Give me a good atheist any day!

I had a seminary professor of the Lutheran persuasion who had no use for agnostics. While he was completely opposed to atheism, he was prepared to give atheists the credit that they had taken the time to look at whatever evidence was available to them, and had come to a personal conclusion that they were prepared to stake their life on. Of course, he had gone through the same process and staked his life on his conclusions as well--only his were theistic, not atheistic.

Agnostics, on the other hand, were people who either didn't take the time to examine the evidence, develop consistent principles, or bother to come to any conclusions that would affect their lives. They were simply content, open-minded puffballs with no convictions. While the theist might hold up a Bible (or other scripture if of another faith), and the atheist a copy of a book written by a Huxley, the agnostic would simply shrug and wash his/her empty hands of the matter. As Charles Colson might say, they are comfortably numb.

I often think of my former professor when I read or hear the utterances of many pro-choice groups. What a bunch of puffballs they are--the theological equivalent to agnostics.

What do I mean? Well, think about the nonsense at Capilano College where the local students' union (SU) denied official club status to a group identifying itself as pro-life. I read through the students' union press release (http://csu.bc.ca/article.php?story=2007083017254110), which I have to assume correctly represents that body's position. What fluff! And so typical of what one reads from various groups (including university campus groups) when trying to explain why one of the choices they purport to represent (life vs abortion) is muzzled.

First of all the SU claims that in coming to a decision about formally recognizing clubs, "they have to represent what the law says....and the human right of all of us to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly." Obeying the law is a good thing. Most commendable. The pro-life group would be on safe ground here.

The SU adds that they must also represent what the Capilano Students' Union constitution says. Parts of that constitution that are cited in the press release include the following:

1. "To provide a common framework within which students can communicate, exchange information, and share experience, skills and ideas." I daresay that this is exactly what the pro-life group was hoping to do.

2. "Clubs may not perpetrate conduct inciting hatred towards other persons or groups including, but not limited to, racist, sexist, misogynist, or homophobic/heterosexist behavior." Most of these concerns are covered by human rights legislation already, and I don't know many people who would argue for misogyny. Again, the SU is only saying that the law must be obeyed. No issue for pro-life groups surely. They are also legal and exist (or have existed) on many campuses including UBC, SFU, TWU, U Vic, UCFV, UNBC (Cariboo campus) and the Kelowna campus of UBC.

I note with interest that officially approved clubs at Capilano College include two based on race (Chinese and Latin American), one based on politics (Liberal) and one based on religion (Christian). It could be that the Chinese club members have opinions about Taiwan or the Falun Gong or Communism that mirror the Chinese government's, or they might have the opposite convictions. But we don't leap to the conclusion on the basis of their name that they are inciting hatred or anything else. I'll bet that both the Liberals and the Christians would be happiest if everyone with whom they come in contact would convert to their respective opinions, but they are nevertheless not considered discriminatory. How does a pro-life group fall into a different camp from the Chinese, the Liberals and the Christians?

This is where I would expect the SU to give a definitive answer, some kind of principled response that reflects what they claim to stand for--pro-choice. What does pro-choice mean, after all? Surely it means that there are two positions on the issue of pregnancy (give birth or have an abortion). Given that the choices dictate very different results, and that these results have lifelong implications, one would expect that students would want to give every consideration to the varying views before making the decision itself. As long as the pro-life people and the pro-abortion people did not display hatred toward each other, the SU's constitutional requirements would be met.

Instead we get the very illogical argumentation that in no way reflects a pro-choice perspective.

1. "[The SU] recommended that Heartbeats work through the CSU Women's Collective on the issue of a woman's right to have a supportive environment and access to information on all reproductive options available." Why didn't they tell the Christian club to work through the local churches near the campus? Or the Liberal club to work through the Political Science department of the College? Why not have the Chinese students provide a shuttle service to the corner of Keefer and Main (i.e., to Chinatown)? A club is a club. It has a variety of purposes, including fellowship, fundraising, professional development, etc. People of strong common interests like to come together to fraternize internally and publicize externally. Should the pro-life group be denied the opportunity freely extended to others?

2. "The Heartbeat club was (and continues to be) listed on a pro-life network website (ncln.ca) as an official student club at Capilano without approval from the CSU or the College." Actually, this is not true. I looked up the website in question and found that the club was listed under the heading NCLN Campus Groups. Nowhere does it say that these are "official clubs" of the institutions in question.

3. "The ncln.ca site offers resources and suggestions for campus club constitutions and activities...." What follows is a list of suggestions from the NCLN that the SU finds objectionable, although every one of them is legal and none violate human rights. I don't happen to like some of these suggestions myself, but that is beside the point. Being listed on that site does not necessarily prove that the Capilano pro-life groups agrees with these suggestions or intends to adopt them. This is simply a "guilt by association" ploy by the SU that leads them to the following illogical conclusion: "This clearly indicates the Heartbeat's anti-choice agenda." Nonsense.

I submit that the only anti-choice group is the Capilano Students' Union. Their reasoning is not at all what one would expect given their professed pro-choice position. I don't think that they have ever examined what pro-choice means.

Give me a good atheist any day!