Recently, David Rand of Atheist Freethinkers says that secular humanism in Canada is at a crossroads (https://www.atheology.ca/blog-098). That may be, but I don’t think David and I are talking about the same crossroads. Those that he identifies involve the nature of secular principles and he goes as far as to say that humanist organizations like the British Columbia Humanist Association (BCHA) and, to some extent, Secular Connexion Séculière SCS) are not secular because they do not attack religions.
David’s argument is pretty clear that secular principles must include anti-religious actions such as demanding that Muslim women prohibited from wearing face coverings when receiving public services or when they are involved in public service. This is pretty much in line with the recent Québec laws that say the same thing.
Now, I have a big stone in my shoe about allowing governments to dictate what individuals can and cannot wear. Certainly, garb that breaks other laws about indecent exposure and racist of hateful expressions should be disallowed, but the laws that handle that are not aimed specifically at any one group. For that reason, one has to make a pretty strong case for the danger to society of Muslim women covering their faces to convince me that the Québec law is a good one.
However, that is not the core of my disagreement with David’s argument. It centres on his definition of secularism. I find that the claim that one cannot be secular without being anti-religious is unacceptable. There is no requirement in the English word, secular, for an anti-religious component. Certainly, the range of ideas of functional secularism may contain the idea that being anti-religious is a part of secularism, but that does not make it mandatory.
Humanism in Canada is facing a crossroads and which road it takes will determine whether it is really a movement as the “ism” suffix implies or not. The two choices are to take the road to being a unified, although inclusive movement with different views of secularism included, or whether it will take the road to disintegration with humanists in Canada attacking each other because of different persepectives among its members.
For me, the choice must be the inclusive road, the one on which varying approaches to religions can co-exist so that the main principles of humanist philosophy1 will provide a solid basis to defend humanist rights in Canada. If each humanist group insists that its interpretation of meanings make it the only true group, then any Canadian humanist movement will dissolve into siloism with more energy spent on slagging each other than in moving humanist rights forward.
The crossroads must be faced by Canadian secular humanists, then, not by wallowing in our differences, but by embracing our similarities. Focusing on defending and promoting our humanist values is the key to getting onto the correct road to making our actions become Canadian humanism.
1See https://sofree.ca/mission-and-principles/ for the key principles of humanist philosophy
CANADIAN SECULAR HUMANIST 