Atheist group denied official club status
Published: Thursday, October 13, 2011
Updated: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:09
From the Basilica on God Quad to the chapels in every residence hall to the crucifixes in every classroom, the University's Catholic identity is not easily missed. Not all Notre Dame students, however, share that identity.
Last year, senior Stephen Love and a few of his friends decided to form a club for "Atheist, Agnostic and Questioning Students" (AAQS).
Love said he felt the number of students who don't prescribe to organized religion warranted an official campus group.
"I think the [nonbeliever population] is vastly underestimated," Love said. "I think people would be really surprised by how many students are interested."
The Student Activities Office (SAO) denied the club official recognition last year, citing a contradiction between Notre Dame's mission and the intended purpose of the club.
"A club's purpose ‘must be consistent with the University's mission,'" the letter stated. "No organization, or member of any organization on behalf of the organization, may encourage or participate in any activity which contravenes the mission of the University or the moral teaching of the Catholic Church."
Love said the given reasoning was inconsistent with the University's policy toward other, existing clubs.
"An easy rebuttal to that would be that we have a Jewish club, a Muslim club," he said. "The only difference between us and them is that we don't assume the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. We just thought if those clubs were allowed, we would also be allowed."
In the club's current proposed constitution, the mission is specified as "to provide a forum for students to discuss philosophical, scientific, religious and political topics free from [in]tolerance."
The constitution said the club would create this venue by holding regular discussions, inviting guest speakers to campus to participate in academic conferences and forums.
Love said official recognition is important because it would provide funding to make this program a reality.
"We want to form an official club so we actually have official meeting rooms and we'd get some University funding so we could bring in guest speakers to come in and spur debate," he said.
Love said this dialogue would be open to the religious as well as nonreligious students on campus.
"We technically have a secular agenda, but we want people from all different faiths to come and discuss," he said. "That's how you advance your ideas, by having them challenged."
In addition to the problems with the club's mission statement, SAO's rejection letter stated that AAQS had failed to receive the appropriate departmental approval. According to SAO, the concerned department was Campus Ministry.
"For this proposed club, the approval of Campus Ministry is necessary to be considered a club," the letter stated. "Upon review of the materials submitted, Campus Ministry indicated they would not approve this club."
Love said he disagreed with the department designation.
"I don't know where they got that, that Campus Ministry is the appropriate department," he said.
Love said, despite being denied club status, AAQS has been meeting independently and growing rapidly since last year.
"We've been meeting underground this whole time," he said. "When it started it was just a couple of friends and I, but within two or three weeks, just by word of mouth, it went from five to 10 then 30 to 40, and we haven't even made an active effort besides one small advertisement in The Observer ... Now we have 40 or 50 on the email list."
With an established "unofficial" membership, would-be club vice president Love and president Brian Robillard reapplied for club status last month. The new application has received approval from the Philosophy Department and is awaiting SAO review.
While Love is hopeful about the reapplication, he understands the University is within its rights to reject the club, for whatever reason.
"We understand the University is a private, Catholic institution, so we're not demanding anything ... we don't have the right. We understand it's within their power to do what they please," he said. "We would just like to see the University give nonsectarian students a venue."
Despite this being Love's last year to personally work toward official recognition for the club, he is confident the effort will continue after he graduates.
"If we get rejected, we have enough underclassmen who will continue to apply and make changes based off what SAO suggests," he said. "We're willing to do whatever it takes to become an official club, within reason."
SAO was not available to comment on the matter.
32 comments
ND has no obligation to fund a pathetic group of whiners.When they compare themselves to Muslims and Jews and groups from other faiths, they should be ashamed of themselves.Unfortunately, they are too dumb to even question their own logic. These Mendoza business school fools have too much time on their hands.
I seriously doubt anyone who has opposed this group has actually read the Bible because they are completely unfamiliar with Jesus, what he taught, what he lived and DIED for. Jesus was the one who stood up and challenged these exact people in His day. He accepted those who had questions, those who had doubts, and those who were "different". Jesus preached love and acceptance - NOT divisiveness and intolerance. I just don't get this decision at all, except that Notre Dame and its Campus Ministry must feel threatened in some way. If your beliefs cannot stand up to those who will question you, it is YOU who are lacking in faith.
Second, the relativist's claim is that absolutism, belief in universal, objective, and unchanging moral laws, fosters intolerance of alternative views. But in the sciences, nothing like this has been the case. The sciences have certainly benefited and progressed remarkably because of tolerance of diverse and heretical views. Yet science is not about subjective truths, but about objective truths. Therefore, objectivism does not necessarily cause intolerance.
Third, the relativist may further argue that absolutes are hard and unyielding and therefore the defender of them will also be hard and unyielding. But this is another non-sequitor. One may teach hard facts in a soft way, or soft opinions in a hard way.
Fourth, the simplest refutation of the tolerance argument is its very premise. It assumes that tolerance is really, objectively, universally, absolutely good. If the relativist replied that he is not presupposing the objective value of tolerance, then all he is doing is demanding the imposition of his subjective personal preference for tolerance. That is surely more intolerant than the appeal to an objective, universal, impersonal, moral law. If no moral values are absolute, neither is tolerance. The absolutist can take tolerance far more seriously than the relativist. It is absolutism, not relativism, that fosters tolerance.
Fifth fallacy: It is relativism that fosters intolerance. Why not be intolerant? He has no answer to this. Because tolerance feels better? Or because it is the popular consensus? Well suppose it no longer feels better. Suppose it ceases to be popular. The relativist can appeal to no moral law as a dam against the flood of intolerance. We desperately need such a dam, because societies, like individuals, are fickle and fallen. What else will deter a humane and humanistic Germany from turning to an inhumane, Nazi philosophy of racial superiority? Or, a now-tolerant America from turning to a future intolerance against any group it decides to disenfranchise. It is unborn babies today, born babies tomorrow. Homophobes today, perhaps homosexuals tomorrow. The same absolutism that homosexuals usually fear because it is not tolerant of their behavior is their only secure protection against intolerance of their persons.
Sixth fallacy. Examination of the essential meaning of the concept of tolerance reveals a presupposition of moral objectivism, for we do not tolerate goods. We only tolerate evils in order to prevent worse evils. The patient will tolerate the nausea brought on by chemotherapy in order to prevent death by cancer. And a society will tolerate bad things like smoking in order to preserve good things like privacy and freedom.
Seventh, the advocate of tolerance faces a dilemma when it comes to cross-cultural tolerance. Most cultures throughout history have not put a high value on tolerance. In fact, some have even thought it a moral weakness. Should we tolerate this intolerance? If so, if we should tolerate intolerance, then the tolerance objectivist had better stop bad-mouthing the Spanish Inquisition. But if we should not tolerate intolerance, why not? Because tolerance is really good, and the Inquisition was really evil? In that case, we are presupposing a universal and objective trans-cultural value. What if instead, he says it is only because of our consensus for tolerance? But his history's consensus is against it. Why impose on ours? Is that not culturally intolerant?
Eighth, finally, there is a logical non-sequitor in the relativist argument too. Even if the belief in absolute moral values did cause intolerance, it does not follow that such values are not real. The belief that the cop on the beat is sleeping may cause a mugger to be intolerant to his victims, but it does not follow that the cop is not asleep. Thus, there are no less than eight weaknesses in the tolerance argument.
Peter Kreeft
--Thomas MertonWhen you don't forgive another, you objectify that person, hardening him or her into a particular mold. That is only a portion of that person's being. So long as you hold on to that frozen image of the other person, the two of you will continue to play out the same dynamic. Forgiveness renders the relationship fluid again, allowing you to see other aspects of that person. Then you, too, are freed to exist more fully, not frozen into one posture.
--Thomas Merton
...
Until recently,then, modernity was mistaken in its relation to truth, and thus to God and humankind. But even so modernity has, to its great credit, by grant of Providence, made three great institutional discoveries. Modern thinkers first worked out, as neither the ancients nor the medievals did, the practical principles of the threefold free society: free in its polity, free in its economy, and free in the realm of conscience and inquiry. The great modern achievements in these matters have been supremely practical: how to make free institutions work at least tolerably well, and better in most ways than earlier regimes.However, despite these happy practical gains, modernity tore down the only philosophical foundation that can sustain the free society. The Age of Enlightenment was supposed to do away with sectarian bickering, but it did not. If you stay within your own school of thought, the foundations of the free society may seem secure. Peek outside, however, and you will hear raucous voices shouting. The Age of Enlightenment has failed to secure an intelligent mode of public moral argument that gets beyond the language of the playpen.
--Michael Novak, No One Sees GodWere mankind's belief in its immortality to be destroyed, not only love but also any living power to continue the life of the world would at once dry up.
--Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers KaramazovHope is not the belief that we can change things. Hope is the belief, that what we do matters.
--Vaclav Havel, Nobel Acceptance SpeechReligion therefore is only a particular form of hope, and it is as natural to the human heart as hope itself. Only by a kind of aberration of the intellect and with the aid of a sort of moral violence exercised on their own nature do men stray from religious beliefs; an invincible inclination leads them back to them. Disbelief is an accident; faith alone is the permanent state of humanity.
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in AmericaThe sense of the world must lie outside the world.
--Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-PhilosophicusTradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living."
--Jaroslav Pelikan, The Vindication of Tradition (Jefferson Lecture)What you have as heritage, Take now as task; For thus you will make it your own!
--Goethe, Faust"Skepticism, then, is not avoidance of option; it is option of a certain particular kind of risk. Better risk loss of truth than chance of error--that is your faith-vetoer's exact position. He is actively playing his stake as much as the believer is; he is backing the field against the religious hypothesis, just as the believer is backing the religious hypothesis against the field. To preach skepticism to us as a duty until 'sufficient evidence' for religion be found, is tantamount therefore to telling us, when in presence of the religious hypothesis, that to yield to our fear of its being error is wiser and better than to yield to our hope that it may be true. It is not intellect against all passions, then; it is only intellect with one passion laying down its law."
--William James, "The Will to Believe"
Naples, Fl,
geometry@infionline.net

is a member of the 

