Fighting theistic bias at my university

[Modax]

Here at the University of Alberta, atheist/agnostic students like myself have been struggling to get references to God removed from our convocation ceremony. Here's an article with details.

http://tinyurl.com/5hc2y8

[Metatwaddle]

Good luck with this. I'm the VP of my own university's Secular Student Alliance group, and I see you guys are affiliated with the SSA too. I was about to suggest you ask someone there for advice, but you probably won't get a response back by Monday.

The comments cited in the article and the responses to the article itself are a mix of people who get it and theists with a sense of entitlement. The Campus Alpha pastor's claim that "for the glory of God" means "commending [sic] students to live their lives at a higher level" strikes me as duplicitous. In American vernacular - and Canadian too, I assume - most people do not interpret "God" as "a nebulous sense of purpose and ethics". Evangelicals say things like that when they want to keep references to God in public life, and then they turn around and say God cares very much what people do in their bedrooms, and they are privy to the knowledge of what God wants.

At any rate, if "live for the glory of God" just means "live your life at a higher level", why not replace "glory of God" with "progress of humanity" or "betterment of the world"? After all, they mean the same thing!

[Ender]

Funny, another forum I post on had an atheist posting about fighting against you guys via editorials and such, claiming that you were "religion bashing". He never really responded to my post about how them trashing your banner was apparently OK, but asking for a neutral ceremony is hostile. meh.

And would someone please copy past the page he linked? I refuse to click tiny URLs.

[Master of Cards]

Ian Bushfield wants God off the program when University of Alberta students line up in caps and gowns next spring to get their degrees.

On Monday he gets to make his case.

Bushfield is the head of the university’s Atheists and Agnostics association, which has petitioned the University of Alberta to remove the reference to God in the traditional convocation speech delivered by the chancellor to new graduates.

In the speech, the chancellor urges those in mortar boards to use their newly granted parchments for “the glory of God and the honour of your country.”

Bushfield said the reference is outdated and not reflective of recent national surveys that suggest one twenty-something in three doesn’t believe in God.

“We want an inclusive convocation where everyone feels welcome and able to participate,” said Bushfield.

“A lot of schools have moved away from these references. We want to have our school match what the University of Toronto and University of Calgary have already done.”

On Monday, the executive committee of the General Faculties Council will hear arguments for and against removing the words. Christian groups on campus are expected to make representation.

The issue is then expected to be debated by the full council and eventually voted on, but not in time to make any changes to the November convocation.

Paul Tan of the University of Alberta Navigators, a campus Bible study group, said he would be OK with the change.
“In all reality this is a secular campus and to remove that (reference) doesn’t impinge on the honour of God in any way,” said Tan.

But he said he’s keeping his eye on the bigger picture to make sure a God-free convocation address doesn’t “open the floodgates to restrict us in our practices on campus and the right for us to share our beliefs with others.”

Pastor Dennis Varty of the Christian group Campus Alpha declined to be interviewed, but said in an email that to remove the God reference is to interpret its meaning very narrowly.

“It fails to recognize the value of such a statement to the lives of graduating students. This is not religious rhetoric but a statement of purpose. We are commending students to live their lives at a higher level,” said Varty.

The issue began brewing in the summer, when Bushfield asked university officials to make the change. When he was rebuffed, he wrote an opinion column in the university student newspaper The Gateway, which ignited a war of conflicting opinions in print letters and online.

“Wow, time for a thicker skin,” wrote one student, Colin. “If you secularists are going to go off pouting every time God is mentioned, you are quickly going to lose what little traction you have in the culture.”

Michaela disagreed: “I’d be happy to agree to use my degree for the glory of Zeus. At least it shows acceptance of something broader than the cut-and-dried automatically-assumed Christianity of the masses.”

Online writer Kris added: “Imagine if they told us to use our degrees to the glory of His Noodleness, the flying spaghetti monster. It makes just as much sense to me.”

It’s not the first time Bushfield has publicly poked a stick at organized religion, nor the first time his association has been targeted.

In his Gateway opinion piece he angered religious devotees when he said the God referred to in the chancellor’s speech is the “big-G God,” that “Jews, Christians and Muslims live in fear of.”

Last month, an Agnostic association banner hanging in the student-hub Central Academic Building was vandalized. The words “Jesus is Coming. God Loves You” were scrawled in black felt marker above and below the groups’s signature scarlet-A logo.

Bushfield said the defaced banner won’t deter him.

“I’m trying to work for something I believe in, and if I didn’t do something just because I was afraid, that wouldn’t speak too well to my commitment.”

Theres the Article

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Here at the University of Alberta, atheist/agnostic students like myself have been struggling to get references to God removed from our convocation ceremony.

That doesn't give much information on exactly what has happened, but I suggest the following:

1) Offer alternative wording rather than just trying to eliminate what you find offensive. This may have already been done, but the article doesn't make that clear.

2) Seek support from moderate Christian groups. Check out the Chaplain's Centre in HUB mall--the denominations represented there are (or used to be) of the mainstream/moderate groups (ELCiC Lutheran and United Church, for example). They would likely be sympathetic to your position.

If you can propose alternative wording that was written with input from various groups (athiest as well as theist), then you are not as easily dismissed as being Godless agitators (mind you, Campus Crusade for Christ would still try that).

[spaceviking]

honestly as another U of A student I don't see the point of all this... If you don't believe it then just pay lip service for a minute, and don't make a bigger deal about it then it is. I'm not saying that I believe religion should necessarily be a part of the ceremony, but it's a part of tradition and it doesn't hurt anybody, if anything the efforts to remove religious references have only made people more aware of them.

[Eleas]

honestly as another U of A student I don't see the point of all this... If you don't believe it then just pay lip service for a minute, and don't make a bigger deal about it then it is. I'm not saying that I believe religion should necessarily be a part of the ceremony, but it's a part of tradition and it doesn't hurt anybody, if anything the efforts to remove religious references have only made people more aware of them.

In other words, one shouldn't rock the boat. Much better to give the followers of the biggest cult free rein to alienate and intimidate everyone else within what's supposed to be a faith-neutral institution - they are, after all, the biggest cult, and thus such behaviour is their self-evident right.

Yeah, that's a brilliant idea.

[DPDarkPrimus]

If you don't stand up over the little grievances, then it just gives these sorts of people the feeling that they can get away with bigger and bigger things.

[Ender]

honestly as another U of A student I don't see the point of all this... If you don't believe it then just pay lip service for a minute, and don't make a bigger deal about it then it is. I'm not saying that I believe religion should necessarily be a part of the ceremony, but it's a part of tradition and it doesn't hurt anybody, if anything the efforts to remove religious references have only made people more aware of them.

Yeah, let's not push against the group of bigots out destroying the property of others. That would be foolish and upset people.

[spaceviking]

If you don't stand up over the little grievances, then it just gives these sorts of people the feeling that they can get away with bigger and bigger things.

Its not about letting people get away with anything, its leaving things as is if their not really hurting anybody. I would even less support had this been a Cristian/ Muslim what have you group trying to put references to faith in an originally faith neutral ceremony. How exactly would this escalate to bigger and bigger things? Their is a huge differences between being controlled by religious groups then deciding that its is unnecessary to purge all reference to religion. Perhaps I do not take these sort of ceremonies as seriously as the rest of you, Do you guys actually feeling alienated and or discriminated by religious references such as these? No one should feel excluded at their own convocation, but to me this seems more like when people insist that government institutions should wish happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas, when either way it doesn't matter.

[Eleas]

Its not about letting people get away with anything, its leaving things as is if their not really hurting anybody. I would even less support had this been a Cristian/ Muslim what have you group trying to put references to faith in an originally faith neutral ceremony. How exactly would this escalate to bigger and bigger things? Their is a huge differences between being controlled by religious groups then deciding that its is unnecessary to purge all reference to religion. Perhaps I do not take these sort of ceremonies as seriously as the rest of you, Do you guys actually feeling alienated and or discriminated by religious references such as these? No one should feel excluded at their own convocation, but to me this seems more like when people insist that government institutions should wish happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas, when either way it doesn't matter.

First, please, at least make a rudimentary effort toward coherent spelling. I'm not exaggerating when I say I almost failed to understand you.

Second, while it is possible that you yourself would be fine with declaring your allegiance to an entity that you a) don't believe exists and b) would consider unspeakably evil if he did, not everyone is of that opinion. As a matter of basic integrity, no-one should be forced to pretend to hold opinions about religion for fear of being shunned, lambasted or assaulted. Going along with praising a particular god publicly is a public endorsement, not only of the god in question, but the associated faith. It's all part and parcel of the same thing.

You say it's not a big deal. But that's precisely what's wrong. If that pledge is no big deal, then tell me: why would it be so bad to change it?

It shouldn't be. Unless, of course, it's very important for the theists to foster an atmosphere of universal conformity to their faith. Plus, of course, to impress upon non-members that they are all alone.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

It's also important to realise that public rituals such as convocation ceremonies reflect societal norms, and the language used directly illustrates the values of that society. And changing the language helps to change those values.

In Canada, we pride ourselves on religious tolerance, but it's not true tolerance if the language doesn't truly reflect this. For this reason, public institutions such as the University of Alberta should not use language implying a particular religious conviction. Neither should it imply a non-religious conviction. It needs to be truly faith neutral.

The admonition to use one's degree for "the glory of God" in the convocation ceremony warrants a change.

[Kanastrous]

The admonition to use one's degree for "the glory of God" in the convocation ceremony warrants a change.

Or at least the addition of some encouragement to consider using it alternatively in the service of Shaitan.

[TheMinister]

Perhaps it could be changed to a ceremony with options depending on the student's faith.

This is how the oath for the British Army (random example I know) works- one can choose to pledge to server under "Queen and God" or "Queen and country". This means that everyone can be totally sincere in the pledge they make.

[The Romulan Republic]

Second, while it is possible that you yourself would be fine with declaring your allegiance to an entity that you a) don't believe exists and b) would consider unspeakably evil if he did, not everyone is of that opinion. As a matter of basic integrity, no-one should be forced to pretend to hold opinions about religion for fear of being shunned, lambasted or assaulted. Going along with praising a particular god publicly is a public endorsement, not only of the god in question, but the associated faith. It's all part and parcel of the same thing.

I'm afraid I have to question the "unspeakably evil" part. Does the ceremony specify a literal interpretation of, say, the Biblical God? If not, then I'm not sure how you can justify the above statement. I'd bet that most of these people's interpretations of the Bible are not entirely literal, and their view of God consequently much more benevolent than what the literal text supports. Hence, I must disagree that this ceremony nessissarily constitutes swearing allegiance to an evil being.

It shouldn't be. Unless, of course, it's very important for the theists to foster an atmosphere of universal conformity to their faith. Plus, of course, to impress upon non-members that they are all alone.

Probably most of them don't think of it like that. For a lot of people, its just going to be "why change tradition?" I'm not saying that's a great argument, but its probably how a lot of people view the issue. The way you put it, you make it sound like every theist spends their life plotting out intricate schemes to alienate and brainwash atheists. While their are no doubt people like that, for many people I suspect you're reading too much into it.

And frankly, their are bigger issues than this. Sometimes you have to choose your battles. Things like this sometimes seem like they're perhaps a waste of political capital.

[Eleas]

I'm afraid I have to question the "unspeakably evil" part. Does the ceremony specify a literal interpretation of, say, the Biblical God? If not, then I'm not sure how you can justify the above statement. I'd bet that most of these people's interpretations of the Bible are not entirely literal, and their view of God consequently much more benevolent than what the literal text supports. Hence, I must disagree that this ceremony nessissarily constitutes swearing allegiance to an evil being.

You misconstrue my meaning, which was, I'll admit, badly worded in the first place. My point was that for those of us who feel the Christian God is evil, showing support for that creature would be an immoral act.

Probably most of them don't think of it like that. For a lot of people, its just going to be "why change tradition?" I'm not saying that's a great argument, but its probably how a lot of people view the issue.

Which, as I said, shouldn't raise such instinctual ire from Christians. No. There's something more to it, though not necessarily overt malice.

The way you put it, you make it sound like every theist spends their life plotting out intricate schemes to alienate and brainwash atheists. While their are no doubt people like that, for many people I suspect you're reading too much into it.

Again, that's not my meaning. I'm saying the faith itself is designed to operate by punishing and ostracising non-believers. To obliviously perpetrate such mechanisms may not be as bad as consciously doing so, but that doesn't make it right.

And frankly, their are bigger issues than this. Sometimes you have to choose your battles. Things like this sometimes seem like they're perhaps a waste of political capital.

I'm confused here. What immediately bigger issues are there to address that would be a better use of "political capital"? I'm not a politician, nor am I a campaigner. I'm simply of the opinion that letting unjust behaviour slide encourages it to grow worse.


(I'd like to add a disclaimer: right now, not only am I sick but I'm also on withdrawal from SSRI meds. Anyone familiar with that stuff will know how it affects the mind, so if I'm barely coherent, I'd like to apologize for that straight away.)

[Samuel]

I'm confused here. What immediately bigger issues are there to address that would be a better use of "political capital"? I'm not a politician, nor am I a campaigner. I'm simply of the opinion that letting unjust behaviour slide encourages it to grow worse.


(I'd like to add a disclaimer: right now, not only am I sick but I'm also on withdrawal from SSRI meds. Anyone familiar with that stuff will know how it affects the mind, so if I'm barely coherent, I'd like to apologize for that straight away.)

Ouch. Worst I have was posting while on sleep meds.

Anyway, I think he is refering to standing firm against the evil Muslims. Or the creationists. Or the New Agers. Or some other form of religious nuttery and try to avoid pissing of the "moderate" Christians.

Of course, as AM has shown us, we are moderate antitheists- why should we fall back to timid? It isn't like we should bother about political capital- after all, these things feed off each other.