On Friday I appeared on Strictly Right Radio on a panel arguing whether Canada is a Christian nation and whether we should be.  It’s a web-based political talk show that tackles issues from a conservative point of view, and a Christian perspective. Apparently they get some 13,000 listeners on their Friday show and another 100,000 downloads during the week.  Listen online at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/strictlyright (its Episode 5).

The panel was 2 in favour of a Christian nation, namely Edward Wooley and Matthew O’brien, versus 2 opposed, namely Conservative college campus activist Brittany D’Arcy and myself.  The debate devolved quickly into a heated exchange between Wooley and myself, since both O’brien and D’Arcy weren’t terribly vocal.  It was interesting to witness how the use of so-called trivial elements of religiosity in such things as our national anthem and preamble to the Charter were tossed around as though they legitimize the establishment of a Christian country.

Then on Saturday, we received rather flattering coverage in the Montreal Gazette:  Skeptics of the world unite - for real:   Montreal branch promotes science, holds discussions

I especially liked how our science and critical thinking programs were the focus of the piece:

At a national level, CFI Canada has a strong focus on political advocacy, including the separation of church and state and science education.

But things are different in Montreal, as Sagos said the secular movement is already strong in the city.

“We’re really prioritizing skepticism and critical investigation into the universe more than some of the other branches, which tend to be more interested in atheism and religious criticism,” Trottier said.

Sagos said that in Montreal, there is “a great opportunity … to promote science in a wide sense, the way science informs art, music and culture in general, not just the kind of narrow boring, professorial view that often gets perpetrated.”

Pendulum Effect Episode 16

“if some of the printed statements about our group were printed word for word against the women’s collective it would have been a firestorm…but to take pot shots at a group of several self identified males was considered fair game, so there again we met up with a previous unknown gender bias” - Will Breen

Guest Interview:  Will Breen

Will Breen is the founder and first President of the Men’s Collective at Brandon University in Brandon, Manitoba, the first men’s group at a university campus in Canada. He received a degree in Geosciences.

Brandon University Men’s Collective Facebook group

BU’s male advocacy group on short leash: ‘Men have issues just like everyone else’

BU Men’s Collective Campus Forum Discussion

News and Views:

Paying More Attention to Fathers (Nov 2, 2009, New York Times)

Fathers Gain Respect From Experts (and Mothers) (Nov 2, 2009, New York Times)

Why Women Should Be Concerned About Men’s Rights Groups (Nov 6, 2009, The Frisky)

Also of interest:

Economic crisis turning dads into criminals (Nov 4, 2009, Examiner.com)

News Co-host Michael Payton News:
A recent graduate of York University, Michael also worked as a research intern at Harvard and MIT. In 2008 he was ranked in the top ten debaters in Canada and the top 30 in North America.  Michael is also an active public spokesperson - having appeared on numerous TV and radio stations like CBC Radio, the John Moore Show and CTS Television for various political organizations such as the Canadian Secular Alliance.

Host Justin Trottier:
A leading figure in the freethought movement, Justin is an outspoken advocate of church-state separation, freedom of expression and inquiry, equality rights for non-believers and science education.  He’s had television appearances on CBC, TVO, CTS, OMNI, Global, the Space Channel, CH and CityTV, as well as dozens of radio appearances and coverage in campus, city and national newspapers.

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

Summary:  In 2001 there were 19% atheists and agnostics in Canada.  StatsCan results: 0.117%.  Let’s change the biased question for 2011.

In 2001 the Canadian government had its last major census which, among other questions, polled our citizens on their religion.  This is precisely what they asked

22. What is this person’s religion?
Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group. For example, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, United Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc.
Specify one denomination or religion only __________
No religion ________

Does anything here bother you?  “Indicate a specific denomination or religion even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group. ” So essentially the government seems to wish to label any lapsed and unbelieving catholic, muslim, jew, etc, with those observant or believing members of that tradition.  The effect this had was to drown out the numbers of atheists and agnostics in our country.

When decision makers contemplate increasing public funding of religious schools, keeping God in our constitution or anthem, giving preference to the religious in charity law and in special accomodations, continuing to call on a deity to bless parliament or the legislatures, or keeping the offence of “blasphemous libel” in the criminal code of Canada, they desperately need an accurate assessment of just how many non-believers exist and are being marginalized by such practices.  Yet they don’t get that.

Many of us have been lobbying the Census consultation team with this concern.  We all get the same carbon copy response from Dale Johnston (in case it’s useful to you this is Mr. Johnston’s full contact info: Dale Johnston, Senior Adviser / Conseillère principale, Census Communications / Communications du Recensement, tel :(613) 951-0444, fax : (613) 951-0930, dale.johnston@statcan.gc.ca).

Feedback from extensive consultations leading up to the 2011 Census indicates that the religion question in its current format provides the information required to meet the data needs of many users.  The question is open-ended and asks “What is this person’s religion?” Respondents can write in the box the name of a denomination or religious affiliation that best applies to them, including atheist or agnostic. They can also check the response for no religion.  In the 2001 Census, 17,810 individuals indicated that they were agnostic while 18,605 said atheist. Attached is a link to the table with the 2001 information.

That comes out to  36,415 atheists and agnotics in Canada in 2001, or 0.117% of the population.   Now does that sound remotely correct?  Not according to Phil Zuckerman, an expert in the sociology of religion at Pitzer College.  In his article “Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns,” from the Cambridge Companion to Atheism, (edited by Michael Martin, University of Cambridge Press, 2007), he writes:

… Guth and Fraser (2001) found that 28% of Canadians “show no evidence of religious salience or activity.” According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 22% of those in Canada do not believe in God. According to Bibby (2002), when asked “Do you believe that God exists?” 6% of Canadians answered “No, I definitely do not” and another 13% answered, “No, I don’t think so,” for a total of 19% being classified as either atheist or agnostic. According to Gallup and Lindsay (1999:121), 30% of Canadians do not believe in God or a “Higher Power.”

This is damning.  Sociologist based out of Lethbridge, Alberta,  Reginald Bibby, who is no friend to atheists who enjoys railing about the negative effects of the rise of atheism on our society, nevertheless himself still concludes - in 2002 a mere year after the census - that there are 19% atheists and agnostics in Canada.  Gallup and Lindsay go further.

Though more removed in time, in May 2008 the Canadian Press commissed Harris Decima to conduct a poll which found that “Many Canadians don’t believe in a god: poll“, specifically, “23 per cent said they did not believe in any god…” and excitingly for the future of our country, “More than one in three (36 per cent) of those under the age of 25 said they did not believe in any god.”

In summary, if Mr. Johnston, the Senior Adviser advising the Census group on how to get the best information to our decision makers, believes that a whopping 0.117% of respondents indicating atheism and agnostic means this Census is getting accurate data, we have a problem.  That number is off by a factor of over 150!

Note that 16% of respondents in 2001 indicated “no religion.”  Now not only does that number not fully account for what we would have expected even if every atheist and agnostic checked that box, but that category fails to differentiate between non-believers and those who are spiritual or subscribe to new age beliefs but are not religious, and those who are deists, both of which are large categories.  The Census question must be changed.  CFI is recommending the following:

22. What is this person’s religion / worldview?
For example, atheist, agnostic, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, United Church, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, etc.
Specify one religion or worldview only __________

This is an easy change, but it would have a huge effect.  Please help us.  If this question remains in its current flawed form, it will be another 10 years before we have a chance to improve it.

What can you do? Contact Statistics Canada and voice your concern. Ask to be counted as an atheist or agnostic on the 2011 Census.

Census consultation on the web: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/consultation/index-eng.cfm

Contact the Census consultation team:

E-mail:  censusconsultation@statcan.gc.ca

Mailing address:
Census Consultation Team
Census Marketing
Statistics Canada
4th Floor, Jean Talon Building
170 Tunney’s Pasture Driveway
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0T6

Fax:
613-951-4210 (Attention: Census Marketing)

For more information, contact Kevin Smith, Board of Directors, Centre for Inquiry Canada, (416) 312-7719 or info@cficanada.ca

“End of a double standard: Nevada’s first legalized male brothel.”

This is interesting and generally positive, but why the following sexism that insists men don’t want to feel special.

But because women customers may well want more time, it will end up costing more than the $300 per hour that female sex-trade workers charge at her brothel. “Women are going to want more from the men than just the sex part. I think they’re going to want to feel special — more like a spa experience. Like a friend with benefits.

Personally, I believe men want to feel every bit as special as women, and I don’t just mean in the brothel experience, I mean being pursued and paid for during dating in equal measure for example.

This Richard Dawkins’ interview of Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright on evolution is one of the most frustrating I’ve ever heard.  Notice at the beginning of part 2 how she completely fails to address the proof of human evolution Dawkins repeatedly points to based on human fossils.  Then later I enjoyed how she turns the fact that some in the religious community accept god-induced species creation through the mechanism of evolution as proof of the “diversity” of their creationist movement as opposed to the rigid and inflexible pro-evolution movement.  Dawkins towards the middle of the interview makes an insightul point that the people who oppose Darwinism especially in the US are so often on the political right wing, on which they tend to lobby for what might be described as a Darwinian society based on uncompromising free market economies.  One question I thought he should have asked was whether, if by some miracle she should have come to accept evolution, if Ms. Wright would still feel compelled to pursue the same agenda.

Although it’s called the Faith Matters panel, today’s episode of the Michael Coren Show spent roughly half the time focused on topics that had little if anything to do with religion.  For example, we covered the troop escalation in Afghanistan: Prostesters March as Obama Speaks at West Point.  Coren tried to connect this by suggesting that western support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been far reduced had the country not been muslim.  This was an odd position for him to take.

We also an even more oddly analyzed at great length how Tiger Woods Says he let his family down.  Here I believe the idea was to dwell on the morals of infidelity.  Of course, it allowed Calvin Smith of Creation Ministries International to come out with his usual rhetoric about the lack of any kind of ethical standards by secular humanists (although he would elsewhere in the show imply that secular humanists have a set of pseudo-religious beliefs so go figure).

Thankfully, we rounded out the episode with some church-state issues of real importance, including the dismall news Swiss minaret ban emboldens Europe’s extremists where I argued that this is based on the ignorant view that minarets are symbols of islamic triumphalism when they are in fact used for practical purposes like calling people to prayer and ventilating the structure, and that intrusive noisy Christian bells are far more annoying (ever hear the loud ones in downtown Toronto?).

And finally, we discussed Australian politics for a change:  Abbott excites anti-abortion group.  The issue was supposed to revolve around whether it was wrong that a politician is being blasted for religious affiliation, but my point was that religious affiliation was not always a guarantee of political positions.  In this case, Abott has nutty positions.  He wants to retun to at-fault divorce where you need to mount a case to be allowed to end a marriage, ban embryonic stem cell research, and discontinue access to the morning after bill.  Who cares that he’s Christian.  He’s out of his mind, and that’s enough for me.

We didn’t get to a few other stories I was hoping to touch on, including Plans Underway for Canada’s first Faith-based prison unit:  Christian group and Canada must speak out against Uganda’s anti-gay bill.

Firstly I’m excited to announce a new blog called Skeptic North which bring together leading bloggers and commentators in the skeptic and critical thinking community of Canada.  And they’ve already made a name for themselves.  Our friends and allies at Skeptic North blew the whistle on a Bill that would - or rather will - grant naturopaths the right to prescribe some medications.  This just passed Third Reading in the Ontario legislature so it’s essentially a done deal.  But I’m posting some of the writings of Skeptic North bloggers here because this matter is anticipated to be coming to other provinces very shortly.

You should start by reading this:  Magician Prescriptions: Ontario Poised to Let Naturopaths Prescribe which was reposted in the National Post.

The following is a re-post of an important piece by Steve Thoms, Editor-in-Chief of Skeptic North, which follows up and clarifies some of the issues:
Why Bill 179 Matters and is a threat to Medical Standards

Pretty messed up, huh?  Bill 179 is itself, not explicitly about granting naturopaths the right to prescribe.  Its original intent is to offer modest expansion of treatment powers to nurse practitioners, pharmacists, physiotherapists, midwives, dietitians, and medical radiation technologists.  After the first reading of the bill, that’s all it was going to be, and despite the recommendation of the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC), Naturopathic ‘Doctors’ (ND’s) were explicitly shut out of the expansion of powers. After the Bill’s second reading however, the recommendations of the HPRAC were put back in, and that ND’s should be granted prescription rights was worked into the bill.  But not directly:  it is being done by amending the existing Naturopathy Act, 2007.  This process of amending existing acts is not unusual, but it is a slightly more roundabout way to introduce new health powers (and such, it makes it more difficult to repeal in the future).

Bill 179 now seeks to expand the ability of prescription of schedule 1 drugs to ND’s.  This will be done by adding the following phrase to subsection 4(1) of the Naturopathy Act, 2007 (which deals with the authorized acts of a Naturopath): “Prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling a drug designated in the regulations.”

Further complicating this is that nowhere in the Naturopathy Act, 2007 is it clear what is defined by “Naturopath”, and only defines it as someone who graduated from the College of Naturopaths of Ontario.  The problem with this ’standard’ is that once a person leaves the college, they can practice just about anything that falls under the loosely defined umbrella of naturopathy, including (but not limited to) homeopathy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), Reiki, acupuncture, hydrotherapy (in today’s form, it’s known as colon cleansing), and therapeutic touch.  The naturopathic industry in Canada is largely self-regulated, and naturopathic disciplinary hearings are rare occurrences.  So not only does this inclusion allow for non-qualified medical personnel with questionable credentials to prescribe science-based medicine, but it also allows the same power to alt-med practitioners who have a demonstrable record of having treatments that are at best placebo (which violates medical ethics), at worst bogus and dangerous.

The other key amendment to the Naturopathy Act, 2007, deals with regulations in subsection 11, wherein the “Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council and with prior review by the Minister, the Council may make regulations…”.  Bill 179 would add,

(g) designating the drugs that a member may prescribe, dispense, compound or sell for the purpose of paragraph 7 of subsection 4 (1), prescribing the purposes for which, or the circumstances in which, the designated drugs may be prescribed, dispensed, compounded or sold and prohibiting the prescribing, dispensing, compounding or selling of drugs other than the ones designated.

In other words, the government will create the list of drugs that the ND (and remember, it doesn’t even have to be an ND, just someone who went to the Naturopathic College) can prescribe.  The list is not finalized yet, and may take up to three years to get to that point  But the list of recommendations made by the HPRAC is extensive, and includes anti-inflammatories, antibiotics and some narcotics (which is alarming on two counts:  1) naturopathic education teaches a non-scientific explanation about the nature of infection, and 2) Canada has been in the process of instituting tighter controls on narcotics like Demerol, and morphine, so why increase the number of untrained people that have access to this addictive drug?  Once the ND’s have a set list of drugs that can be prescribed (as determined by the government), the hard part is over: the naturopathic lobbying groups can pressure the state to expand that list at anytime.

Most successful bills go through three readings (unless special circumstances warrant), and parliamentary convention dictates that the three readings roughly go through these stages: First reading - presentation, Second reading - refinement and fine-tuning, Third Reading - formality.  Once a bill gets passed the 2nd reading, it rarely gets rejected or modified for the third reading.  There is nothing that says the bill necessarily has to stay in its 2nd stage form, but there is also no reason it can’t be defeated (besides convention of course, which is a powerful government tradition in Canada).  Defeating a bill at the third reading is unusual, but so is changing a bill so drastically in the 2nd reading in the way that Bill 179 has.

I can’t offer better advice than what Scott said the other day: let your voice be known.  Let your MPP’s know that this bill is a dangerous threat to healthcare standards.

This is not a freedom-of-choice issue for the supporters of naturopathy. There are no laws in the books that disallow anyone from seeking naturopathic treatment. This is about naturopaths and other pseudo-scientific modalities gaining a stamp of legitimacy that non-experts can use to wedge their way into scientific credibility.  Like the battles fought by chiropractors in the UK, naturopaths in Canada fight on political grounds, not evidence and science.  Their arguments don’t stand up to scientific rigor, if they did, they’d be medicine.

While it is true that BC was the first province in Canada to grant ND’s the right of prescription, it is generally the case that where Ontario goes, so goes the rest of Canada.  We need to stop them here.

Left to right: Yours truly, David Goicoeecha, Grant Lafleche

Wednesday evening I moderated my first debate.  It took place in the small town of Fonthill (near St. Catharines), Ontario, between atheist and journalist Grant Lafleche and catholic Brock University professor David Goicoeecha on the existence, nature and meaning of the afterlife.  As the debate moderator I was not able to inject my comments into the mix, but as an independent blogger here we go.  I wasn’t surprised to find Grant cogent, fast thinking and eloquent, nor was I surprised to find Dr. Goicoeecha hard to understand, easily moved off topic, and making irrelevant and factually wrong statements.  What was surprising was just how poor a debater Goicoeecha actually was.

In essence his argument, if it deserves that descriptor, was that it is fine to rely on “emotional cognition” to answer questions related to the afterlife.  He described Grant as reductionistic for his repeated call for facts.  At least 3 questioners described Grant as simply denying everything, and insisted that Grant’s denial had no more proof than religious assertions.  They asked him to give evidence for the non-existence of god or heaven.  Dr. Goicoeecha would then proceed to endorse those comments, explaining how much nicer is a universe where we can endorse, or say “yea and Amen” (something to do with Nietzsche?) to feel good things like heaven and salvation.

Grant’s response was that accepting everything was a way to avoid debate, and in any case, why not then accept Mormonism (at least we know Joseph Smith lived), Scientology, and anything else we’re told.  This nicely backed Goicoeecha into a corner, and he came out with the ridiculous statement that he could easily accept all those beliefs - even atheism!  What he could possibly mean by that I can’t fathom.

A few other highlights:

1.  Grant pointing out that Pascal’s wager (believing in god and being wrong is far better than not believing and being wrong so why not believe?) is like the used car salesman of version of theology.  It’s like asking “how can i get you into this heaven today?”

2.  Goicoeecha’s statements to the effect that

- St. Theresa of Avila (well known for her mysticism and commentaries on love) would probably have loved Hitler more than Jesus (with no preamble or explanation to make this sound anything but horrific).

- All flesh will be saved literally means that our pets are off to heaven (apparently also mice, fish and lizards, since the definition of flesh is “the soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate)

- Copernicus started astronomy (no explanation from me necessary)

3.  Best of all, a questioner who said that if Jesus ascended into heaven at the speed of light he’d be at Pluto by now.  Ludicrous and astronomically wrong too.

Today is November 24th, 150 years to the day since the publication of Charles Dawin’s “On the Origin of Species”.  And unfortunately it is also the day when Ray Comfort, who famously referred to the banana as an evolutionist’s greatest enemy for its obvious intelligent design as the perfect food for humans, is striking again.  This week thousands of copies of an amended version of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” are appearing across 70 North American university campuses in the US and Canada.

The new version includes a 50+ pages creationist forward which among other things, ties natural selection to Hitler and the holocaust and claims that belief in evolution is incompatible with Christianity.  The book also deleted four chapters in the original book which provided much of Darwin’s evidence for evolution.  Eugenie Scott of the National Centre for Science Education, who debated Comfort on the “God and Country” blog on the US News website, referred to Comfort’s book as  “a hopeless mess of long-ago-refuted creationist arguments, teeming with misinformation about the science of evolution, populated by legions of strawmen, and exhibiting what can be charitably described as muddled thinking.”

The Centre for Inquiry and the National Centre for Science Education jointly coordinated a major pro-evolution and pro-science campaign across North American campuses.  As the Executive Director of the Centre for Inquiry in Canada I can proudly state that 10 campus clubs across the nation participated, covering major cities of Montreal, Halifax, Saskatoon, Fredericton (New Brunswick), Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto, Waterloo, Ottawa and London, Ontario.

Our campus distribution packages consisted of evolution videos which are available for free from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.  We also included a page from the NCSE entitled “Why Ray Comfort is Wrong” which describes why Comfort’s book is bad science (eg. Comfort’s claim there are no transitional fossils!), bad history (eg. Hitler is given as Darwin’s most famous student!) and bad theology (eg. mentioning Francis Collins but failing to include the small fact that he is both a famous evangelical and famously pro-evolution!).

Finally we included a 2-page flyer “Evolution:  Fact and Theory” which reminds readers that while large scale species change is an established fact the theory of evolution consists in the various mechanisms the understanding of which is still being enhanced.  One of the major evidences for the fact of evolution is transitional fossils, and the example provided is Tiktaalik, the famous 365 million year old link between fish and early tetrapods, made famous in Neil Shubin’s book “Your Inner Fish.”

Our coordinated Canadian pro-evolution campaign is already starting to bear fruit (of a non-banana variety).  The University of Saskatchewan Freethought Alliance is quoted in a headline story in their campus paper The Sheaf.  The article is entitled “Ray Comfort targets universities: Darwin attacked in free copy of On the Origin of Species.”

Yesterday I raised the matter of the continued role of the British monarchy in Canada as a potential church-state separation issue for the Centre for Inquiry. The monarchy debate has been rekindled in part because of an 11 day visit to Canada by Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, which ended this week.

For those unfamiliar, Queen Elizabeth II continues to reign as our nation’s head of state while her representative the Governor General acts as her proxy for ceremonial and constitutional duties. In a farcical display, the Prime Minister of Canada, an elected official who leads the government, advices the Queen on whom to appoint to this position. No one votes on the Queen’s representative, Canada’s ceremonial spokesperson, who serves, as it’s often described, “At Her Majesty’s Pleasure.”

The Navigator polling firm recently discovered that over 60% of respondents felt the monarchy was outdated in Canada. This prompted Brian Tobin, former premier of Newfoundland, to say: “It looks silly… that Canada has a head of state who’s born in another country.”

I decided to poll an admittedly more biased audience, so I put the question up on my facebook wall last night: “Should a secularist organization take a formal anti-monarchy position?” and received about 30 comments by the morning. I have to admit I thought this would be a slam-dunk, but feelings were mixed.

The greatest reason to oppose the monarchy from a secularist point of view is that the Queen of Britain is also the head of the Anglican Church. As Citizens for a Canadian Republic points out, the US has proven a modern secular democracy can elect a Black head of state, yet here in Canada we will never have a non-Anglican head of state. The Movement Laique du Quebec (Quebec Secularist Movement) has a formal anti-monarchy position due to this dual political/religious role.  Actually, the US offers an even better reflection.  In the US the head of state must be US born, while in Canada the head of state will likely never be Canadian born.  Odd.

On the other hand, many felt the issue was outside our scope and that pragmatically constitutional monarchies are secular political systems. I can’t help but point out in that regard that during his visit the heir apparent, surrounded by cohort of political dignitaries and Anglican church VIPs, attended an Anglican church service, a tradition when monarchs visit Canada, last occurring in 2002 when Queen Elizabeth attended service during her Golden Jubilee Commonwealth tour.

I think the general consensus view was that we take an indirect approach, opposing the dual role of the monarch as head of state and church, and especially we should take issue with the notion of the divine right of kings. The catch is that throughout history kings have always claimed authority by allying themselves with the priestly class. In the middle ages, the concept of the Great Chain of Being made this explicit. A chain descended from the source of all authority, God, progressing down to angels, demons, stars, the moon, then kings, princes, nobles, and finally common men just above the animals and the inanimate world. There’s just no way to separate the religious justifications from the political power granted an unelected head of state.

So while this is not a major issue worthy of great resource dedication, I will continue to push for a solid and clear position, and we will explore the issue further with a Cafe Inquiry panel discussion in Toronto to include reps from the Monarchist League, Citizens for a Canadian Republic, and it’s my hope our allies the Canadian Secular Alliance.

While conducting a series of interviews for the pilot episode of a major upcoming new multimedia project called Think Again! TV, whose mandate is given below, I had the opportunity to interview Claude Frankhauser of the Freethought Association of Switzerland about the Swiss participation in the very global Atheist Bus campaign. The very rough audio (it will need considerable editing) of that interview can be found at the following link

I thought it would be interesting to compare the experience of one of the European bus campaign leaders outside the UK to that experienced in the US and Canada. When I say “bus campaign” I’m being somewhat geenrous. In fact, they were unable to place ads on buses. The slogan they attempted to run, something translated into German but similar to the UK “There’s Probably No God. Now Relax and Enjoy Your Life” was rejected without compromise. They found a unique solution in moving to large public posters. This was a brilliant move, and they were able to raise $25,000 franks ($36,800 US dollars) .

I was able to sympathize with the way they were passed bewteen advertising companies and city officials, each claiming the other was responsible for giving permission, all the while religious organizations have had no trouble with their own advertising. But I also found it heartening that thanks to massive media attention and public support, they were able to hit more cities but actually changing the minds of transit authorities that had originally banned the display. It’s great to see the freethought movement beginning to mobilize such large scale support towards an important end.

Think Again is the first TV show to examine current affairs from an atheist perspective and a skeptical point of view. Eeach show investigates a controversial issue (at the cross-section of ethics, politics, science and religion) through personal commentary, streeters, discussions, interviews and debates.  The pilot episode of Think Again! TV will focus on the international phenomenon known as the Atheist Bus Campaign.

Today we had a more enthusiastic than usual episode of the Michael Coren Show (CTS TV).  On the Faith Matters panel for the first time was Cheri DiNovo, the NDP MPP for Parkdale-High Park and former United Church Minister.  As a result, the show got off to an unusual start by focusing on DiNovo’s rather liberal and progressive Protestant faith, which prompted Coren to move into a discussion on where religion in general was heading, what with the attempt by the “Holy Father” to bring conservative Anglicans over to the one true faith.  This, as I pointed out, threatened to further polarize religious believers, along with the secular community, between conservatives and liberals.  It was also amusing to me, as it vindicated my view that religious developments are just as strategic, political and oddly secular as the rest of the profane world.

After that, we moved to far less controversial ground with a rousing debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide, prompted by the news Quebec doctors cautiously endorse euthanasia. Rev. Msgr. Vincent Kerr, Judicial Vicar of Diocese of Hamilton was worried that the medical community was pretending medicine wasn’t had nothing to do with morals.  But, I argued, this was definitely a moral issue, an issue of personal and bodily autonomy for the patients.  He and co-panelist Andy Bannister, Christian Apologist, Ravi Zacharias International, argued that we shouldn’t legalized euthenasia or assisted suicide based on a few extreme cases, as though there were only a few people suffering in misery.  Hypocritically, they sided with Coren who argued - from a few random cases - that assisted suicide ought to be kept criminal because of some very small number of abuses in places where it has been decriminalized.

In the second half of the show I was able to make a more dominant contribution, as we focused on so-called heritage issues Crucifix ruling sparks uproar in Italy:
European Court of Human Rights rules the religious symbols could disturb children who are not Christians. I was happy to quote from the ruling which is calling on taking down the crucifix, since I quite liked the wording:

“The State (must) refrain from imposing beliefs in premises where individuals were dependent on it,” it added, saying the aim of public education was “to foster critical thinking.”

And finally, we ended on a very positive note:

With urine on Jesus, has Larry David gone too far? Curb Your Enthusiasm is my favourite show on television, so it was awesome to use my obsessive knowledge of the series to defend it.  Larry David, who is Jewish, mocks everyone: Muslims, Jews (see the one where he plays Wagner for the Jewish guy who thinks the musician was an anti-semite), people in wheelchairs (remember Denise Handicapped?) , Christian Scientists (did you see the one where he hides Benadryl in a cupcake?)

Pendulum Effect Episode 15, Friday, October 31, 2009

The Pendulum Effect is shifting its focus.  Episodes will now feature a news and views segment, and when possible, a feature interview.

News and Views:

Today we’ll discuss the following stories, and their larger issues:

Men banned from Lesbian Parties

A company in Australia specialising in lesbian parties has won a case allowing it to ban men from its events.

Men and women equally abuse victims, study says

According to a new study, violence is no longer a gendered term.  A report funded by Canadian Institutes of Health Research says male university students are almost as likely to experience violence as their female counterparts

Sharp rise in number of women guilty of domestic violence

There has been a four fold increase in the number of women convicted of attacking their partners in just five years, figures show.

Symbol of Unhealed Congo: Male Rape Victims

GOMA, Congo — It was around 11 p.m. when armed men burst into Kazungu Ziwa’s hut, put a machete to his throat and yanked down his pants. Mr. Ziwa is a tiny man, about four feet, six inches tall. He tried to fight back, but said he was quickly beaten down.

Featuring co-host Michael Payton.  A recent university graduate, Michael is engaged in fascinating research on ethical behaviour and moral intuitions at York University in Toronto.  He’s also worked as a research intern at Harvard and MIT. In 2008 he was ranked in the top ten debaters in Canada and the top 30 in North America.  Michael is also an active public spokesperson - having appeared on numerous TV and radio stations like CBC Radio, the John Moore Show and CTS Television for various political organizations such as the Canadian Secular Alliance.You can get the latest show by:

* Subscribing here for free with itunes
* Using this feedburner link in your browser.

Download: mp3 file

If you like the show, please leave us a review on itunes.

Firstly, a heads up that I’ll be appearing rather earlier than expected on the next Michael Coren Show Faith Matters panel, this Thursday 6pm.

Then on the same network this Saturday, November 7, from 6-7pm, CTS TV will air a pre-recorded 1 hour show in which I and Age Smies of the Humanists of Canada appeared on Faith Journal to discuss Atheism/Secular Humanism.  You can find which station the network appears in your region at http://www.ctstv.com/.

The topics covered were the following:

·        About that bus campaign….
·        Why are Adams, Hitches, Dawkins selling so well? What, if
any, impact on your communities?
·        Where does your movement stand in Canada?
·        Once upon a time, humanists/atheists/

I’ve finally gotten around to posting some of the lectures and debate talks I’ve given in the last while.   The following can all be found on the transcript page of the Centre for Inquiry website:

1.  Panel: Hamilton World Religion Conference.  Topic:  The Role, Character and actions of God.
October 18, 2009, Bishop Ryan School, 50 Albright Road, Hamilton, Ontario
Featuring reps from Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Native Spirituality and Atheism/Humanism.  Justin Trottier represented Atheism/Humanism

2.  Debate:   What - if any - impact has Christianity had on Canadian law and in what ways have religious vs. secular worldviews contributed to the Canadian legal system?
Debate between Michael Coren, author and broadcaster, and Justin Trottier
University of Western Ontario, October 8, 2009

3.  Debate:  Can We Be Good Without God: Is Religion Foundational to our Collective Sense of Right and Wrong?
Halifax, October 2009.  Hosted by the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs
Eric Beresford, President Atlantic School of Theology vs. Justin Trottier. Moderated By: Kevin Kindred, Legal Counsel, Bell Aliant.
Speech and Video available online.

Several weeks ago a brouhaha erupted over one of the core missions of this blog, namely my desire to provide a new and balancing perspective on issues of gender and equality, and more to the point, the way in which my expression here might confuse those who support my positions within the freethought movement in general and the Centre for Inquiry in particular.

After tossing and turning for some time, and considering the issues in much detail, I’ve decided to issue a simple formal response.  What I am not going to do is speak to the many specific allegations that were made against me, including misinformed claims regarding such things as volunteer appointments, media interview decisions, and other supposed ways in which my day to day work has been compromised by my position on men’s issues.  Anyone who may continue to have doubts that I am able to do my job successfully is invited to contact me to get another side of the story:  416-402-8856 or justin.trottier@gmail.com.

What I do want to do is clear up any confusion caused between where my blog and its opinions end and where my job at the Centre for Inquiry begins.  Certainly muddying those waters was not my intent.  The disclaimer near the top of the homepage stating: “An independent blog, unaffiliated with any organization”, which has been up there for months was meant to clarify that point.

In various discussions on this matter with my colleagues and Centre for Inquiry management, we’ve agreed it would be best to clarify that while CFI management has in no uncertain terms affirmed my right to blog about any matters of importance to me, yet I should do my utmost to ensure that my extracurricular activities do not diminish my effectiveness at my job.  And that is my commitment to you.

An objective look at the state of the freethought movement by an observer who knew nothing about my blog - and that is precisely the position that most supporters of CFI in Canada are in - would show overall measurable success in critical areas. The membership and donorship in the Centre for Inquiry in Canada continues to expand; we just finished hosting our largest event to date with over 450 people in attendance; earlier in the year we helped run the atheist bus campaign, which is the largest atheist outreach project in Canadian history; I just hired a new part time assistant named Pam Walls; we had the most campus events this fall then in any previous year; and CFI is a regular fixture now in the media, with over 550 media appearances in Canada thus far to our credit.

That last is a point to dwell on.  When I go on TV or radio, I always endeavour - so long as time is available - to seek commentary and opinions from as many people as possible regarding how I should respond to issues I will be asked about.  Those of you on various CFI email lists, know this well.  And I do synthesize many of your comments and use them.  This is helpful to me since it provides access to your great ideas, but it also means I am a far better and more genuine humanist representative, and it also means that your views get into the limelight too.  What I never do is use the opportunities I am afforded, and they are many, to push an agenda on issues peripheral to CFI’s stated aims.

And as further proof of my commitment to ensure this movement reflects diverse points of view, after an incredible amount of work to found the Freethought Association of Canada and turn it into a charity, I nearly immediately stepped down as President and turned it over to its new leader Katie Kish knowing full well our disagreements and her intentions to move it into new areas. I had also hired her to work with me at CFI several months earlier.  That is not what a power hungry dictator would do.

Far from burning bridges, CFI is extending them to new groups.  Those who doubt my sincere commitment to equality and diversity should take note.  This month I was invited to participate in the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity’s Explore the Elements Conference to engage in Christian-humanist dialogue, and also spoke at the Hamilton World Religions Conference in dialogue with jews, muslims, sikhs, bahais, buddhists and those representing native spirituality.  Shortly we’ll host Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress.  Last month I directed financial support to the “atheist pride” component of the Gay pride parade in Ottawa, having done the same for the one in Toronto earlier in the summer.

As proof of how far we have come, I am pleased to announce the Centre for Inquiry is now a charitable organization in Canada and ready to issue tax receipts.

I believe the freethought movement in Canada has never been in a better position than it is now.  That is due first and foremost to the dedicated volunteers we have whose tremendous efforts are too often not credited.  I believe, as do the management at CFI, that it is also due to the strong leadership that I’ve provided and plan to continue to provide in my capacity as executive director of the Centre for Inquiry.

As this personal blog of mine moves forward I will endeavour to reflect a more mature and level tone in my postings, and to refrain from unnecessary sarcasm that will only inflame issues further and impede the dialogue I genuinely wish to foster.

Some of you believe the entire idea of advocating for men’s issues is by definition misogynistic.  With you I must respectfully insist we agree to disagree.  But many of you who have posted about my blog are not in that camp.  Many of you believe such issues desperately need airing.  You may simply believe my tone was a poor choice in that regard.  With you I’d like to open a door. I invite those of you who really are interested in being a part of this dialogue on gender and men’s issues to please provide me with comments on how I can do a better job towards that end.

And whether you participate in this or not, I would hope that if you are a freethinker, secularist or skeptic, and care about the stated aims of the CFI, you will work with us on achieving our goals for the movement in Canada.

Sincerely,

Justin Trottier

Please Note:  It’s been decided for a variety of reasons that this letter, which is an official response CFI management and I have agreed I should issue as Executive Director of CFI, and which is therefore not a regular part of my blog, will for that reason not be an appropriate location for blog comments.  You are welcome to post your comments in the general comments section of the blog or to send them to me directly, as described above.

I generally consider myself skeptical about the ultra-tolerance and political correctness run amok that characterizes ideological multiculturalism, especially in Canada where it’s practically illegal to criticize another’s beliefs.  But I have to admit this past weekend I engaged in productive multicultural dialogue at two conferences I was invited to participate in.

The first was hosted by the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity whose leader Gretta Vosper is one of the most remarkable women I’ve met.  A United Church minister and author of “With or Without God:  Why The Way We Live is More Important Than What We Believe”, she is attempting to re-interpret Christian mythology as stories and symbols rather than miracles and metaphysics.  She’s spoken for the Centre for Inquiry at a number of events.  Returning the favour, she invited me to speak at her conference entitled “Explore the Elements”.

At this conference, where I spoke on “Aren’t You a Freethinker?” to a group of people that make up a spectrum between atheism and liberal Christianity, I made a central point by  borrowing the concept of memetic equilibrium developed by my co-panelist ethics and critical thinking Professor Chris DiCarlo to explain how different ideas upset the established ecology of beliefs.   I argued that while our society has established a rough tolerance for different religions, that tolerance is ultimately illusory.  As new equilibriums generally establish themselves as close as possible to the old one, in this analogy it’s only natural that upsetting the Christian establishment would result in the development of the “theist club” in which membership is open to all so long as there is a belief in god.

I was pleased that one of the audience members asked the profound question at the end of our workshop, namely is there a new global mythology we can build that will upset the equilibrium enough so it does not require outsiders to exist and might include even non-believers.  My answer was that whatever it is, it must start with the acceptance that no one has epistemic authority over anyone else.  That is not to say that some people don’t know more than others, but rather that we all have the same tools at our disposal to establish truth.

Another questioner wondered if even atheists didn’t believe in god in some form.  This leads me nicely to the second conference I engaged in this weekend.  I acted as the secular humanist speaker at the Hamilton World Religions Conference sponsored by the Ahmiddayya Muslims on the topic of the “Role, Character and Actions of God.”  A bit awkward for me, but I reinterpreted the topic in creative ways, such as:

1.  What is the Role, character & actions of a person in the absence of god”? which allowed me to answer with, and then explain, secular humanism
2.  What is it about the Role, Character and actions of God that make him God.  That make him worth of our worship, which led to an emphasis on the fact that everyone must make secular conscience based ethical choices
3.  The role and character of people’s gods as projections of their mentality and values at any given time in history and the ways in which the nature of god evolves in time with the changing secular society, which led to an evolution of religion history lesson, with reference to this video by anthropologist Jared Diamond,
4.  And finally and that which connected nicely to the first conference, “What kind of role could a new conception of god take on that even an atheist would believe in it?”

There’s always a tendency at these events for believers to wish that atheists could embrace some new conception of god so as to join the family - perhaps a name they might use to refer to their secular values, to the complexity of the universe, or to the sense of awe and wonder that characterizes it, in much the way Einstein used the term.

And it was a reference to this universal feeling of curiosity and questioning and a desire to obtain truth in the face of the mystery of the universe that the Bahai moderator of the World Religions Conference used to bring all of us together and to close the conference.  It’s a neat and tidy picture. But while I admit to a productive multicultural weekend, I’ve never been one to choose what’s pretty over what’s true.  I can’t help but think that scientific naturalists - but not religious believers - dare to accept and deal with the true mystery of the cosmos, rather than to hide it under a new name.  In any case, what was enlightening about the experiences was that, much as I just described, I didn’t need to compromise on the genuine differences between myself as a secular humanist and the other speakers at the conferences in order to engender dialogue and understanding between us.

If you ever get the impression that this blog has divolved into self promotion, your suspicions may be confirmed by the present post.  Busyness and stress have combined such that I can only post a barebones promo for upcoming events this weekend:

Tomorrow, Saturday October 17th the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity is hosting a conference called “Explore the Elements”.

I’ve been invited to co-host a workshop called “Aren’t You a Freethinker” with the philosophy prof and TVO’s #1 lecturer Chris diCarlo:  The term “freethinker” has a noble tradition, coming into common usage during the enlightenment as a way of describing those rejecting traditional forms of authority and hierarchy, preferring the use of reason and science to answer a great variety of questions. In recent years the badge has been worn mostly by atheists and secular humanists. Does one have to reject belief in god to be a freethinker? Is this a smart PR label for advancing atheism? Where do those rejecting traditional forms of religion but still holding to belief in god fit in? What can we offer and learn from each other?

Then on Sunday, I’m speaking on atheism and secular humanism for the Hamilton World Religions Conference hosted by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Hamilton

The topic is the “Role, Character and Actions of God.”  That was at first difficult for me to see how an atheist/humanist could comment on a nonexistent deity’s attributes, but on second thought there are lots of creative ways to approach this question.  For example, by analyzing god’s actions in a particular faith from a humanist perspective, how god’s character is a projection of our own, and alternative moral paths to those that depend on a capricious deity.  So we shall have some fun.  Although all panelists are advised not to criticize each other, so I’ll have to tread a little delicately.  I suppose I’m capable of that.

There will also be multifaith presentations and displays.

1:30 pm - 6:30 pm
Bishop Ryan Catholic High School, 50 Albright Rd, Hamilton, ON, L8K 5J3

Progressive Christians and Ahmadiyya Muslims inviting atheists to participate in their events? What an exciting development, and what a perfectly multicultural weekend!

A little over two weeks ago I was contacted by members of Anonymous in Halifax who had a shocking experience to relate to me while protesting against the Cult, excuse me Church of Scientology. It was so revolting I wrote up a piece and submitted it to the Holy Post. I don’t believe the site has featured much on Scientology so it seemed like it was about time to introduce them to it.

The full piece can be found here: “Justin Trottier: Violence at anti-Scientology protest”

It starts:

I’ve often been puzzled by the international and well-attended protests against the Church of Scientology, led by the leaderless internet group known as Anonymous since early 2008. Why target this specific religion? Why engage in protests without public spokespeople? And why wear those silly Guy Fawkes masks?

Now I have an answer, at least to that last question.

A disturbing story of what happens when an organization has a “Fair Game” policy that legitimizes destruction - of any form - against those who oppose it.  It’s also interesting that Scientology never returned my call for answering my questions.  Why would they?  Another policy forbids talking to journalists or anyone merely curious about the… Church.

You were warned:  Next week, blasphemy gets its own holiday, declared the Religion  News Service. in an advanced feature coverage.  Why do the heathens rage?, asked the Christian Post just days before.  Free Speech Advocates Rally for Blasphemy went online on the Toronto Star’s website the morning of the event.
This is just a sample.  There was, in short, a lot of buzz surrounding International Blasphemy Day leading up to its launch.  Looking back, the following day, on this first annual event, I think it was a job well and provocatively done.  The day was quite international but I’ll comment  on the Canadian contribution specifically.

Centre for Inquiry Montreal hosted a relaxed social event and discussion at a local restaurant.  Durham Region Freethinkers had a special guest speaker, Paul McKeever, who leads the Freedom Party of Canada.  CFI Saskatoon/Saskatoon Freethinkers pulled out all the stops, including a Debaptism Ceremony

and several denials of the holy spirit

They received considerable attention, including an article in the Star Phoenix:  Group touts questioning of religion, featuring an interview with student leader Rebekah Bennetch and then one of the off campus group leaders George Williamson was on the radio this morning (Oct 1) with interviewer John Gormley who is apparently Saskatoon’s answer to Rush Limbaugh:  News Talk 650 CKOM (should be available to download shortly).

Finally, in Toronto, we had an awesome time right in the middle of the university on the patio of Sidney Smith hall.  Our University of Toronto Secular Alliance did a great job introducing hundreds of students to the Blasphemy  Challenge but this time encouraging people to write absolutely anything on a big board and then yelling their name and their comment to the crowd.  Meanwhile, videos like Mr. Deity were playing in the background. To professionalize the activities, Greg Oliver, Vice President of the secularist lobby group the Canadian Secular Alliance, was on hand passing out policy papers on free speech and blasphemy, and government sponsored religion like religious charity status and publicly funded religious schools, and engaging on these important issues with students and the public.

We put a few comments to start the Challenge:

By the end of the day the comment board looked like this (it’s still sitting here at CFI):

The Toronto Star, the EyeOpener, the Varsity, the U of T magazine and several freelances were all out covering the event.

Highlights included a verbal altercation about the limits of free speech based on the misunderstanding that our efforts were to offend rather than to courageously show that we were unafraid to speak our mind.

The gentleman involved noticed we had a copy of Rushdie’s Satanic Verses as an

example of a banned book and censorship.

Claiming we represented a satanic cult and refusing to even open the book to see what it was really about, he proved the necessity of blasphemy day by throwing the book in the trash.  Later the book magically (miraculously?) re-appeared on our table.  There are sacrifices people are willing to make for free speech.

Also fun was watching Preacher Mitchell Gerskup, leader of the U of T Secular Alliance, attract a crowd.  The whole event took  place under the watchful eye of the Canadian atheist bus campaign banner which was interesting to hear people comment on.  We attracted a good size crowd over the course of the 3 hours.  We then had an important discussion back at CFI about the meaning of Blasphemy Day and how to improve upon it in following years.  2009 was after all the pilot project and we look forward to many more activities in the Campaign for Free Expression.

If you happened to miss out, not to fear.  Our McMaster Association of Secular Humanists tells me they did too, and will make up for it with an event on October 6th.  So get check it out