Speaker 1: We are rounding up the week with a step in
Speaker 1: the right direction. In British Columbia. Kara has the story Kara.
Speaker 2: Well and positive news for humanists in Canada. All city
Speaker 2: council meetings in British Columbia will now be prayer free,
Speaker 2: nine years after a Supreme Court ruling found that the
Speaker 2: practice violated civil rights. This is because after the British
Speaker 2: Columbia Humanist Association found that twenty three municipalities in the
Speaker 2: province were still opening city council meetings with prayers always
Speaker 2: Christian despite the ruling, they mounted efforts to end the practice.
Speaker 2: Their tactics included publishing a report noting which provinces were
Speaker 2: still offering prayers, sending letters urging leaders to follow the law,
Speaker 2: following up with additional letters until receiving a response, and
Speaker 2: in a few passes, threatening to sew if the provinces
Speaker 2: did not commit to ending the practice. As of this year,
Speaker 2: all of the remaining provinces have agreed that prayers will
Speaker 2: no longer be included in meetings or inauguration ceremonies. The
Speaker 2: decision is a welcome win for activists and all people
Speaker 2: who believe their local leaders have an obligation to follow
Speaker 2: the law. The story is from The Friendly Atheist by
Speaker 2: him At Matta, published July fifth, twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Kiera. You know, the first person that I
Speaker 1: want to give their reaction to reading new story is Tale,
Speaker 1: because I have a feeling that I know what you're
Speaker 1: going to say, So won't you lay out lay it
Speaker 1: on as Tale? What was your reaction with first rectory? Oh?
Speaker 3: I was. I was extremely happy about this, and yeah,
Speaker 3: finally good things are happening despite all the bad and
Speaker 3: awful stuff going around. Finally some good news. And yeah,
Speaker 3: we were just talking about the Satanic Temple and how
Speaker 3: they do their trolling in order to fight this religious privilege.
Speaker 3: I'm very happy to see that that's not the only
Speaker 3: way how people can do stuff. That there are secular
Speaker 3: ways in which people can be constant and keep going
Speaker 3: and going and complaining and complaining until that until they
Speaker 3: achieved this goal. And it's amazing. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 3: it's awesome. I very believed that they finally were able
Speaker 3: to do that. I was going to mention again, you know,
Speaker 3: the disruptive Satanic prayer at the beginning of a council
Speaker 3: bad no it's not necessarily. I think it's great to
Speaker 3: know that finally we have at least one place where
Speaker 3: they are not going to be always listening to Christian
Speaker 3: prayers just because they think that's the only religion that
Speaker 3: matters and all of that. And you don't have to
Speaker 3: replace it with a more religion, a Satanism. No, you
Speaker 3: finally have the secular way where there is no prayer
Speaker 3: and that's it. That's it. So I'm extremely happy about this.
Speaker 1: No prayer, no thoughts, full stop, awesome, awesome. And what
Speaker 1: about you, Aaron sitting over there, kind of biased over there,
Speaker 1: you have an opinion on your biases.
Speaker 4: Biases I'm allful about.
Speaker 3: I'm full about a human being, I am.
Speaker 4: I am chock full of bias. It's awful, it's awful.
Speaker 4: This is a very hardening story that things can change
Speaker 4: and things can get better for everyone. This doesn't just
Speaker 4: help humanists or atheists. This helps everyone. It helps everyone
Speaker 4: be on an equal footing. It gives nobody, you know,
Speaker 4: a special place when your religion gets to get up
Speaker 4: in meetings and say a prayer before everybody else. It
Speaker 4: kind of implicitly tells that religion's followers that they're more
Speaker 4: important than everybody else, and then when you stop doing it,
Speaker 4: it can kind of it can be adjustment for those
Speaker 4: people to realize, oh, you know, my religion isn't the
Speaker 4: most important. There are other religions that I have to
Speaker 4: kind of think about and take into account, and there
Speaker 4: are other perspectives in the world. So I think this
Speaker 4: is a great, great thing, and it reminded me of
Speaker 4: the I don't know if this used to be the
Speaker 4: model of the United States e purbus unum, you know,
Speaker 4: out of many one that's I think that is the
Speaker 4: point of government is to bring everybody from different backgrounds
Speaker 4: together and solve problems and make everybody's lives better and
Speaker 4: improve things. And I'm just really proud of these people
Speaker 4: for doing the work necessary to make their province better
Speaker 4: for everybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I definitely agree with that. You know, I know
Speaker 1: that we have talked about at nau's different municipalities in
Speaker 1: the United States specifically, and also even a federal level,
Speaker 1: where prayer mostly from Christians Askara meant earlier, is pretty
Speaker 1: much standard practice before you start your thing. I mean,
Speaker 1: we still even have a national prayer break in a
Speaker 1: country where we're supposed to be secular, and as much
Speaker 1: as we have all talked about and also our other
Speaker 1: fellow nonprofit hopes in the past talked about like how
Speaker 1: that should not be a it still happened. And in actuality,
Speaker 1: when you look at the story, the Canadian Supreme Court
Speaker 1: ruled in twenty fifteen that opening city council meetings with
Speaker 1: prayer violates citizen rights. I mean, like, so this is
Speaker 1: like almost ten years ago when the ruler came out.
Speaker 1: So but Kara, since you introduced the story, I want
Speaker 1: to ask you, why do you think it took nearly
Speaker 1: a decade for some municipalities in British Columbia to comply
Speaker 1: with the Canadian Supreme Court ruling?
Speaker 2: You know, I think it gets back to something Aaron
Speaker 2: mentioned earlier, which is that if people think that their
Speaker 2: religion is the most important one, and it's the only
Speaker 2: one that they ever see represented anywhere, and it's the
Speaker 2: only thing that they've ever experienced, and it just seems
Speaker 2: natural and normal for it to be taking place everywhere,
Speaker 2: I think it's in some cases hard for people to
Speaker 2: understand why it would be inappropriate in some places, and
Speaker 2: so to some extent, I think it could be a
Speaker 2: case of people just actually not considering how detrimental and
Speaker 2: harmful the practice was. But at the same time, I
Speaker 2: think that these are people who were aware of the law,
Speaker 2: especially after they received letters from the Humanist Association reminding
Speaker 2: them that they were doing something that was in violation
Speaker 2: of the law. So I don't want to give people
Speaker 2: a complete pass on it, because I think the second
Speaker 2: piece of this was not just having to realize that, Okay,
Speaker 2: you're not the only believer in the room, you're not
Speaker 2: the only person whose opinion and background and experience matters,
Speaker 2: but secondly that people notice what you're doing and you're
Speaker 2: going to be held accountable. You can't just keep doing
Speaker 2: this and railroad over other people thinking that well, you know,
Speaker 2: yes they made that law, but you know, nobody else
Speaker 2: actually believes that other stuff. We're the majority here in
Speaker 2: our community. This is our faith, so it's okay here,
Speaker 2: Well no it isn't. You're in violation of the law,
Speaker 2: and there are people that are noticing and that we'll
Speaker 2: call you on it. And I think that was a
Speaker 2: huge piece here that they needed to be called out.
Speaker 2: And we saw in the article that as soon as
Speaker 2: they started getting these letters, most of the municipalities that
Speaker 2: were still doing the practice backed off. There were some
Speaker 2: that ignored the letters until they got a follow up,
Speaker 2: and there were some that came back with these kind
Speaker 2: of wishy washy things like, well, we're not saying we'll
Speaker 2: keep doing it, but we're not saying we won't, or
Speaker 2: we're just doing it at some ceremonies and not all
Speaker 2: the meetings. But then the few holdouts after that, after
Speaker 2: they got the letter saying Okay, well, since you are
Speaker 2: violating the law, we're going to sue if you don't stop,
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, then they stopped. And so I
Speaker 2: think it's important to recognize that just having the law
Speaker 2: isn't enough. People have to be held to account. And
Speaker 2: that's exactly what happened in this case, and it was
Speaker 2: very effective, and I find that very heartening personally.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel it heartening too. It kind of reminds
Speaker 1: me and I want to give a shout out to
Speaker 1: one of our other ACA hosts, The Cross Examined, who
Speaker 1: has his own podcasts well where he talks about different
Speaker 1: cases and the law and how it even you know,
Speaker 1: and how those things actually happen and show up in
Speaker 1: politics today and how it affects us, especially those who
Speaker 1: are trying to push like secular value. And he recently
Speaker 1: actually had a lawyer on from the Freedom from Religion
Speaker 1: Foundation where they talked about the case specifically in Louisiana
Speaker 1: and how normally what they do is that they'll send
Speaker 1: a letter, as you mentioned, Kara, saying that, hey, what
Speaker 1: you're doing is kind of against the law. You should
Speaker 1: kind of stop.
Speaker 5: Okay, thanks, have a nice day.
Speaker 1: And you know, the lawyer actually mentioned that a lot
Speaker 1: of times, sending a letter pointing out the error of
Speaker 1: that particular area, organization, municipality, local government, whatever, actually works
Speaker 1: because a lawyer is saying to you using lovely legal language,
Speaker 1: and of course I'm not one, but I can imagine
Speaker 1: what it looks like that what you're doing is wrong,
Speaker 1: it's against the law, and you need to stop. And
Speaker 1: if you keep doing it, then you're going to face
Speaker 1: repercussion like a lawsuit. And that does work. And in
Speaker 1: this particular case, that's exactly what the BC humans ended
Speaker 1: up doing, writing a letter to these municipalities who are
Speaker 1: still practicing the whole prayer uh before a city council
Speaker 1: meeting and then saying like, hey, you need to stop
Speaker 1: because the Supreme Court said back in twenty fifteen that
Speaker 1: you're not right. So you are actually inviting further repercussion
Speaker 1: if you keep engaging in this practice. But you know,
Speaker 1: one of the things that could be a case is
Speaker 1: some of the issues that some British Columbian humanists are
Speaker 1: still actually they're still actually getting like some you know
Speaker 1: issues because not everyone is following what the letter said, right,
Speaker 1: We're still having some issues where some of the municipalities
Speaker 1: are saying, well, we don't always do it, and we
Speaker 1: do it selectively and maybe one day, you know, we'll stop,
Speaker 1: but you know, we'll think about it and we'll get
Speaker 1: back to you, right. But you know, I think that
Speaker 1: one of the things that this article is like really
Speaker 1: points out is that it's very important for organizations who
Speaker 1: actually care about this to engage in activism and really
Speaker 1: put forward the effort in order to make sure that
Speaker 1: these things are not because it should never be the
Speaker 1: key where you are dealing with a city council meeting
Speaker 1: that has to do with the business of the people
Speaker 1: and you're putting specific religious edicts front of it before
Speaker 1: you do the business of the people, especially when the
Speaker 1: people that you represent are not all Christians? No, And
Speaker 1: speaking of religious diversity, and I'm coming to you because
Speaker 1: like one of the things that the article mentions is
Speaker 1: that Vancouver included representatives from various religious backgrounds and it's
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two inaugural event. And in your opinion, why
Speaker 1: is it important for municipal municipal ceremonies rather to reflect
Speaker 1: religious diversity, especially in multi cultural side.
Speaker 4: Well, I guess it probably depends on how those religions
Speaker 4: are being represented in the ceremony. If they're there just
Speaker 4: to represent, you know, groups of the of the citizenry
Speaker 4: and to represent and so people have representation, I think
Speaker 4: that's fine. I think it would get a little bit
Speaker 4: greyer if they're being asked to give prayers or do
Speaker 4: other kind of religious things. But if they're just there
Speaker 4: to represent the diversity of cultures, I think that's great.
Speaker 4: And then the more diverse, the better, you know. I'm
Speaker 4: not sure what the threshold of percentage population needs to
Speaker 4: be religion to show them reflected up on the stage.
Speaker 4: I think if you wanted to do a perfectly representative thing,
Speaker 4: you probably maybe don't include. I think I think it
Speaker 4: can be a tricky issue. I'm not sure I've given
Speaker 4: it that much that much thought, and I have I
Speaker 4: would probably err on the side of saying, let's maybe
Speaker 4: just not include religion in anything that has to do
Speaker 4: with our government just because who gets included? Why do
Speaker 4: they get included? Is there a threshold for percentage of
Speaker 4: people that have to be a member that religion to
Speaker 4: get included. Do the Satanists get included even though there's
Speaker 4: not very many of them? Do you get to put
Speaker 4: in a petition for your group to be included? What's
Speaker 4: the I mean, what's the point?
Speaker 5: Why?
Speaker 4: Why? Why are we having them up there? Is it
Speaker 4: a day of celebration for religions? Then okay, maybe, but
Speaker 4: probably on the side of let's just let's just keep
Speaker 4: it secular. I think that's the most equal thing, the
Speaker 4: equal way, and to do it.
Speaker 1: Just to keep it secular. Well, let me let me
Speaker 1: ask thee the other two represented on the panel, like
Speaker 1: Tail and Care. I'm going to come to you first,
Speaker 1: Tale and then Care based on what Aaron just said
Speaker 1: about like when I'm bringing up like the representation and
Speaker 1: also includes for the purpose of white diversity and culture
Speaker 1: to possibly represent more religions on the state. Is that
Speaker 1: something that you think should happen, No, why or why not?
Speaker 1: Tale and then care well. I enjoyed when we're hour
Speaker 1: in the secular I.
Speaker 6: Think, I mean, I do agree that people need their
Speaker 6: right to follow whatever belief they want to as long
Speaker 6: as they don't hurt themselves. Which it's debatable, but I
Speaker 6: have said several times if there was a government tried
Speaker 6: to forbid people from having their own beliefs and religions,
Speaker 6: due to my activism, I would have the obligation to
Speaker 6: be there fighting against this government because people need the
Speaker 6: freedom to follow whatever they want, and if we want
Speaker 6: to help them, we have to give them the tools
Speaker 6: that they require in order to have a secular way
Speaker 6: of thinking, to realize what things are harmful, what things
Speaker 6: are untrue. But I do think that having a secular
Speaker 6: government and a secular way of living, and to having
Speaker 6: every person they leaving their own little babble of religion
Speaker 6: of whatever they want. It's not that the best solution,
Speaker 6: but it's the wonder we could try to achieve, and
Speaker 6: that we could be the best one according to the
Speaker 6: type of society that we live in. So in that sense,
Speaker 6: I agree with our just keep religion for yourself There
Speaker 6: is a phrase that I really like a guy said
Speaker 6: once and I have quoted him there. At times, having
Speaker 6: your own religion is like having a penis. It's okay
Speaker 6: having one. It's okay to be.
Speaker 3: Proud of it. I am very proud of mine. Just
Speaker 3: don't show it to people on the street, and don't
Speaker 3: put it down the children's throats, and that's it. Just
Speaker 3: give it to yourself and be proud of it if
Speaker 3: you want to. And that's it. We should treat religion
Speaker 3: like a dick.
Speaker 1: You heard it here first, people, Tail is proud of
Speaker 1: his penis. Karen, I'm a secular sexuality.
Speaker 5: Karen, what say you do you agree? How do you
Speaker 5: segue from that? I have no idea, boy, I'm gonna try.
Speaker 5: How do you agree with Aaron?
Speaker 1: Should we just, like, you know, just keep these instead
Speaker 1: of if we're thinking about diversity and equity and inclusion,
Speaker 1: which in according to right Wings, that's a bad term,
Speaker 1: a bad word up there with woke. Is it okay
Speaker 1: to have representation when it comes to, you know, religious
Speaker 1: ideas on the stage when we come to these particular areas,
Speaker 1: or should we just keep a second?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think when it comes to something
Speaker 2: that is being promoted by or run by a government entity.
Speaker 2: I think the best way to promote inclusion and diversity
Speaker 2: is to not comment on the matter, because that's what
Speaker 2: leaves space for individual people and groups to show up
Speaker 2: and feel that they are able to and allowed to
Speaker 2: show up and be the way they are without risking
Speaker 2: running a foul of you know, the current administration or
Speaker 2: the powers that be. I think that as soon as
Speaker 2: you start instituting a practice that represents one or two,
Speaker 2: or three, or even five or ten different belief systems,
Speaker 2: you're always going to be leaving some out, and you're
Speaker 2: going to be leaving out the atheists or the non
Speaker 2: believers just simply by default, and you can't include everyone.
Speaker 2: I do think that in general, being inclusive and diverse is,
Speaker 2: of course the right thing to do in all cases.
Speaker 2: But the way to be inclusive and diverse with beliefs
Speaker 2: is to not privilege one or more of them over
Speaker 2: the rest of them by instituting them as an official practice.
Speaker 2: And that's the most important thing when it comes to
Speaker 2: this question, and that's the decision that the Canadian Supreme
Speaker 2: Court came to, was that in order to remain neutral,
Speaker 2: it had to mean not taking a position one way
Speaker 2: or the other on any of the practices, and personally,
Speaker 2: I think that is the best way to allow people
Speaker 2: to decide for themselves what they're going to practice and
Speaker 2: how they're going to show up in public life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree with that. I think that there is
Speaker 1: a fine line when we're talking about diversity, equity, inclusion,
Speaker 1: and also being culturally competent when we're discussing representation when
Speaker 1: it comes to religious practice. Now, we all know that
Speaker 1: like religion and of itself, is a component of one's culture. However,
Speaker 1: there is also that slippery slope that if we say that, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to give room for this particular religion because
Speaker 1: your culture is we want to represent your culture, right,
Speaker 1: then we have to think about the other religion and
Speaker 1: the other religion, the other religion and really religion, right,
Speaker 1: and then the turtles all the way down. Even though
Speaker 1: I don't believe that's the same analogy, but I'm going
Speaker 1: with it. So you know, it's up there with you know,
Speaker 1: there's a teapot circle, NERD wrong show, I'm getting back. Regardless,
Speaker 1: there is still a place where we can definitely talk
Speaker 1: about being able to display and having people being proud
Speaker 1: of their their cultures, even their belief systems, and how
Speaker 1: it has shaped them as a community without necessarily being
Speaker 1: to the point where it's being interjected in government entities. Right. So,
Speaker 1: for example, like I know that when I was in college,
Speaker 1: they used to have like these inter faith coalitions, and
Speaker 1: sometimes like interfaith coalitions that had representatives from many different
Speaker 1: religions and people who happen to not be religious or irreligious.
Speaker 1: We're able to come together and discuss, like you know,
Speaker 1: different things that concern them about campus life and things
Speaker 1: of that nature, and also being you know, tolerant of
Speaker 1: others and even you know, to the point where they
Speaker 1: want to give both people a seatd table. Now, if
Speaker 1: that's the case, I'm all for it. But when it
Speaker 1: comes to actually saying that, okay, well, now that we
Speaker 1: have to be conscious of people who happen to be
Speaker 1: a practitioner of said religion, we're going to start inviting
Speaker 1: an emon or a pastor or you know, like a
Speaker 1: Buddhist priest or a Hindi priest or whatever to come
Speaker 1: and do their invocation, which I know other municipalities tried
Speaker 1: to do. But in actuality, if we just say we're
Speaker 1: not doing none of that. We're just gonna be at
Speaker 1: the business people. Okay, We're starting our meeting on seven
Speaker 1: seventeen and nine thirty five pm Central Time. Hit the gable.
Speaker 1: Let's get started right. And I think that would be
Speaker 1: a better way to go than interjecting any person's faith
Speaker 1: or any person's religious beliefs or anything like that, especially
Speaker 1: when it comes