Here he quotes part of his book relating to Henry Morgentaler who passed away yesterday.

Morgentaler’s Ontario clinic opened on June 7, 1983, a few days after the Winnipeg clinic had opened. There was enormous publicity for the opening, provided mostly by the press who gave front-page coverage to the story. Morgentaler arrived at the opening to cheers from crowds of supporters. Protesters had decided not to attend, except for one who ran toward Morgentaler brandishing pruning shears. He was blocked by one of the abortion supporters and then ran off.  Later he was arrested.

Incidents like the pruning shears one highlighted the dangers to which Morgentaler constantly exposed himself, dangers that went beyond the possibility of imprisonment. In 2005 I was involved with organizing the annual meeting of the Humanist Association of Canada. Morgentaler had, years earlier, been given their Humanist of the Year award (the American Humanist Association similarly honoured him some years earlier) and he was invited to speak at the 2005 meeting. Even then, over 20 years after his last trial, special security precautions had to be taken.

At the meeting I was privileged to speak about that year’s award winner, Evelyn Martens, about whom I had written extensively. Martens, like Morgentaler, was a courageous social activist who had, in 2004, been prosecuted on two counts of assisting suicide. I was also asked to announce that Martens’ award, and henceforth all future such awards, would be called “The Henrys.”  Morgentaler then handed out that year’s “Henry” to Martens. I shall never forget sharing the stage with these two diminutive, aging people who had put themselves at so much risk in serving the desperate needs of those whom no one else would help. How much easier, I thought, to just write about these things; how much more difficult to actually put oneself out there on the front lines. It was a great but undeserved honour to stand up there with them.

Prior to the opening of the Toronto clinic Morgentaler had been warned by his new lawyer in Toronto, the eminent, brilliant and progressive Morris Manning, that he would be breaking the law.

“Fine,” Morgentaler is reported to have said. “Let’s get on with it.”

Dr. Morgentaler was arguably Canada’s most famous and influential Humanist. His secular values emboldened him to fight for reproductive freedoms.

He rose to prominence well before my time as he fought to legalize abortion in Canada in the 1960s and 1970s, culminating in the 1988 Supreme Court of Canada decision which struck down Canada’s abortion law. You can read a full biography of Dr. Morgentaler’s life in the Globe and Mail.

I never had the chance to meet Dr. Morgentaler but I admire the work he did. His commitment to human rights and Humanism should serve as an inspiration to every one of us as we strive to leave this world in a better place than we found it.

There are some who argue that atheists and Humanist groups should shy away from political fights. I have even been told that because anti-abortion Humanists exist that we should be hesitant about taking stands on these issues.

For me though, a commitment to Humanism means that we must take responsibility for the life that we have. We must do everything in our power to make it better for those marginalized by the systems and institutions that would tell us to settle for what we have and to wait for justice in the afterlife.

I refuse to wait, I demand justice now.

For men and women, cis and transgendered, straight, bi, and gay, regardless of ability, race, nationality, or otherwise, every human being deserves dignity and respect.

The fight for dignity is far from over in Canada. Right now the federal government is trying to reverse a decision by the BC Supreme Court to allow terminally ill patients to choose the method of their death. Our province’s child poverty is still the second worst in the country. The glass ceiling still exists for many women. Most of BC remains on unceded First Nations land. The list goes on.

As Humanists, we apply scientific skepticism to work toward a more just world. Compassion and hope tell us where we need to go, reason and evidence tell us how to get there.

This is what Dr. Morgentaler taught me. This is what I want to accomplish.

I do not wish for Dr. Morgentaler to rest in peace. As an atheist he would not believe himself to be resting, ready to awake later and because there is still work to be done.

Tomorrow (April 25) May 2 has been declared a day for human rights supporters around the world to stand in solidarity with atheist bloggers and activists who are facing increasing persecution in Bangladesh.

You can read the full letter on Maryam Namazie’s blog, which I’m happy to add my name to.

Bangladesh has been a secular democracy since 1971 but a growing fundamentalist Islamic community is increasingly pushing on the government to pass anti-blasphemy laws and protests in the street are calling for the arrest and punishment of atheists.

The story is made personal on the latest episode of CFI Canada’s Think Again TV. In it Justin Trottier interviews Sharif Ahmed, a publisher and blogger who fled Bangladesh to Canada after being attacked and tortured in his home country for his apostasy.

To my knowledge, there’s no Bangladesh embassy in Vancouver, so no formal events are planned here. I do encourage you to speak up online and to write to Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom to call for the condemnation of anti-blasphemy laws. You can also add your voices in the comments below.

Ian Bushfield, Executive Director

I’ve written more exams than I can count over 5 years of undergraduate and 3 years of graduate post-secondary education. Luckily, I’ve always had a fairly laid back personality where I try not to let things phase me too much.

A key to this approach, for Humanists, lies in recognizing the cosmic insignificance of the situations we are faced with. Nothing illustrates this concept more aptly and inspirationally (and it is an inspirational idea) than Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot.

Put in perspective of the millions of students in the world who have come before, taking billions of exams, one more test is not something to be feared.

We must recognize that no supernatural force, no matter how comforting the myth, will help us through these times. We have to take charge of our situation and put in the work necessary to prepare ourselves as best as possible. And we should remember that we don’t have to face the world alone, a network of friends, peers, and classmates face the same challenges, and by working together we can lighten one another’s load.

Finally, as Humanism is a worldview based on science, let me offer links to a few practical and evidenced-based tips on how to retain information most effectively. My personal best tips are to drink coffee (or other caffeine drinks which stimulates brain activity) and to get a good night sleep (when new connections are built in the brain).

• 5 tips to study better and study skills & memory
• 23 Science-Based Study Tips

See also: How Humanists cope – why not me? by Jennifer Hancock

School God.

(For the purpose of this article, though each has its own, optimal context, the phrases:
* ‘the religious;’ and ‘the supernaturalists’, are generally interchangeable.
* ‘science’; ‘rational thought’; ‘knowledge’; and ‘logic’,  are somewhat interchangeable, by virtue of the mountain of petrographs, tablets, scrolls, books, &c, covering the overlapping of their general areas of philosophies.)

I saw a letter in the Chilliwack Times, dated 2013 February 05 Tuesday, apparently by Robert Bogunovic, on the general topic of religion in the schools.

Bogunovic claimed to be quoting a Humanist "manifesto" from 1933.  I don’t know if the quote was correct.  I have witnessed or experienced countless incidences of religious people, misquoting; quoting out of context; presenting false facts; or presenting irrelevant or specious arguments to support their religious views.  Of course, so do some atheists, in some heated discussions, when they run out of rational things to say.  We are all imperfect creatures, oops, imperfect organisms.

However, I suggest that the religious resort to such tactics because there is no rational argument, only fervour to support the concept, or paradigm, of supernatural beings.  Perhaps it may not seem relevant to the discussion about religion in the schools, but that is also why, historically, the religious have killed "unbelievers".  Without evidence to support their beliefs, only by eliminating "unbelievers" can the religious overcome rational objections to religion and have their world of "true believers".  As history also shows, having a generally religious perspective is not enough, because the fervour of the individual may still froth at differing versions of supernatural beliefs.

Bogunovic claims "the first Humanist Manifesto (1933)" called itself a religious movement.  I don’t know who, if anyone, wrote the purported manifesto, or when, but it is not being claimed as a position by anyone I know, or have ever known.  Nor, I suggest, does it matter what "manifesto" is presented for any individual.  The validity of the argument must stand, alone.  Still, the variety of perspectives for the term, "religion" may include the hope that reason, or humanism, will become the "new religion", using "religion" in its meaning as a synonym for popularity.  That perspective fits the purported "manifesto" better than the one presented by Bogunovic.

I am not the first, of course, to paraphrase this idea: ‘Only the tide of knowledge will wash away the darkness of ignorance and superstition.’

To the best of my knowledge, though, I have never known any scientist; scientific philosopher; rationalist; evolutionist; humanist; or atheist who genuinely considers science; scientific philosophy; reasoning; evolution; humanism; or atheism to be religions.  All those whom I have known, with views in the realm of scientific philosophy, consider all concepts within the realm to be polar opposites of religion.

Bogunovic seems, typically for the religious, to want to cling to his ‘religious perspective of science’.  That perspective holds that the realm of scientific thought, including evolution; humanism; or atheism, are all just different religions, equal in stature to other religions.  The religious gleefully seize upon any words, from any source, that seem to support their religious perspective against science or secular thought.

However, the definition of religion requires a belief or set of beliefs about supernatural beings.

Science requires, to paraphrase in general terms: systematic observation; measurement; accumulation of data; experiment; and the formulation; testing; and modification of hypotheses.  An important aspect of scientific experimentation is that the results must be independently reproducible by other diligent investigators with appropriate equipment.  Irrelevant to science are: belief; persuasion; influence; authority; social standing; or numbers of supporters.  Facts prevail.

It is impossible to observe; measure; or perform experiments on the supernatural, nor thence to formulate and test hypotheses of the supernatural.  Therefore, there is no place in science for the supernatural.  Therefore, science is not a religion.

Evolution is a well-documented, general area of science, involving numerous scientific fields.  Massive amounts of great and minute evidence have been accumulated from systematic observation, by countless scientists in many fields; with countless measurements; experiments; and the formulation; testing; and modification of hypotheses. No other scientific field, I suggest, has been more or better represented, in these scientific principals, than evolution.  There is no place in evolution for the supernatural.  Therefore, evolution is not a religion.

Neither is atheism formed upon a set of beliefs in the supernatural, as are religions.  Arguably, neither is atheism formed upon any set of beliefs.  The definition of atheism is: "a", meaning "not" or "against"; compounded with "theism", the belief in supernatural beings. Therefore, an atheist is, literally, one who does not believe in supernatural beings.  Atheism is the rejection of beliefs involving supernatural beings.  No other paradigms, beliefs or philosophies are implied or required. While atheists may argue about everything else, they need only agree that there are no supernatural beings, to be included as an atheist.  That is all.  Clearly, there are no sets of beliefs about supernatural beings in atheism.   Therefore, atheism is not a religion.

Nor is an atheist required to believe in bio-evolution, to be an atheist, though that is the case with most educated atheists.  Long before evolution became an overwhelmingly accepted scientific fact, though, there were probably atheists.  When ancient, stone-age man may have wailed about the river god taking his child’s life, an atheist might have said, "No god, probably crocodile."

I am, primarily, a rationalist, scientific philosopher.  I did not begin with formal rules or dogma of any atheism paradigm.  Rather, my basic, genetic intellect, through the route of knowledge of the real world, rational and scientific thought, led me to reject all supernaturalism, by any name.  Only by rejection of supernaturalism can I be defined, also, as an atheist.  Atheism is the rejection of the idea of supernaturalism, or supernatural beings, or religions.  Therefore, I am not religious, and I am certainly not religious about atheism.

I am not very knowledgeable about the varied views in any humanist association, but I think they generally place importance on the real world and humanity’s place in it, and place no importance on beliefs in supernatural beings.  2013 February 06 evening, as a result of the Bogunovic statements about the Humanists, I went to the BC Humanist web page.

From the BC Humanist home page, I went to their page, "About Humanism".  Near the top of that page, <http://bchumanist.ca/index.php/about/humanism>, I read, "According to the American Humanist Association, Humanism is a rational world view, informed by science, inspired by art, motivated by compassion.  Humanism is a naturalistic philosophy that affirms the value of humanity without the need for supernatural explanations or dogma."

The page continues with, "The British Columbia Humanist Association outlines humanism as:", and shows ten items, starting with, "1. Humanism aims at the fullest development of every human being.".  The other nine points seem to me to be noble goals for humanity.  They are, I think, worth reading, and I recommend everyone go to their website and read them.

There is not one word, there, about humanism being a religion, as mentioned by Bogunovic.

Before I left the humanist web page, I emailed my application for membership.  As an intelligent, knowledgeable, scientific philosopher, rationalist, and atheist, I suppose, in ‘spirit’, I always was, more or less, a "humanist".  Indirectly thanks to Bogunovic, since 2013 February 06 Wednesday, I am now, officially, a Humanist.

Bogunovic suggests that the public should fear that the opposite of religion in the schools is a religion of humanism.  I have already shown that there is nothing in Humanism that qualifies as a religion.  Anyway, Bogunovic’s arguments are specious and obfuscating because the issue is proselytizing religion, not Humanism.  Educating in rational philosophies and science is not proselytizing Humanism, even if Humanism promotes those same ideals.  Educating in rational philosophies and science, certainly is, though, the opposite of proselytizing religion.

The true, paramount issue, in this line of discussions, is whether we want to use our education system to train generations of religious thinkers or scientific thinkers.

Moments spent teaching, learning or musing about magic, invisible people in the sky are moments without learning scientific or rational thought.

There is too much knowledge of the real world for all of it to be taught in the short, few years in grade school.  With the best instruction, students still cannot possibly learn all of the knowledge of all of the sciences and will still leave schools ignorant of most of the knowledge of most of the sciences.  Any scientist can spend an entire life in one tiny area of a field of science and still remain ignorant of most of the knowledge of most of the sciences.  It is impossible to learn everything about everything.  It is vital, then, to be thoroughly trained in the best principals of real learning about the real world.

Essentially, the choice, for schools, is between training minds for improvable, untestable religions or training minds for provable, testable realities.

All that science has brought to us has been produced by scientific thought, not religious thought.  No one prayed chemicals out of the test tubes nor rockets to the moon.  Science, not religion, produced the electric motor and the computer, based on such as the theories of chemistry and electricity; the airplane, hydraulic jacks, submarine and surface ship designs based on such as the theories of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics; and the x-ray machine that guides the medical scientist’s hands in surgery or administration of chemotherapy, based on theories such as nuclear physics.

Facts of science are formed into "theories", like evolution.

Living organisms heal better with science than prayer.  Probably, most religious people, with access to the benefits of medical science, will rely on medical science, not religion, when they become dangerously ill.  Science trains medical scientists to look in appropriate science books for cures, not in bibles.

I have met the results of education in religious schools.  Their level of ignorance of the sciences is generally appalling.  The main cause of this ignorance seems to be the style of teaching and the information taught.  This is especially true in the sciences they call "evolution sciences".  Of course, there is some variation between individuals.  Generally, though, their understanding of science seems mainly based on the concept that science is only correct if it can support or accept their idea of equal and parallel "theories" of evolution and creation.

The meaning of the word, "theory", like many words, can differ with the context or intent of the user.  In common, or colloquial use, the word, "theory", may broadly refer to any idea that attempts to answer an unknown. Examples of this informal use of the word may include explanations drawn from the real world or from the supernatural, which includes religions.

In science, the use is much more restricted, following scientific principals, described previously.  Significantly, the requirements that theories be testable and the results independently reproducible, excludes all things supernatural, including all religions, from being considered to be "theories".

A common ploy that I have experienced, coming from the religious, is their use of the informal idea of theory, in their arguments to support their religion, while demanding that the strict definition be applied to scientific theories.  Then, they demand that both "theories" be treated as though they are equal.

While using the suasion of "equal theories", the religious and their religious schools seem to treat God-creationism as the basic reality of all knowledge, in other words, the prime paradigm, while treating evolution with contempt.  Genetics is taught with highly questionable information and teaching practices that seem to express their religious versions of science that have the sound of science, but not sound science.

I have had ‘discussions’ with religious students countless times in the past, and very recently.  The flow from the fervent is often very fast, very loud and very full of many statements of their highly questionable, or clearly wrong, versions of facts.  They usually give little pause and show little interest for understanding opposing knowledge.  Typically, rather than trying to understand science, they seem to have memorized phrases or ideas for the sole purpose of supporting religion by attacking evolution.

I have, usually, I’m ashamed to say, been drawn into trying to modify their misshapen facts into scientific reality.  I’m ashamed because, after many years and countless discussions, I have, almost always, left them still clinging, vehemently, to their false understanding of science, their ‘religious versions’ of science.  I’m ashamed that I still fall into the same trap of completely wasting my time.

The versions of genetics, as presented to me by religious students in discussions, have little relationship to well-supported, mainstream genetics.  Their versions are very different from what would, or should, be taught by a competent, secular teacher in a secular school, with the purpose of preparation for life in the world of science and reality.

The religious versions of logic are also directed, systematically, to pressuring for agreement towards their beliefs, and away from science.  The religious may claim to be using logic, often insisting that their version of logic must be used to determine truth.  Contempt may be used to overcome the listener’s reluctance to accept the religious versions of logic.  Step-by-step, they may pressure for the listener’s agreement for each stage, with the goal to elicit a sum of agreement that existence of their supernatural beings can be shown to be logical.  The route to that agreement is usually by the same pseudo-logic steps to the reverse agreement that science or, at least, evolution is not logical.  It doesn’t matter that they have no scientific evidence for their supernatural beings, they need only persuade, coerce or confuse the listener into agreeing that it is as plausible as evolution.

The religious versions of science and rational thought are always only word trickery, though.  Science and rational thought fundamentally reject the supernatural, so the religious must resort to trickery, false science and belief because they have no science that supports them.

Using their religious versions of science and logic, the religious could, by the same, step-by-step stages, march towards any conclusion, even the most ludicrous fantasies.  If the listener can be persuaded that fantasies may be plausible, then the listener may, also, be persuaded towards the ultimate goal of the religious.  That goal is the conversion of everyone to their beliefs.  Fundamental to that goal is the intermediate goal of having religion, ideally their specific religion, given equal stature to science in the schools.

The nature of knowledge presented in the schools has a fundamental influence on the nature of knowledge in the broad society.  Development of learning processes affects development of intellect.

There has been considerable research in the relationship of religious fervour compared to the level of knowledge and intellect.  I don’t know to what extent those considered clearly in the category of mentally delusional are included in the studies.  I don’t know any way that degrees of religious fervour can be separated from degrees of delusion.  It saddens me to see a mentally neglected street person yelling to the air; at a wall; or engrossed in conversation with some imagined person, whether their subject is a person from their memory or from a religion.  To simply this paragraph, though, I’m going to ignore the delusional aspect and assume there is none included.  The consensus, thoroughly simplified, is that the clear, well supported conclusion, drawn from the data, is that the lowest in intellect and scientific knowledge have the highest religious fervour.

If the clearly delusional are included, that inversely proportional relationship firms.

In the mountain of knowledge of philosophies, there is the encompassing subject of knowledge, or knowledge of knowledge.

For those to whom knowledge means belief, you will find your place in countless churches.

For those to whom knowledge means science and the real world, you will need all of the resources of secular schools, including all of its time and all of your mind.

Please keep religion completely out of the schools.

The Hellenic Museum of History in Chicago hosted a gala fundraiser on Thursday February first at a local Hilton hotel and Socrates was the guest of honour in a way. In a mock trial of the ancient Athenian philosopher for corrupting the youth of Athens as well as being impious towards the gods, a jury of 1000 local people using clay disks placed on the scale of justice held by the blind goddess Themis narrowly convicted the old wordsmith and blasphemer (a victimless crime). Tickets were priced in a three tier fashion starting at $1500 USD and then $100 USD and finally for students only $50 USD.

The prosecution was by a former US Attorney and Socrates in this trial had a defence lawyer unlike his original trial in 399 BCE. There was also a panel of judges led by Judge Richard Pozner who upon hearing the verdict of the jury informed the audience of jurors that as the Sate of Illinois does not have the death penalty he could not repeat the deadly hemlock poison sentence from the ancient trial. Said the presiding judge, “I can’t sentence to death a seventy year old loudmouth.” Instead Socrates was given a 3,000 silver drachma fine. A drachma from the 4th century BCE would be worth about $25 USD or $75,000 for the whole fine in today’s value. As a point of reference an average workers wage for that period would be about $1 USD per day. As Socrates was a man without great wealth he would have to declare bankruptcy if he were alive today or perhaps his legion of supporters could have chipped in and paid the absurd amount on his behalf. Another judge on the panel said he would have fined Socrates only a symbolic amount of, “two bucks” but his advice was ignored by the presiding judge.

Some jurors were polled upon leaving and a majority polled agreed with the sentence including some who wished that a death penalty could have been imposed because he was most probably an atheist. “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love. Yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our love,” as the old bible thumping hymn goes.

I recorded the audio for it, although it came out somewhat poorly (it was too early for me to get a good setup). The official podcast should be available on CKNW’s website in the next day or two, but for now you can listen to the interview below.

A father`s courage has won out over an ancient tribal marriage custom in the Peshawar region of North Western Pakistan.  With the resolve of, “No, not my daughters.” on his lips, Muhammad Nawaz challenged his two nephews who had declared their intention to marry his two girls, Shaista and Razia.

The custom which is named Ghag, only required a silent claim of marriage by anyone from a tribal elder to a family enemy.  It is held together by strong tribal social pressure, centuries of habit and in the case of Mr. Nawaz a heavy fine from the local assembly of elders called a jirga in this Pashtun region.  Anyone refusing to abide by this custom had to agree to never marry as long as they lived.

He decided to bypass them and lobby the provincial parliament to have a law in place that would stop this practice.

In a surprisingly short period of time in 2012, a law was passed in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provincial parliament that includes a fine or a prison term of between 5-7 years or both.  Hopefully, this custom can be made to peacefully die out with the help of enforcement by local police.  Mr. Nawaz`s young daughters are safe and continuing their studies at school.

The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Tubitak) has banned the sale and publication of all books in its archives that support the theory of evolution.  This includes books by Charles Darwin, Dr. Richard Dawkins, Alan Moorehead, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levontin and James Watson.

TÜBİTAK oversees the development and coordination of scientific research in line with the national targets and priorities, set by the Turkish Academy of Sciences (TÜBA). With more than 2,500 researchers work at the 15 different research institutes and research centers attached to TÜBİTAK, it is the premier country-wide scientific research organization in Turkey.

The source for this news is the English language edition of Hurriyet Daily News, an online Turkish newspaper.

As Darwin Day approaches this tragic story is tailor-made for public support against this decision by a governmental body.  What are your opinions?

As secularists, most members of the BCHA feel strongly that people of faith ought to leave their religion at the door when it comes to passing legislation that affects over four million people in BC of various beliefs and non-beliefs. As few as 1 in 2 people in this province profess to be Christian and a growing number have no religious affiliation.

Religion divides people into unquestionable dogmatic camps. Instead we should be governing from the best available evidence in a way that promotes the prosperity and flourishing of every person.

Finally, this panel demonstrates that attacks on science and secularism are not the sole domain of any one political orientation. While we are used to fighting the Religious Right, in this case it’s coming from the NDP and features more moderate political commentators, like Ron Dart – famous for documenting the Canadian Red Tory phenomena.

Hopefully some secular voices will make it to the event tomorrow and in the future our politicians will make efforts to include a diversity of voices that actually represents our province.