…and this is a 
O Canada! O Women!
Category: Religion
Posted on: January 18, 2008 1:41 PM, by PZ Myers
The North looks ever more attractive — read this excellent article on the collapse of organized religion in Canada. The numbers of church members is simply plummeting up there, a state we can only dream of bringing to pass here in the US (numbers are declining here, too, but we can hope that this is an inevitable descent and that Canada is only leading us by a few years.)
One interesting hypothesis for why it's happening is that we can thank, in part, feminism.
Women — the traditional mainstays of institutional religion — in huge numbers abruptly rejected the church's patriarchal exemplar of them as chaste, submissive "angels in the house" with all of the social and moral responsibility for community and family but none of the authority.
Unable to find acceptable religious role models or religious ideals that were not painful or oppressive, they reconstructed their identities as secular and sexual beings.
As they progressed into university graduate and professional schools and entered the work force, their horizons broadened and they discovered ways of serving that were more valuable than doing dishes and running church picnics.
I don't know how solid the data is on that claim, but it's at least intuitively attractive. Mothers are typically far more influential on their children's religious belief than fathers, at least in my experience, so anything that draws women away from the church is going to have strong effects.
Maybe if we want atheism to succeed, we need to promote women more. Everyone thinks of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens when we discuss the godless movement — but perhaps we should be giving more props to Susan Jacoby, Julia Sweeney, Ellen Johnson, Natalie Angier, Margaret Downey, even Madelyn Murray O'Hair … hey, have you noticed? There are lots of actively atheist women!
Comments
I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
In the atheist group I run on campus, the bulk of the members are women. The bulk of the women would likely call themselves feminists. In fact, all four officers are women, including myself!
I found it amusing that in the group running guide I received from either CFI or the Secular Student Alliance had a section on "welcoming women" or how to attract them to the group. Was it formerly unheard of for women to be atheists?
Posted by: Kcanadensis | January 18, 2008 1:57 PM
I ran into one of my former students yesterday. She's a women's studies major and is taking "Feminist Theologies." She whispered to me, "But I'm a hard core atheist so it's hard not to roll my eyes and laugh."
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 2:00 PM
I think it's the access to education.
We LIKE our women smart(better sex)
Not to mention it's too cold to believe in hell.
peter
Posted by: peter garayt | January 18, 2008 2:00 PM
...and hot... let's not forget atheist women are hot.
Posted by: ryanb | January 18, 2008 2:01 PM
Speaking as a Canadian, I'm glad religion is losing its appeal. In the 60's and 70's during the Quiet Revolution in Quebec Church attendance in that province went from 90% plus to sub 20%. The rest of Canada is follow suit. If only now the politicians had the courage to get rid of state sponsered Catholic schools (a left over from Confederation) in all the provinces.
Posted by: Michael Hogan | January 18, 2008 2:03 PM
Sadly, the author of that article tripped and fell into the age-old "blame it on the feminists" trap in his argument.
The reasoning is actually quite weak, as it ignores a plethora of other factors that play into the mix.
Posted by: Grog | January 18, 2008 2:04 PM
...and Pmomma!
Posted by: Milo Johnson | January 18, 2008 2:04 PM
"...and hot... let's not forget atheist women are hot."
...and they put out on the first date! Ok ok just kidding
Posted by: Steve | January 18, 2008 2:04 PM
I think this is refreshing and encouraging news, PZ. Anecdotally, my wife and daughter went to our former mega-church in Apple Valley, MN for the music on xmas eve past and said it was almost empty...let's praise and shout to jebus for this miracle of lost-faith!
Posted by: Rick Schauer | January 18, 2008 2:05 PM
Sadly, the author of that article tripped and fell into the age-old "blame it on the feminists" trap in his argument.
Why "Blame" why not "give credit for?"
When I teach gender I say that feminism is partially responsible for increasing divorce rates because it has provided women with greater opportunities for education and employment so they are not as trapped in bad marriages; it has led to changes in the law for how domestic violence is treated, which has also helped women escape; and a few other factors. One of the things I flat-out say is that part of the increase in divorce is positive and feminism deserves part of the credit for that.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 2:07 PM
More committed to what, superstition? And he sees a smaller zealot filled cult as preferential?
It is certainly a fact that women make the churches go as any trip to any church will show. The mothers bring the kids while dad goes fishing or something. Losing the mothers really kills a congregation. A church my mother in-law attends just did a 're masculinizing' series as they felt the church was becoming to feminine. Not enough men where coming and the congregation was mostly female.
My female relatives where upset over this attempt and two now attend elsewhere.
There was this fellow who had a site called 'the war on faith' and he had a funny screed on being a woman and being Christian.
I've had this talk with my wife. She has told me a professor who said how pro woman the bible is but frankly I don't see it.
Posted by: Uber | January 18, 2008 2:10 PM
I have to say this surprised me. Being from Alberta it seems like Creationists are coming out of the wood work. A "Creation Science" museum opened last year. But if this is true it sure makes me proud to be a Canadian Athiest Woman. Hopefully this is a trend that lasts.
Posted by: Jamie | January 18, 2008 2:10 PM
This is flat out true. Not all divorce is bad and or terrible. What is terrible is the amount of lives wasted by people forced to remain in loveless and worse marriages.
Posted by: Uber | January 18, 2008 2:13 PM
Yes, many younger women have left the churches. They've also left many other organizations that depend heavily on volunteers, or moved to different kinds of organizations; it can be tough to find women who are free for after-school Girl Scout meetings, for example, though they may be volunteering somewhere on evenings or weekends.
It's also a die-off, as the article noted. All those church-basement ladies who organized rummage sales and spaghetti suppers and funeral teas are getting old and dying, needing their diminishing circle of colleagues to organize their funeral teas.
Posted by: Faithful Reader | January 18, 2008 2:15 PM
Jeff,
you've likely already seen this Slate piece by Tim Harford, but if not, you might find it interesting. Rather than risk getting sucked into the black hole of PZ's moderation queue again, I'll just give you the URL to cut and paste:
http://www.slate.com/id/2182089/entry/2182091/
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | January 18, 2008 2:16 PM
The religious profile of Canada is quite different from the US. Even Alberta has a lot of Anglicans, Catholics, Unyited Church compared to any of the southern states. The closest parallell I can find to Alberta in the US is Rhode Island.
So if Rhode Island represented the religious right in the US...
Posted by: paul01 | January 18, 2008 2:22 PM
Let's not forget Emma Goldman, eh?
Posted by: DaveX | January 18, 2008 2:26 PM
Mrs. Tilton,
took a quick look. Nice complex analysis it seems, but it also seems that he wants to develop a model of economic activity (particularly the development of sexual divisions of labor) that treats gender as epiphenomenal (again--quick reading) rather than constitutive. I take a bit of issue with that.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 2:27 PM
This is totally true. As a Canadian woman, who 'escaped' from the Catholic church as a teenager I feel really lucky to be living in this country as opposed to the US. Sure alot of my family doesn't really get why I don't believe in god, no matter how hard I try to educate them, but I very rarely run into any real fundamentalist attitudes that appear to be so rampant in the US.
We sure aren't perfect, because I still feel that most of our population believes in god, but it's really quite passively in alot of cases - where people believe in god because everyone else does, and feel that evolution is too difficult to even think about. Here's something that really made me smile lately though:
I am getting married in May, and since my fiance and I are definitely not the church marrying kind we have hired an officiant, who will perform any kind of ceremony you like. In discussing our options, and telling her that we want no christian content whatsoever, she said that of the people who use the services of her and the almost 100 officiants in her group that at least 85% of people want no mention of god in their ceremony. I was really surprised and happy to hear this!
Posted by: LisaJ | January 18, 2008 2:33 PM
We absolutely need more women being vocal about skepticism and non-belief. And we need more woman taking a public role in science and science education. Women will really change the dynamic in Canada and the U.S. in the future on these issues. More Skepchicks please!
Posted by: Richard | January 18, 2008 2:44 PM
Here are some figures for
Alberta and
Ontario
from the 2001 census. (Could not find the 2006 figures)
Posted by: paul01 | January 18, 2008 2:45 PM
"If only now the politicians had the courage to get rid of state sponsered Catholic schools (a left over from Confederation) in all the provinces."
I totally agree with this. I was raised in the Catholic school board in Ontario - I went to a catholic elementary and high school. I feel like I got totally ripped off as a child in terms of my education. I'm still annoyed that not only did I have to spend precious time learning about religion every year (and going to church with my classmates once a month), when I could have been learning about something more useful and interesting to me, but I wasn't even allowed to be taught anything about evolution. I heard NOTHING about it. I was always really interested in science and this subject was just not a priority next to religion and creationism, etc. Ridiculous. I was totally confused as a child, because any of the 'teachings of the church' that they rammed down our throats made no sense to me, but we weren't allowed to question it or even ask for further clarification. I just feel that I got ripped off, and unfortunately tons of kids are still shoved into this school system, alot of times even if the parents aren't sure they believe in it themselves.
I feel like one of our biggest problems here in Canada is that even though the number of people who don't really believe in religious values and teachings is increasing, alot of these people don't take that extra step to really think about how they feel about the world and what they should be teaching to their children. Think for yourselves people!
Posted by: LisaJ | January 18, 2008 2:47 PM
In light of PZ's invocation of Julia Sweeney, I want to reiterate that I think she's fabulous. As I wrote in this space in October:
Well, it's three months later now, and still no Letting Go of God (nor release date for same). I'm getting antsy.All the more reason: Swee-ney! Swee-ney! Swee-ney!
Posted by: Rieux | January 18, 2008 2:49 PM
Two other influential atheist women are Anne Nichol Gaylor and her daughter Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which is a powerful Atheist rights organization (it does a great job of defending and promoting separation of church and state through lawsuits citing the First and Fourteenth Ammendments to the US Constitution).
Posted by: Bill Anderson | January 18, 2008 2:50 PM
Heh, heh. I've been blabbing about this for years. In the 1960's the non-religious were self-identified at just a few percent in my parents generation. By the time my generation settled down and got married it was about 10% of the individuals, depending on what you read. In our children's generation, it's about 20%, depending on what you read, and the composite rate for all generations is at about 10%-15%.
Even more important is the growth of the "unchurhed." There are different definitions of the term, one definition is people who still call themselves "Christian" but don't attend church. Here Christianity is also failing. From 1991 to 2004 the "unchurched" part of the population has increased from 39 million to 75 million (92% increase) according to a survey done the Barna Group.
Another definition is people with "no religion" but don't necessarily call themselves agnostic or atheist. At this point in time, people who self-declare as "no religion" are now 14% of the nation. This is up 75% from 1990.
Today, the most religious state is North Dakota with just 3% claiming no religion. The most liberal state is, surprise, Washington State where 25% claim no religion.
A corollary to this is the reactive growth of Charismatic Churches. Membership in those kinds of churches has grown to 80 million members in the US. This is the group that is most hostile to women's rights, including abortion, contraception, equal pay, etc. So, while religion is failing in the United States, in it's death throws it is radicalizing. So we are not out of the woods, yet.
Posted by: Moses | January 18, 2008 2:52 PM
Kathy Griffin is a pretty cool female atheist.
Posted by: Ric | January 18, 2008 2:53 PM
Don't forget Sara Silverman. Rrrowrrr.
Posted by: Rey Fox | January 18, 2008 2:59 PM
Yes, please let us encourage women who are not in the
position of Ellen Johnson and others of note to get out
there and become known to us and the god worshipers.
I know Ellen Johnson, and am particularly honored to have
known Madalyn Murray O'Hair. What an experience to talk
with her, She was brilliant and unequivocally intransigent
in debating the religious rabble. She may have been caustic
with profanities and forceful intrusions while the insane
were ranting, but that did not detract from her incredible
knowledge to put her rationality across to the religiously
deranged. I was with her for several conventions and was
always assured a spot next to her in various situations to
revel in her intelligence. What a horrible shame to come to
such a demise, murdered by criminals, one of whom was a
member of the Atheist Organization. We will never have her
like and intellect again. I will always cherish those
memories with her, and considered it a privilege to be
able to discuss the situations we are now embroiled in at
an ever-demeaning rate. I often wonder how she would
handle the likes of D'Souza, Huckabee, Paul, and all the
other deranged rabble. I still think she would be all the
more formidible of this current crop of crap.
Posted by: holbach | January 18, 2008 3:00 PM
paulo1, it think it'll still be awhile before they'll release the data on religious affiliation from the 2006 census.(http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census/index.cfm)
I wonder how many Canadians who affiliate themselves with a religion are actually soft athiests, agnostics, or new-agey pantheists.
Even here in Alberta (well, that liberal island called Edmonton), I know quite a few who still consider themselves to be Muslim or Christian due to their upbringing, and yet hold very little to their respective churchs' doctrines.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 18, 2008 3:01 PM
LisaJ, your experience of the catholic school system is a little different than mine. I went to a public elementary school but a catholic highschool based on the recommendation of my grade 8 teacher (the local public highschool was really, really crappy and I'm not above abusing the system). Yes, we wasted a lot of time with morning prayer crap, and had two required religion classes that were a large waste of time, and yes, we had monthly masses. But we did study a evolution in my school to a certain extent (no mention of common descent, but lots of genetics and natural selection). And overall the quality of the school was much higher than the public alternative. Of course, the correct course of action would be to improve the public schools.
Posted by: King Aardvark | January 18, 2008 3:01 PM
Richard,
You better copyright Skepchick quick before someone steals it.
-a proud skepchick!
Posted by: slim | January 18, 2008 3:07 PM
Ha, Canada is just like Europe! :)
Posted by: James | January 18, 2008 3:08 PM
Sarah Silverman an atheist?
Hello, she totally slept with him.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 18, 2008 3:10 PM
King Aardvark, that's great to hear that you had a better experience than I did. I do know of many cases like yours actually where non catholic students have gone to a catholic high school at some point, because it promised a better education. It is true that, at least in Ontario where I'm from, the catholic school system offers an overall better education than the public school system. I do agree that where our government really should be spending our money is in improving the quality of education in the public school board.
I am glad to hear that perhaps not all catholic schools in Canada keep their students so disillusioned in terms of religion vs science. The furthest we got in terms of genetics in all of high school was learning the process of mitosis (for 3 years in a row!), not even the whole cell cycle (don't even ask about meiosis, haha, no sex talk here). Where did you go to school? Ontario as well?
Posted by: LisaJ | January 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Please let's not forget Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her book is fantastic and very inspirational.
Posted by: schmeer | January 18, 2008 3:14 PM
I've heard that the percentage of non believers in my city is 22% (a bit higher than the national average). I can't imagine what that means the percentage on campus alone is.
Posted by: darwinfish | January 18, 2008 3:18 PM
music to my ears.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:20 PM
....BDM in that "atheist conversion" thread wondered when we would move on to the second step, and what that would look like...
I'd say when people stop supporting organized religion simply because it means nothing to them, that would be "step 2".
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:22 PM
Canada makes me ashamed to be an American.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 3:25 PM
Another great post, PZ, and a reasonably good article too (for the Globe and Mail, at least). As one of the younger generation, I can see how and why Canada's churches are in decline, it's pretty damn uncool to hang around a bunch of mysognistic, sexually repressed and homophobic old white guys ranting about how gay marriage = the end of all that is. The majority of young Canadians appear to be comfortable with women working outside of the home, with gay people getting married, and having sex outside of marriage, so anyone arguing to the contrary is undoubtedly going to feel the pinch.
As a matter of fact, I had recently just written an article for Trent University's Absynthe Magazine (www.absynthe.ca) on this very issue, namely, the fact that Christianity seems to have devolved into a pack of bloodthirsty authoritarian pricks isn't helping them in the long run, and will only serve to damage the prospects of the faith unless they start acting with honour and dignity for once.
I ended up getting this two-page response from one Christian would ended up dancing around the entire issue and quoting random Bible verses in order to justify his rather scattered argument. Getting back to the point at hand, one of his excuses for Christianity's behaviour was that 77% of Canadians identify themselves as Christian. Now, I haven't really looked it up, so I'm not sure if what he's saying is true or not, but even if it is, it's a figure of the current population. Nothing he wrote throughout the course of his article suggested that this was in any way going to preserve Christianity in the future. So what if 77% of Canadians call themselves Christian? The way things are going, and the seemingly oblivious attitude of Christians to the problems in their own house (as exemplified by the guy who responded to my article), that figure's going to shrink PDQ.
But to be frank, I can't shed many tears for Christianity in Canada, and this most recent news gives me something to cheer. The faith hasn't done much to benefit Canada in recent memory, and this decline means that more Canadians will have a better chance of growing up into rational and enlightened human beings with the capacity for critical thought. Hopefully, the realisation that nothing lasts forever will help Canada's Christians in getting off their high horses and actually doing something productive and positive for once.
P.S. Unfortunately, due to some technical snafus, the most recent issues of the Absynthe haven't been placed up on the site, so I won't be able to link to the article in question. Hopefully, that'll change, and then I can link it, if anyone's interested.
Posted by: The Phoenix King | January 18, 2008 3:28 PM
I'm Canadian. Like one of the other posters here I went
through the Separate school system in Ontario. I remain a somewhat wishy-washy Catholic. Upon reading the linked article I found myself feeling sad, as though something were being lost...
Then I realized that I was regretting the disappearance of
community that was once provided by these failing churches. That got me wondering if anybody has considered a replacement social model - a way of continuing to use those church buildings in a socially positive and financially feasible approach - sort of like a diluted unitarian church, that would allow people to feel spiritual if they wished, but that would encourage learning about what is "Really Going On" in the world.
Is there room for a post-religous social community in the former church parishes? Would you return to the church in which you were born to have a communal supper and/or watch Fahrenheit 911?
Posted by: Neville Chamberlain | January 18, 2008 3:30 PM
MAJeff:
the Canadian government's response:
Canada isn't quite "there" yet, unfortunately.
not surprising, given the petty responses of the Bush administration to other criticisms leveled at it by other countries.
I'm sure Bush was just sitting there, pen in hand, waiting to sign a resolution invoking economic "sanctions" (read: illegal economic penalties) if the Canadian government in any way publicly endorsed that document as being representative of Canadian foreign policy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:36 PM
That got me wondering if anybody has considered a replacement social model - a way of continuing to use those church buildings in a socially positive and financially feasible approach - sort of like a diluted unitarian church, that would allow people to feel spiritual if they wished, but that would encourage learning about what is "Really Going On" in the world.
if not, why not get involved and start one?
no need to feel loss, if you can encourage a suitable secular replacement.
just the process of trying would be worthwhile, don't you think?
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:38 PM
Canada isn't quite "there" yet, unfortunately.
I'm no less ashamed. We're known around the world as a nation that tortures. We allow cities to be obliterated, bridges to simply collapse. We invade nations that are no threat to us, and uphold regimes that violate the human rights of women (shit, they're the only regimes we can get to agree with us at certain UN conventions).....
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 3:40 PM
I'm no less ashamed.
fair enough. I really meant to point out another thing I was ashamed about:
punitive sanctions applied to entire countries for simply disagreeing with our current administration's policy decisions.
as the saying goes:
Worst - President - Ever
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:51 PM
If Canada is so post-religious, then why is Mark Steyn being prosecuted for criticizing Islam?
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10499144
Posted by: Chip | January 18, 2008 3:52 PM
Isn't what is being unsaid here is that we assume fewer woman than men to be nontheistic because women seem to be the primary churchgoers or is there a more pernicious myth that women buy into belief systems more readily (i.e. women are less logical and more emotional than men)?
The funny thing is that Xian men seem to be the most rabidly illogical publicly, excepting Coulter of course.
Is it also because we have the unflatteringly abrasive M. M. O'Hare as the archetypical representitive for female atheism? Dworkin was the face of (radical) feminism and O'Hare and Dworkin seem to raise a similar requisite of hackles to supporters and nonsupporters alike over their respective causes.
Trying to establish a new postergirl (woman) as attractive or "hawt" is problematic because of the implied chauvenism, although I do think Julia Sweeney is awfully cute.
BTW, "Skepchick" is already taken by a wonderful blogger; check her out.
Yay for Canatheist women!
(I'll just duck and cover now)
Posted by: Jsn | January 18, 2008 3:52 PM
seriously, I hope someday, years from now, when people think "W" they will associate it with starting the phrase, Worst President Ever.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:53 PM
Worst - President - Ever
I'll drink to that. I guess that means it's time to head to the liquor store and grab a bottle of wine...French maybe.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 3:53 PM
When is this ever not true? To echo a couple of posters above, if any movement is to succeed, it needs to address the imbalance of power (sexual dimorphism?) that is likely apparent in it.
This also applies to other marginalized groups. Having a bunch of White Men as the sole promoters of any philosophy - especially minority views - hurts the cause.
Posted by: J Daley | January 18, 2008 3:53 PM
If Canada is so post-religious, then why is Mark Steyn being prosecuted for criticizing Islam?
irrelevant to what the article was examining, if you would bother to read it instead of trolling some bait.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:54 PM
@12 re: creationists coming out of the woodwork. Could be they feel threatened, hence the louder noises. The fewer of them there are, the more strident they become.
Posted by: Nan | January 18, 2008 3:56 PM
I'll drink to that. I guess that means it's time to head to the liquor store and grab a bottle of wine...French maybe.
too early for gin and tonics?
damn.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:57 PM
The fewer of them there are, the more strident they become.
yup.
and the "moderate" (?) ones will be filtered out, leaving the more extreme (and dangerous) ones.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 3:59 PM
LisaJ, at the time, I was in southeastern Ontario. Wow, you guys didn't even go over the whole cell cycle? We did that in grade 11.
Posted by: King Aardvark | January 18, 2008 4:01 PM
too early for gin and tonics?
Never! I just prefer wine, and the Amstel Lights in the fridge just aren't appealing at the moment.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 4:03 PM
And my favorite: Emma Goldman.
Posted by: danley | January 18, 2008 4:07 PM
Sorry you saw my comment as troll bait. Also sorry for not going with the flow and nodding my head with the rest of the congregation. Plenty of comments here that have nothing to do with the OP, but as long as they don't question the "america bad - rest of world good" orthodoxy then I guess they are acceptable. Believe it or not, there are those of us who are disgusted with the current administration, don't believe in god, and are still proud to be americans. Am I surprised that my comment was dismissed out of hand? Not really. This is the same elitist attitude that pervades other atheist forums.
Posted by: Chip | January 18, 2008 4:16 PM
Any list of kick-ass female atheists would be incomplete without a mention of Ruth Hurmence Green, author of The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible:
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | January 18, 2008 4:16 PM
King, small world. I went to school and grew up in Barrie, and then I went to University in London and now Ottawa. Not too far from where you would have been.
Yes, my biology class was pretty weak - but now as a PhD student I am studying the Rb/E2F cell cycle regulatory pathway in neural development and stem cell regulation. I am making up for it now, dammit!
Posted by: LisaJ | January 18, 2008 4:21 PM
Icthyic @#54: (shrug) Sure, and they'll have less cover. It's not as if the more extreme and dangerous ones aren't there now. (Maybe that's what you meant? If so, my apologies; blame the Darvocet.)
NC @ #41:
Sure. This time the men get to do the work: get the kids up and dressed and off to Social, clean up the room and put flowers on the stage, make the coffee and cookies and the email list/phone tree... In terms of work rather than ownership, it clearly wasn't "the failing churches" that made the community; it was the women. Atlas is shrugging, heh; there's just this one detail that certain blowhards including the author of that epithet failed to notice about her.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | January 18, 2008 4:24 PM
Sorry you saw my comment as troll bait. Also sorry for not going with the flow and nodding my head with the rest of the congregation. Plenty of comments here that have nothing to do with the OP, but as long as they don't question the "america bad - rest of world good" orthodoxy then I guess they are acceptable. Believe it or not, there are those of us who are disgusted with the current administration, don't believe in god, and are still proud to be americans. Am I surprised that my comment was dismissed out of hand? Not really. This is the same elitist attitude that pervades other atheist forums.
It was the "elitist" that gave me BINGO!
Posted by: MAJeff | January 18, 2008 4:25 PM
Off topic: Behe on kkms right now. Can listen at kkms.com, and please call in if you have a good question for him--number at site.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | January 18, 2008 4:26 PM
Hey King Aardvark and LisaJ, we should start a support group. "Adult Atheist Survivors of Catholic School."
My experience (in California, not Canada) was remarkably similar to yours, King A. I was from an agnostic family (protestant in origin) but went to a Catholic high school because it was supposed to be better academically. I had to sit through four years of stupid religion classes, plus the occasional Mass and retreat (if I have to listen to "Bridge Over Troubled Water" one more time...)
but the science education there was pretty good. My bio teacher started the unit by saying, "I believe that evolution happened...and that God guided the process." I didn't happen to agree, of course, but believers like him I don't mind sharing a planet with.
I was also pleasantly surprised, after having grown up listening to my fundie grandparents insisting that anyone who wasn't "saved" was going to burn in hell, to hear the Catholics say things like, "We believe that Hindus and Muslims and Jews and Buddhists are finding God in their own way."
Of course, I still think the catholic church is one of the most disgusting, woman- and sex-hating, homophobic, murderous institutions on earth. And now the new pope is a creationist. Pleh.
Posted by: Nurse Ingrid | January 18, 2008 4:28 PM
#12: Ah Alberta the little Texas of the north. Beef [check], oil [check], inbred conservative religious hillbilly halfwits [check], guns and big hats [...coming soon?]. I spent a week in Calgary and was amazed at all the cowboy bars offering topless bronco bullriding line dancing nights and such.
Posted by: AlanWCan | January 18, 2008 4:29 PM
It's not as if the more extreme and dangerous ones aren't there now. (Maybe that's what you meant?
yup.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 4:33 PM
Also sorry for not going with the flow and nodding my head with the rest of the congregation.
saying such is a good way to get the rest of us to ignore you completely.
nicely done.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 4:35 PM
we should start a support group. "Adult Atheist Survivors of Catholic School."
Great idea! It's nice to know that there are others out there who understand :)
Posted by: LisaJ | January 18, 2008 4:36 PM
Ok - i get the hint - I'll keep my subversion to myself. I love this site - really enjoy reading PZ's commentary. Thought I'd throw in my $.02 and maybe get a little discussion going. To me, 50 posts of "i agree" is not particularly compelling. It's really frustrating to me that my opinions have no home. Apparently I'm not enough of a dogmatist in any direction for my words to be worth discussing, on the right or the left. I honestly wish all of us here the best - I'm not at all interested in pissing in the public pool. I only wish you would occasionally entertain the possibility that you are alienating people who should be on the same side. I live in Texas, for fuck's sake - religion is a fucking buzzsaw to free-thinkers in this state. No need to respond to this - I concede and will revert to lurker status.
Posted by: Chip | January 18, 2008 4:38 PM
Women who write articles like this don't make me feel to encouraged: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/accent/content/accent/epaper/2008/01/18/a3e_gushee_sub_0118.html
Posted by: S.M. Moore | January 18, 2008 4:39 PM
Because it's not related. Those are HATE SPEECH LAWS that are having unforeseen consequences and it could include, from what I understand, it could be race, religion or gender.
Posted by: Moses | January 18, 2008 4:41 PM
It's really frustrating to me that my opinions have no home.
tiny violin.
no, wait, not even that.
you could have, instead, gone into exactly WHY you thought the issue you put forward was in any way relevant to the discussion of the xian institutions disintegrating in Canada.
this is a fact. the article was examining various theories put forward to try and explain it.
did you even bother to consider that what you posted was simply not relevant to the issue at hand?
of course not, you, in your own words, were shopping for a home for your ideas.
you know what we call that?
trolling.
so tired of trolls playing the victim.
Posted by: Ichthyic | January 18, 2008 4:43 PM
Don't be slapping Canada on the back too hard!
The G&M article provides the same info on church participation as any any one can find out by going to the Stats Canada site.
However many of Canada's media ignore the facts. The CBC is forever trying to fan the flames of religion with its shows like "Tapestry" ad its recent special on the Role of Religion in Your Life.
Here in Calgary, with a +23% "No Religion" response on the census, the local paper reads more like a door to door tract and the City staff mock folks who object to tax money being spent on a manger scene in City Hall. Even the Health Authority has hired a spiritual advisor instead of doctors, nurses or maintenance staff.
Posted by: Woodwose | January 18, 2008 4:48 PM
Your being wrong doesn't make us elitist. It just makes you wrong.
Posted by: Moses | January 18, 2008 4:57 PM
Chip, if you feel this site is too much of a lefty-liberal yes-fest, then grow a thicker skin and get into it. You're going to get called on your comments (as almost everyone here has been at numerous point) and you'll have plenty of opportunity to defend them.
I'm loathe to call trolling after one comment, but Ichythic's comment suggesting you be a little more specific in your claims is good advice. If you've lurked here long enough, you'll know we get danced around by concern trolls often enough that we've become a little touchy.
And so what if the majority of us feel the same way about most issues? What do you want us to do about it? Should I disagree with MAJeff about the US' use of torture just to avoid sounding PC? Is that really better? Faux dissent for the sake of dissent isn't critical thinking; it's a newspaper op-ed page.
If you are honestly concerned and want your opinions heard, then the exact wrong thing to do is lick your wounds and go back to lurking.
I for one am interested in what you've got to say, as long as you can reasonably defend your points with evidence.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 18, 2008 5:02 PM
I've often heard that the best investment you can make in developing countries, is in the education of its women. Seein' as how the US is still a developing nation in regards to its religious views, it makes sense that they could be the leaders for progress in that sense too.
Posted by: Curt Cameron | January 18, 2008 5:03 PM
Let's not forget to celebrate my favorite female atheist: Barbara Forrest.
She's the best!
Posted by: CalGeorge | January 18, 2008 5:07 PM
The importance of mothers: if mothers do not teach their children that the Bible is the holy truth, they are unlikely to be interested of their own accord and even less so to believe it. If mothers do not teach their children that there is a monotheistic God, they are unlikely to infer such an existence from nature. They may well infer that there are fairies (very attractive concept visually and found in some form in many cultures), they may infer that animals have souls like people, they may infer imaginary friends. These are all part and parcel of the human psyche that includes archetypal images. All pretty normal and unlikely to lead to negative self image or abusive behaviors towards others.
On the other hand, mothers can effectively teach their children to examine all information presented and to never accept something as true just because someone else said so. (The answer to the famous "But Joey told me to do it" whine.) As more women refuse to accept patriarchal answers because they have the freedom to do so and the independence to be able to support themselves, less of the religious viewpoint is likely to be passed on. Neither of my children grew up being taught that the Bible was truth (in fact I don't think either of them have even read it) and you can believe that they will not be passing a belief in the monotheistic God on to their children. My daughter went to a church with school friends for a while when she was about 13 but was soon turned off by the controlling behaviors. (She is 21 now.) I 'm not saying they might not pass on a belief in Coyote but that is a bit different to passing on allegiance to a church.
On the other hand, the security assessment that was posted on this site last week seems to accept the idea that the huge disruptions of climate change will drive people back to embracing religious beliefs, presumably from a feeling of personal helplessness. One can only wait and see but I can't think of anything more useless for dealing with the future than a belief it is all in the hands of a God who is really benevolent even when the world he created is malevolent. So I guess we will see if orthodox religion has any adaptive value or not.
Posted by: SJN | January 18, 2008 5:13 PM
That's the good news but a recent Ipsos Reid poll states that 66% of Canadians believe in angels and 48% in ghosts.(There's a difference?) 9% believe their own houses have been visited. More worrisome is that the younger people questioned were more likely to believe in ghosts than older people. On a better note, I was listening to a noontime phone-in talk show today which was about angels. The only two callers that I heard said they didn't believe in them and that they were atheists.
Posted by: 3+speckled | January 18, 2008 5:29 PM
But we're all going to have dirty dishes and no picnics??
Plus, no Catholic girls to corrupt? (ahhh. . . fun, fun. . . you guys who think atheist girls are easier never lived next to an all-girls Catholic school).
Well, I guess it's worth it to promote the diminution of absolute lunacy in the world.
Posted by: CrypticLife | January 18, 2008 5:29 PM