular organization recognition.
To claim that the institution has vested interests in only theist organizations is a little far fetched. WLU is like any secular university in Canada, and their decisions, made especially after 9 months, must have been made with at least a smidge of deliberation.
I don’t imply anything other than “let’s try to see the whole picture.” I reiterate, I can see how the wording of the mission statement is somewhat offensive. The promotion of a “good life without the need of superstition or religious belief” can be interpreted as an affront statement towards religous groups, who don’t specifically state their intentions to promote a “good life” while at the same time eliminating other groups of people.
Your intentions may not be to bad, and I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and that includes the WLU student union.
Once again I restate, they have a responsibility to ALL groups. Meaning that every group must be treated fairly and that they must ensure respect and understanding between groups. If they’re intentions are good, and I’ll give them that, they are simply avoiding problems which may occur.
Is it really that big of a deal to remove the words “religious beliefs” from your mission statement? Can’t you replace it with psudoscience instead?
A personal note to Robert:
I’m a science student. I don’t normally write a lot, and what I do write usually has to do with chemical formulas or statistical analysis. I’m apologize if I used the wrong word, I didn’t actually look any of the words I used, but I believe my ideas were somewhat clear. I normally only write to play the devil’s advocate, otherwise I wouldn’t write, so my ideas are usually unrepresentatively in opposition to what’s being said. I’m open for discussion and ideas, but I’m not open to claims of ignorance. So I might be ignorant about my use of “undermine” but I am no less informed than you on most matters. Discuss reasonably.
Re: christian huynh
I do agree with you on a lot of the things you wrote, so don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to make anyone look bad or seem completely ignorant (we are all ignorant on a very large scale of subjects no matter who we are).
On a side note, I never claimed that WLU had an interest in only theist groups. I have no doubt a large portion, if not most, of the groups on WLU do not even have a religious basis. I was simply stating that it took an unusually long amount of time compared to other universities where I know it can be a matter of a few days to a few weeks to be granted provisional recognition (from experience and also through friends from universities).
I admit, I do not know why it took so long to get a response so maybe I am being brash about the clubs office at WLU and I am completely open to correction and I totally accept my ignorance on that matter.
I also agree that WLU probably did have good intentions in mind, but intentions never have the same value or repercussions as actions. They may be trying to avoid problems that may occur, but in doing so they are affecting the rights of students.
You ask: “Is it really that big of a deal to remove the words “religious beliefs” from your mission statement? Can’t you replace it with psudoscience instead?”
Now, I have not fully read the club’s constitution, but through my own club, the mission statement of the CFI (which LFA is associated with), and other similar campus clubs, it think is safe to say the LFA is club based on non-religious concepts which is trying to promote and provide a community for non-religious people, much the same as a religious group tries to promote their religion and provide a place for religious people to meet. To replace religious belief with pseudoscience would be missing a key aspect of the club, as the two are not the same.
I suppose I will end this reply the same way you ended yours. I understand completely that no one is completely “un-ignorant”. This doesn’t mean although that those people should not be corrected for when they are ignorant. I’m sorry to hear you aren’t open for claims of ignorance, I know I am and I always appreciate it when someone points out I am overstepping my knowledge. I end up learning a lot more when I realize I was wrong about something rather then continue thinking I was right. Ignorance happens, it isn’t something to be completely ashamed about. That said, this does not mean you should not venture to learn more about a topic before you go onto discussions with it. I offer you the same advice when you say discuss reasonably.
It is too easy to call someone ignorant when people don’t agree with what one wants to say. This is a point I want to make besides the WLU issue.
I believe in informing, in changing points of view and in the offer of thought to convince people. But never do I call someone ignorant, for I firstly assume that they might feel a different way for reasons a) that I don’t understand or b) because of something I have yet to learn. I therefore take the seat of the ignorant, but never the person I wish to learn from or gain insight and understanding with.
It’s also a word too often used in a negative context, even if it is totally logical to use. So in my experience I tend to avoid the use of it, people just seem to get offended when you tell them they are less informed , especially before any attempt at trying to teach.
Christian unfortunately the entire atheist/christian debate is entirely based on the fact that the other side thinks the other is completely ignorant of everything on earth. Thats why it will never get anywhere and no one will learn anything. It’s why atheists hate Christians - because they won’t “see from their point of view. And it’s why christians hate atheists - because they think they are all arogant.
Unfortunately atheists think they are being open minded where as christians just flat out think they are right so no one is going to get anywhere.
but you’re right calling someone ignorant is the lowest form of debate, in my opinion. most people are ignorant on most issues. we can’t all be experts on everything but it is everyones right to have an opionion even if it IS based on the limited knowledge that they have.
i agree that it is all a matter of wording it is rude and degrading to group religion and superstition together.
Sigh…
First of all, it is hardly a matter of “Person A not agreeing with Person B”. It is simply fact versus lack-thereof.
It is okay to say “I don’t know”. People don’t have to go beyond their knowledge, all they simply have to say is “I don’t know”. Three simple words that everyone finds so hard to say which leads them to their own ignorance. You both really think that calling someone out on something they have insufficient knowledge about is “the lowest form of debate”? Really? Even when they display their lack of knowledge on a public site where everyone can read it? You think no one will speak up and say, “No, you’re wrong, and here’s why”? Stop trying to pawn this off as someone hurting your feelings. Your feelings are irrelevant to the truth. If you are offended by it, then that is really your own fault for being uninformed.
I hope you can trust when I say that debates have a much lower form then stating someone is wrong.
Christian Huynh says it best: “a) that I don’t understand or b) because of something I have yet to learn.”
If you don’t understand a certain topic or still need to learn about it, then don’t go off on a public site and begin to make claims about it and expect others to “take the seat of the ignorant”.
It is true, it is everyone’s right to have an opinion. I have no claims of ignorance on anyone’s opinion, although I may have given my own opinion on some of the topics here, but my opinions are hardly claims of ignorance towards others.
Can someone not take part in a public discussion because they are ill-informed? Does this mean that people who are not informed should take a backseat in discussions that they don’t understand?
Buddy stop jerkin’ your gerkin. Give me some well written arguments and stop asserting you self-righteousness on others. I understand you have some strong beliefs on the subject, and as too do I, and these are opposing views. Does this mean this discussion has to continue this way? You keep bantering about how I need to be informed before even asserting my ideas. How can I be informed if people like Robert impede my own investigation by dismissing my ideas and then offer me very little?
You are too ill-informed, hence your opinion doesn’t matter. Well how about some fucking enlightenment? Give me something REAL, give me a link or a page in a book.
If you’re such a staunch believer in your cause and would like to convince people of it, how about you learn some patience for those who are not versed in your oh so enlightened way of thinking?
I find this issue interesting, I do not have a vested interest in seeing the status of this club rejected or accepted. I simply want to tell you what I think, and you can tell me what you think.
OK- Let’s see what we’ve got here:
I said I understand why the student union would not grant the club status because of possible wrong interpretation of the mission statement. (superstition = religion, vice versa people get mad)
You said that the mission statement is not inflammatory and that if religious groups are allowed to promote a life with religion so should a group be allowed to promote a life without religion.
What I meant to say, but used the wrong word, was that I believe that religious groups tend to only advocate the inclusion of people into their way of life, as opposed to the FLA who advocate the same thing, but with the added exclusion of other beliefs (”without the need for super superstition or religious belief.”)
No response.
I said it should be a sensitive issue and a tough decision on the part of the university, and that one must understand that they need to balance out understanding and respect with rights.
You say their intentions might be good, but their actions come at a cost to the rights of the FLA to exist.
Then our conversation kind of took a wrong turn.
But I have something to add. Does the freethought community define themselves through the exclusion of religion? Is it not possible to advocate skepticism, logical thinking and science without the need to exclude religion?
Given a choice between scientific fact and logical thinking, and dogmatic and tradition based conclusions, should a person not be allowed to choose? Is truth not ultimately subjective?
***SIGH…*** fucker