Religious Freedom: It's Not About Secularism...

...At least not in the way 'secularists' believe

When the Conservative Party recently proposed the creation of an office within the department of Foreign Affairs dedicated to promoting religious freedom abroad, it was only a matter of time before they began to draw heat over the proposition.

The opposition is coming from various quarters: from the self-proclaimed secularists at the Centre for Inquiry to the thinly-veiled Islamists at the Canadian Islamic Congress.

The CIC's Wahida Valiante pointed to the Conservative Party's failure to deliver a proposed office that would promote democracy abroad by collaborating with foreign political parties. The Conservatives backed away from this proposal (which was probably for the best, as it was fraught with the possibility of interference in foreign domestic politics).

"Every country, every nation has their own laws to protect their citizens," Valiante declared. "We have our Charter rights in Canada. In that, our freedom to practice religion is guaranteed. That shows that Canada is a model in which diversity of religion is protected. We can only be a model to others."

To put it charitably, Valiante's statement is just untrue. There are no laws to protect religious freedom in countries like Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, Libya and a host of others. Moreover, Canada can do more than simply be a model of religious freedom. It can be an advocate of religious freedom. That's the point.

The Centre for Inquiry's Justin Trottier has reportedly suggested that religious freedom is a "sensitive area" for the government to venture into, and even suggested that the office could wind up taking sides in religious disputes.

Which is actually the polar opposite of what the office's mandate would be. Frankly, Trottier's objections are simply confusing.

Simply put, the establishment of an office to promote religious freedom isn't about secularism. At least not in the way Trottier seems to think.

Secularism cannot actually exist without religious freedom. Religious freedom, after all, entails the freedom to not be religious, and the freedom to be secular.

That kind of freedom is what this is about, and that's why the establishment of this office is so vital.

A Delightfully Blasphemous Idea Whose Time Has Come

International Blasphemy Day strikes blows for free speech

Various atheist groups came together this past week in what emerged as an interesting -- and somewhat valuable -- exercise of free speech.

On September 30, the fourth anniversary of the controversy over the Jyllands-Posten Mohammad cartoons, atheist, agnostic and skeptic groups across the world gathered to facilitate discussion about blasphemy and censorship by, well... blaspheming.

"We're not seeking to offend, but if in the course of dialogue and debate, people become offended, that's not an issue for us," explained Ontario Centre for Inquiry Director Justin Trottier. "There is no human right not to be offended."

"We live in a democratic society, which means you get offended and you better get used to that," he added.

In a cultural era in which religious believers can get upset about something so silly as a fictional novel that treats Jesus Christ as a mortal human and not divine -- or will riot over the drop of a hat upon the publishing of the wrong cartoon -- blasphemy has become a new staple of comedy. TV shows such as Family Guy and South Park have plied their trade on pushing people's religious buttons (among other things).

There can be great value in determining what offends people. Offense signifies the values that people -- or a society -- holds dearest, and of the patterns of belief that underly them.

Offending people can be a good way to encourage people to challenge these values and beliefs.

But the act of offending someone also subverts the value of dialogue: the greatest value of dialogue is to help achieve a mutual understanding. The act of offending someone -- particularly deliberately offending them, as some of the participants in International Blasphemy Day almost certainly set out to do -- is not an action that promotes mutual understanding. A contemplative person may understand someone better after they have offended them, but the person offended will hold little interest in understanding their offender.

When the very purpose of an expression seems custom-designed for the purpose of offending someone -- such as is clearly the case with "Jesus Does His Nails" (a painting pictured above) -- its value to the public good of dialogue (and, as Benjamin Barber would note, dialogue very much is a private guood) is severely limited.

Even so, limited public dialogue is better than no public dialogue at all. For this reason alone, blasphemous expression unequivocally should not be censored, and International Blasphemy Day should become an annual event.

That's a Long Wait for That Whine

And sadly it hasn't cellared very well

Those paying attention to the (somehow) swirling controversy over the (somehow infamous) atheist Bus Ads may recall Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor's recent response to them.

"Putting things on buses, as though that's going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on," Taylor chucked in an interview with Philosophy Now magazine. "A bus slogan! It's not likely to trigger something very fundamental in anybody."

Nearly three weeks after Taylor's comments, Justin Trottier and Michael Payton of the Centre for Inquiry have finally seen fit to respond to Taylor's comments, in an op/ed appearing in the religion section of the National Post:

"In a recent interview with Philosophy Now magazine, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, author of A Secular Age, commented on the atheist bus-ad campaign, calling it 'odd' and 'pathetic' for atheists to use such tactics to promote their worldview. In the same interview, Taylor, who is a practising Roman Catholic, compared the backlash of atheists and secularists to the reactions of disgruntled English bishops after the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in the 19th Century.

What Taylor failed to understand is that the bus campaign neither signals the emergence of a new reactionary movement nor is it catalyzed by a 'secularizing intelligentsia' that has woken up to realize the world isn't what it thought it would be. As Canada undergoes secularization, atheist and secularist organizations, which have long existed alongside religious ones as a quiet part of the fabric of this diverse country, have grown steadily in a process. The atheist bus campaign may be a symbolic coming of age, but the movement that spawned it is certainly not new or reactionary."

A great many people would rightly disagree.

What Trottier and Payton are neglecting to mention is that these ads have been supported, on both a philosophical level and monetarily (in Britain), by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins has provided the so-called "new atheists" with not only the clarion call to be a good deal more public with their beliefs -- not in and of itself such a bad thing, necessarily -- but has also provided them with an intellectual template for the promotion of fundamentalist atheism.

"To the best of my knowledge, Taylor has never criticized edgy sloganeering from feminist or gay rights groups, nor the often offensive religious ads that have been on buses since buses first started operating in this country. Indeed, the ubiquitous religious ads are worth comparing to the bus campaign: Such advertising hardly adds to the diversity of Canada (given that religious organizations are already an acknowledged and welcome part of the public discourse). Atheist ads, on the other hand, have successfully added a major new dimension to the public debate."

Certainly, certain individuals would insist that it's unfair to criticize Charles Taylor for failing to criticize the "edgy sloganeering" of feminist or gay rights movements. Or not.

But Trottier and Payton's argument falls flat when one points out that, as far as "edgy sloganeering" goes, "There's probably no god" isn't all that edgy at all. This, of course is one of the details that has made complaints over the ads being offensive all the more pointless.

Taylor is under no obligation to criticize the edgy sloganeering (actual edgy sloganeering) of feminist or gay rights groups. Furthermore, these groups can often show the (usually) positive results this sloganeering has accumulated.

Atheists cannot say the same. As Taylor remarked, a bus ad telling people that there probably is no God isn't likely to win many converts.

"Thanks to such assertive advertising and other controversial and edgy manoeuvres, atheists have now emerged alongside the religious in the media — they are regular involved in radio and TV debates, public discussion on campuses and are even invited to contribute to newspaper projects like Holy Post.

Who would object to this trend in a country like Canada?

Finally, Taylor's comment that atheist ads are unlikely 'to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on' signals that he has been overly focusing on religious communities and their emphasis on conversion, rather than speaking with those involved in atheist or secularist associations.

Had he engaged the latter group, he might have understood that the atheist ads are not about crass conversion. They are a signal to the skeptic and the doubter to not be afraid to take the road toward rejection of religion. They are a challenge to everyone to engage in critical reflection of their deepest beliefs."

Trottier and Payton should know fully that this argument simply doesn't hold water.

What would the purpose of a "there's probably no God" ad be, other than to attempt to convince people that there is (probably) no God? An ad that was merely intending to "signal the skeptic and doubter to not be afraid" would likely be an ad that tells people "we don't believe in God. Deal with it," or even "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."

Even a skeptic or doubter who is prodded down the road to rejection of religion becomes a convert if they were religious to begin with.

While Trottier and Payton are right when they note that participation by atheists in religious debate is, overall, a positive thing, they sorely overestimate their ability to sell an argumentive bill of bad goods to Canadians.

Most Canadians aren't terribly offended by the bus ads -- as unoriginal as they are for groups that pride themselves on being "free thinkers" -- nor should they be. Judging from his criticism of the ads themselves, it seems that Charles Taylor isn't terribly threatened by them himself.

But if Justin Trottier and Michael Payton are going to wait three weeks to respond to Taylor's comments, one would have thought they would have done better for themselves -- after all, every modern atheist or even skeptic seems to fancy themselves an expert philosopher.

Apparently not.

Another One (Does Not) Ride the Bus

Charles Taylor derides Atheist Bus ads

Charles Taylor has something to say about the bus ad campaign currently being conducted by Canadian atheists.

He isn't impressed by them.

In Britain's Philosophy Now magazine, Taylor weighed in on the Richard Dawkins-promoted campaign, describing them as "hilariously funny" (certainly about as monotonous a statement as has ever been uttered).

"Putting things on buses, as though that's going to make people somehow change their view about God, the universe, the meaning of life and so on," Taylor chuckled. "A bus slogan! It's not likely to trigger something very fundamental in anybody."

Taylor is only the most recent -- and certainly one of the more prominent -- thinkers to recognize the common vestiges of religion in modern atheism.

"This new phenomena is puzzling — atheists that want to spread the 'gospel,' and are sometimes very angry," Taylor mused.

"I think it may be rather like the response of certain bishops to Darwin in the 19th century," he continued. "The bishops had a sense that the world was going in a certain direction — more and more conversion, and so on — and then they find they're suddenly upset in their expectation and they get very rattled and very angry."

"Similarly, we're seeing this now among the secularizing intelligentsia — liberals who felt that the world was going in a certain direction, that it was all going according to plan — and then when it seems not to be, they get rattled. So you get these rather pathetic phenomena."

"I'm kind of flattered that he would comment on our bus campaign — though he's not terribly sympathetic," mused Center for Inquiry Executive Director Justin Trottier. "But I think he misses the point on a number of fronts. The point of the campaign was not a response to rising religiosity, it's an affirmation of the rising number of unbelievers. Unbelievers have never been organized to the extent that they are now -- whether they call themselves atheists or humanists or freethinkers ... The movement for science, reason and secularism has never had these numbers."

Of course, if the campaign were really solely directed at announcing the emergence of increasing numbers of atheists one would think a slogan like "We don't believe in God. Deal with it," would be a much better way of doing this.

As opposed to "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life" -- a message that, as Charles McVety complained (but all too hysterically) clearly intends to attribute a sort of perpetual anxiety to religion that the ads suggested people should reject.

That isn't a mere affirmation of these beliefs, as Trottier insists -- it's a promotion of the beliefs espoused in the ad.

Of course, if Canadian society is prepared to tolerate the ongoing proselytizing from mainstream, theistic religions, there is no reason in the world why fundamentalist atheists shouldn't be allowed to proselytize as well.

One merely wishes they would be honest about it.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

DeFaithed - "The atheist bus: Menticide on wheels"

Jeff Olson - "Atheist bus ads 'pathetic:' Philosopher"

Walker Morrow - "What is the role of criticism in religion?">

Once Again, the Difference Between Correlation and Causality

Many Canadian atheists don't seem to understand the difference

Writing in an op-ed article appearing in a recent-ish issue of the National Post -- a position that oddly enough certain individuals would insist is reserved for recpients of "wingnut welfare" -- Center For Inquiry Executive Director Justin Trottier writes about the recent work of the University of Lethbridge's Reginald Bibby and attempts to link key attitudinal changes in teenagers to a rise in atheism among that same age group.

Unfortunately, Trottier makes the same error that many of his atheist compatriots made when they fell head over heels with a study that alleged that regions ranking high in religious belief also ranked higher on indices for various social ills.

Namely, he mistakes correlation for causality.

The article starts out simply enough, with Trottier asking an age-old question.

"Can we be good without god?"

This is an easy enough question to answer.

Many, many atheists live perfectly moral lives. Many, many atheists are excellent people. This question essentially answers itself.

Of course, this isn't enough for Trottier. He'd rather ask if atheism actually makes people morally better. And as many people have managed before him, Trottier manages to find more or less precisely what he so wants to find:

"This may become a defining question for our time. University of Lethbridge sociologist Reginald Bibby has written a new book, The Emerging Millennials, which, while clear on the unprecedented rise of atheism, seems to suggest two irreconcilable answers to this fundamental question.

Bibby polled Canadians on the significance they placed on certain key values, and found that believers rated as more important values like forgiveness, patience and trust. But at the same time, he found that teenagers — the demographic group that has witnessed the highest rise in non-belief since 1984, from 12% to 32% – are increasingly less permissive and more mature regarding issues like alcohol and drug use, smoking or sex."

Trottier seems awfully quick to suggest that these changes in values are due to increasing levels of atheism.

But Trottier is clearly mistaking correlation for causality -- one of the most basic mistakes anyone makes in interpreting any phenomena.

These numbers could be placed in greater context by examining any number of the other things that have changed in the same period of time, from the increase of expendable income for teenagers to the ever-increasing spread of consumer electronics.

Not to mention that in the time period in which Trottier specifically alludes -- post-1984, there have been a lot of other social changes in the world. Teenagers during this period were growing up in an era in which AIDs was becoming a global pandemic.

Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" anti-drug program became something of a standard of anti-drug education.

It shouldn't be said that atheism absolutely cannot or is not a factor in the changes that Trottier and Bibby are referring to. But it certainly isn't the sole factor, and to attribute causality to it is hasty in the extreme.

"The question then becomes: Is the rise of atheism among youngsters going to lead to civil anarchy, or are we actually improving? As Bibby himself said: 'The thing that really surprised me were the positive results that point to the fact that we're making a lot of progress with teens.'

To reconcile these two patterns, let me suggest that actions speak louder than words. As unlikely as it sounds, perhaps those polled do not live up to their own high standards. A person can claim to be any number of things; televangelists, for example, would certainly score high on Prof Bibby’s test of values."

To top that off, one wonders if the values of which Bibby and Trottier speak are even values that Trottier wants to attribute to atheism or secularism.

Less permissive attitudes toward sex, drugs and alcohol have historically been associated with religious conservatism. In many cases -- such as 1920s prohibition -- these were a reflection of regressive attitudes amongst those who promoted these policies.

Making alcohol illegal was looked at by some as a method of clamping down on the feminist "flapper" movement of the roaring '20s. That particular brand of feminism may seem quaint and even anti-feminist by today's standards, but there['s little question that the religious conservatives of the day were extremely troubled by this new breed of woman who drank and had sex casually.

These don't seem like the kind of values that a secularist movement would want to embrace. One has to expect that Trottier almost certainly wouldn't. This is mostly because of the nature of the values he describes as "secular values":

"When comparing the values of an atheist to those of a believer, one must bear in mind just which values we are talking about. Many, including Bibby, who claim religious upbringing is necessary to guarantee social values consistently choose exclusively biblical values on which to base their statements."

But it's amazing how quickly Trottier actually fails this particular test:

"Kindness, politeness and courtesy are important, but so are social justice, equality, freedom of expression, accountability and commitment to democracy. These are the sorts of secular values I would wager atheists would score high on. But they are rarely used for such comparisons."

Certainly, many atheists would score high on these values. There is simply no question about that.

We also know that many atheists, both today and throughout history, would not.

For example, would Joseph Stalin have scored high on these values? Absolutely not. Many atheists continue to sputter in outrage every time Stalin and his atheism are mentioned within the confines of the same sentence, even at the expense of historical fact.

Furthermore, to describe "social justice, equality, freedom of expression, accountability and commitment to democracy" as secular values -- a thinly-veiled attempt to appropriate these values to atheism -- over looks the historical context of action in favour of these values.

Tommy Douglas was a Baptist Minister for whom the foundation of his political action was the Protestant Social Gospel.

Dr Martin Luther King Jr -- apparently unbeknownst to atheist rapper Greydon Square -- was also Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. Dr King used religiously-inspired prophetic language in his campaign to win civil rights for African Americans.

Benazir Bhutto insisted that democracy was divinely mandated by God in the religion of Islam.

If individuals such as Douglas, King Jr and Bhutto -- each in excellent company to say the least -- can find inspiration for these values within their religion, to describe them as "secular" values is more than just a little bit of a fallacy. These are values that virtually all but the most extreme people on either side of the modern ideological divide value. They are neither inherently religious or inherently secular values.

But although Trottier stumbles over the conclusions of Bibby's work, there is little question that his ultimate conclusion is both sound and admirable:

"Instead of wondering where society would find its ethical moorings in the absence of religion, the more interesting question is where our youth are already finding such alternatives and how they can be encouraged. As church membership fades, society should grant the same funding opportunities to secular and humanistic community groups who can fill the void in a way that ignores religious differences."

Those distressed by the rise of atheism -- whether cloaked as secularism or otherwise -- don't seem to understand that those who are increasingly turning to atheism are doing so for a very good reason.

It's clear that many people are finding that their own spiritual needs are not being met by traditional religions. This doesn't change the fact that they have spiritual needs, but rather reflects the fact that their own spiritual needs are different from those of Christians, Muslims, Jews or members of any other religion.

"Let us also not forget that many atheists do not need a building with a partisan logo on the front to engage in building strong communities. Many parents sit on school councils, coach sports teams or form community groups at animal shelters, blood clinics or food banks, and in other countless ways atheists blend anonymously into the secular volunteer community. Atheists have always found ways to improve society while passing on civic virtues to the next generation. It’s time those researching society’s trends figured out how to measure that."

If secularist organizations are going to provide the same level of community service as religious organizations -- and the Centre for Inquiry very much does, providing services such as substance abuse programs specially-tailored to atheists, they very much should receive the same treatment as religious organizations under Canadian tax law.

Justin Trottier may not firmly understand the difference between correlation and causality -- or at least seems to have properly applied it to the phenomena he discusses here -- but when it comes down to one of the most important secular values -- the equal treatment of all religions, as well as nonbelievers, before the law -- he certainly is on the right track.