Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Atheist group denied official club status

News Writer

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.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

32 comments

Anonymous
Wed Mar 6 2013 13:48
Is there anyway to get on the mailing list for this unofficial club? I would support them.

It is funny how Notre Dame's philosophy classes fully encourage this type of questioning, but they won't allow a club for people who are convinced by the arguments brought up in the philosophy classes.

Notre Dame will never be a true top tier university if they don't allow their students to meet freely and express themselves.

St. Eds' and Alumni '09
Sat Oct 27 2012 17:01
quoting Patrick on Oct 19, 2011: "Notre Dame should not change its cuture just to be like everyone else."

By rejecting an idea, Notre Dame no longer is an institute for higher learning. If they truly are "creating educated people within the structure of teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church," then they are forcing its students to memorize and conform, not reason and expand. I think Notre Dame is simply afraid to be wrong in their mission statement.

But lemme tell yah: Being correct keeps you in your place. Being wrong forces you to explore. Notre Dame will always be stuck in the past and will never keep up with the world by intentionally ignoring new ideas for fear that they may undermine their current truths.

As an ND alum, I truly hated that culture. I didn't realize it until after I graduated. I wish I went to a university that taught me to reason. Teach a person to reason, and they will think forever. Teach a person to memorize, and they will argue forever.

Anonymous
Thu Jul 12 2012 23:39
Thank you Stephen Love. I was a questioning ND student the four years prior to this one. I wish this would have been brought up earlier. I learned a lot of things at Notre Dame - the critical thinking skills sure helped in finding my way. I just wish the university's mission was in line with the average ND community member's views. Not recognizing atheists (as well as gay people) as equal community members doesn't help portray this otherwise great university as a compassionate one
Anonymous
Tue Nov 15 2011 01:51
This stupid atheist/agnostic group does not deserve to exist at Notre Dame.
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.

Anonymous
Tue Nov 15 2011 01:49
"This post was literally too stupid to respond to."

Yeah, that's the level of intellectual inquiry demanded by an atheist student group that compares its existence to Jewish and Muslim groups on campus.

Anonymous
Mon Nov 14 2011 10:48
Previous poster, have YOU read the Bible? Luke 12:51-52: "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."
Anonymous
Mon Nov 14 2011 08:49
Wow, this is THE number one reason I have lost all of my faith in the Catholic church - it is made up of people who feel it is important to follow bigoted, separatist, judgmental, irrelevant and UN-CHRISTIAN "rules".
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.
Anonymous
Thu Nov 3 2011 11:00
Plenty of secular and non-Catholic schools have refused to have Catholic student groups, pro-life groups, etc. I don't see why it's so controversial for a private Catholic school to not have an official atheist group.
Anonymous
Thu Nov 3 2011 10:20
Show me where the club's existence would contravene with this mission:

Mission

The University of Notre Dame is a Catholic academic community of higher learning, animated from its origins by the Congregation of Holy Cross. The University is dedicated to the pursuit and sharing of truth for its own sake. As a Catholic university, one of its distinctive goals is to provide a forum where, through free inquiry and open discussion, the various lines of Catholic thought may intersect with all the forms of knowledge found in the arts, sciences, professions, and every other area of human scholarship and creativity.

The intellectual interchange essential to a university requires, and is enriched by, the presence and voices of diverse scholars and students. The Catholic identity of the University depends upon, and is nurtured by, the continuing presence of a predominant number of Catholic intellectuals. This ideal has been consistently maintained by the University leadership throughout its history. What the University asks of all its scholars and students, however, is not a particular creedal affiliation, but a respect for the objectives of Notre Dame and a willingness to enter into the conversation that gives it life and character. Therefore, the University insists upon academic freedom that makes open discussion and inquiry possible.

The University prides itself on being an environment of teaching and learning that fosters the development in its students of those disciplined habits of mind, body, and spirit that characterize educated, skilled, and free human beings. In addition, the University seeks to cultivate in its students not only an appreciation for the great achievements of human beings but also a disciplined sensibility to the poverty, injustice and oppression that burden the lives of so many. The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice.

Notre Dame also has a responsibility to advance knowledge in a search for truth through original inquiry and publication. This responsibility engages the faculty and students in all areas of the University, but particularly in graduate and professional education and research. The University is committed to constructive and critical engagement with the whole of human culture.

The University encourages a way of living consonant with a Christian community and manifest in prayer, liturgy and service. Residential life endeavors to develop that sense of community and of responsibility that prepares students for subsequent leadership in building a society that is at once more human and more divine.

Notre Dame's character as a Catholic academic community presupposes that no genuine search for the truth in the human or the cosmic order is alien to the life of faith. The University welcomes all areas of scholarly activity as consonant with its mission, subject to appropriate critical refinement. There is, however, a special obligation and opportunity, specifically as a Catholic university, to pursue the religious dimensions of all human learning. Only thus can Catholic intellectual life in all disciplines be animated and fostered and a proper community of scholarly religious discourse be established.

In all dimensions of the University, Notre Dame pursues its objectives through the formation of an authentic human community graced by the Spirit of Christ.

Anonymous
Wed Nov 2 2011 11:43
Peter from 10/23, the greatest non-sequitur is your argument. More generally, do away with the non-Christian groups or there is no basis for not allowing the atheists.
Kudos
Wed Nov 2 2011 11:29
I take my hat off to Stephen Love. He is trying to do something new in a place that most would not consider it possible. Obviously the school is private and therefore has the right to deny them funding. But I do hope that Stephen Love and the other members of AAQS get approved. Just because a person identifies themself as an athiest does not mean they are out plotting to turn all of the religous students from their beliefs. Love states that it is simply a club to promote discussion, and I think all universities (public or private) could use that. And Stephen Love, if the university says no again, keep doing what you're doing! Kudos to you for trying to get a faction's voice heard in a place where it usually isn't. And not throwing a fit because the private university wouldn't sgree with you is very mature. The world could use more people like you :) Keep it up!
deeznutz
Wed Nov 2 2011 10:41
There is no reason why Atheist should not be aloud to have a group. That is just the religious nuts trying to keep the people of reason down! Science rules all, there is no god, figure it out for yourself by doing a little research.
Anonymous
Wed Nov 2 2011 10:40
Um, that's one of the DUMBEST things I've ever read. "we're just like the non-Catholics, except we don't believe in God." Most Jewish or Muslim students would probably find that comparison quite idiotic.

Look, ND sponsors all kinds of intellectual debate about God and the existence of a deity. It has world class theology and philosophy departments which already sponsor all kinds of debates, lectures, and discussions about this stuff.

This group is bad not because it consists of students who don't believe in a deity. Rather, they're just ignorant. They sound like a bunch of tourists in Mexico asking, "where's all the Mexican food?".

-------------------

This post was literally too stupid to respond to.

Anonymous
Wed Nov 2 2011 10:14
What does an Atheist group discuss? "No God, right?" "Yeah, let's get drunk"
Anonymous
Wed Nov 2 2011 08:18
While it is not un-reasonable for the school to deny the group a registration I find it un-palatable. There should be little conflict of interest between a school and a group that wishes to spread information and promote discussion on it.
Anonymous
Sun Oct 23 2011 21:32
An argument, common today, is that moral relativism is tolerant, while absolutism is intolerant. Tolerance is one of the few non-controversial values today. Nearly everyone in our society accepts it. So it is a powerful selling point for any theory or practice that can claim it. What of relativism's claim to tolerance? Well, I see no less than eight fallacies in this popular argument.

First, let us be clear what we mean by tolerance. Tolerance is a quality of people, not of ideas. Ideas can be confused, or fuzzy, or ill defined, but that does not make them tolerant, or intolerant, any more than clarity or exactness could make them intolerant. If a carpenter tolerates 3/16 of an inch deviation from plane, he is three times more tolerant than one who tolerates only 1/16 of an inch, but he is no less clear. One teacher may tolerate no dissent from his fuzzy and ill-defined views���a Marxist, let's say���while another, say Socrates, may tolerate much dissent from his clearly defined views.
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

Anonymous
Sun Oct 23 2011 21:15
The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves and not to twist them to fit our own image. Otherwise we love only the reflection of ourselves we find in them.
--Thomas Merton

When 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 God

Were 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 Karamazov

Hope is not the belief that we can change things. Hope is the belief, that what we do matters.
--Vaclav Havel, Nobel Acceptance Speech

Religion 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 America

The sense of the world must lie outside the world.
--Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

Tradition 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"

Anonymous
Fri Oct 21 2011 22:20
What is Notre Dame afraid of anyway? It's a university, not a church. Yes, it's a Catholic university, but it calls itself a university. Open up you closed-minded, self-righteous contradictions. You are no better than those around you.

Bless you one and all..A Doubler Domer

Anonymous
Fri Oct 21 2011 16:50
I give you two sentences: "God created the universe," and "the universe created itself." Both say exactly the same thing to the extent there is no distinction to be made between "God" and "the universe." Now, if all we are debating is what to call the sky at night, this is a silly argument. So, I put it to all believers: Just what is it that you believe in? Don't give me another undefined term. Demonstrate, by a rigorous definition, precisely what the distinction is and precisely how we can test for the difference.

Until someone does that, I'll believe in Moses, I'll believe in Jesus, I'll believe in everything in between, but I'll believe in them as historical figures no more descended from "God" than Julius Caesar was descended from Venus.

Robert Brian Crim,
Naples, Fl,
geometry@infionline.net

Anonymous
Thu Oct 20 2011 21:05
Notre Dame is an embarrassing university. This is preposterous. Let them have their club. Atheism is no more contradictory to Catholicism than Islam or any other religion is. Let's not forget that the Catholic faith says, if you're not Catholic and you don't believe in our "god" then you are wrong and you will rot in "hell". Notre Dame has plenty of money that they spend illegally recruiting athletes, why can't they spend a tiny bit to fund a club of intelligent free thinkers looking for a place to broaden their worldview? If you think differently, you are severely misguided. (probably by the Catholic church) But i would expect nothing less from a bunch of hypocritical Catholics. Embarrassing...




log out