Here's the complete story from Anatoly Venovcev posted on his blog Cosmopolitan [Campus Freethought Groups - Intolerant?]. The logic employed in rejecting the Laurier Freethought Alliance is juvenile at best and bigoted at worst.
From Wilfrid Laurier University: Mission, Vision and Values.
We believe in the dignity of all individuals, in fair and equitable treatment, and in equal opportunity.
We believe in the spirit of free inquiry, respect for the views of others and the obligation to formulate well grounded and investigative questions.
These values were approved in principle by the Board of Governors on December 6, 1994.
A couple of months ago, last April, the club that I'm the vice-president of submitted it's application to become an official campus club. Our name - "Laurier Freethought Alliance," our goal, to promote science, freedom of inquiry, skepticism, and a good life without the need for superstition or religious belief. Since that is, after all, what a CFI-affiliated group should be about. Yesterday, after not getting through to us for 9 months (a problem in it's own right), the representative from the Campus Clubs department sends us an e-mail: Our application has been denied. Their reasons?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.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. The president of the club, who got this e-mail, for the lack of a better term "flipped out," when he got this and wrote a rant in response.
Fortunately I, with his later revisions, wrote a much more diplomatic response, explaining to them what the promotion of "a fulfilling life without religion and superstition" really means and saying how not allowing a freethought group on the Wilfrid Laurier University campus it is they who are in fact being intolerant. We suggested both a revision and a meeting with them. We'll see how this turns out but I wanted to let the freethought blogging community in on it and ask those who had previous experience founding freethought groups if they had any such problems and how they can be resolved.
[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]
Anatoly has just been touched by the blog of a god. When someone gets touched by the blog of a god, that person becomes a demi-god. Plain fact.
ReplyDeleteit's canada. you can't be hateful, right?
ReplyDeleteThank you Dr. Moran, I really appreciate the exposure from you.
ReplyDeleteRight. So Campus Crusade thinks that everyone who's not a (fairly conservative) Christian is going to hell for their rebellion against God. But that's not intolerant.
ReplyDeleteIt is time to sue.
ReplyDeleteAs I've dropped comments elsewhere at PZ's and Ed Brayton's blogs, this (a) is terrible and (b) needs to be clarified in the sense that WLU admin did not write the response - the student clubs did. Per Anatoly's original post and as Larry posted though the response still violates the Board of Governors principles and rejects the whole idea of a university.
ReplyDeleteHmm.. maybe the sequel to the likely egregious "Expelled"? will take up this issue :)
One of the circumstances which are
ReplyDeleteover the top of indulgence.
But you forgot the most important
thing:
Where is the address to complain ?