We are rounding up the week with a step in the right direction. In British Columbia. Kara has the story Kara.
Well and positive news for humanists in Canada. All city council meetings in British Columbia will now be prayer free, nine years after a Supreme Court ruling found that the practice violated civil rights. This is because after the British Columbia Humanist Association found that twenty three municipalities in the province were still opening city council meetings with prayers always Christian despite the ruling, they mounted efforts to end the practice.
Their tactics included publishing a report noting which provinces were still offering prayers, sending letters urging leaders to follow the law, following up with additional letters until receiving a response, and in a few passes, threatening to sew if the provinces did not commit to ending the practice. As of this year, all of the remaining provinces have agreed that prayers will
no longer be included in meetings or inauguration ceremonies. The decision is a welcome win for activists and all people who believe their local leaders have an obligation to follow the law. The story is from The Friendly Atheist by him At Matta, published July fifth, twenty twenty four.
Thank you, Kiera. You know, the first person that I want to give their reaction to reading new story is Tale, because I have a feeling that I know what you're going to say, So won't you lay out lay it on as Tale? What was your reaction with first rectory? Oh?
I was. I was extremely happy about this, and yeah, finally good things are happening despite all the bad and awful stuff going around. Finally some good news. And yeah, we were just talking about the Satanic Temple and how they do their trolling in order to fight this religious privilege. I'm very happy to see that that's not the only
way how people can do stuff. That there are secular ways in which people can be constant and keep going and going and complaining and complaining until that until they achieved this goal. And it's amazing. I mean, it's it's it's awesome. I very believed that they finally were able to do that. I was going to mention again, you know, the disruptive Satanic prayer at the beginning of a council
bad no it's not necessarily. I think it's great to know that finally we have at least one place where they are not going to be always listening to Christian prayers just because they think that's the only religion that matters and all of that. And you don't have to replace it with a more religion, a Satanism. No, you finally have the secular way where there is no prayer and that's it. That's it. So I'm extremely happy about this.
No prayer, no thoughts, full stop, awesome, awesome. And what about you, Aaron sitting over there, kind of biased over there, you have an opinion on your biases.
Biases I'm allful about.
I'm full about a human being, I am.
I am chock full of bias. It's awful, it's awful. This is a very hardening story that things can change and things can get better for everyone. This doesn't just help humanists or atheists. This helps everyone. It helps everyone be on an equal footing. It gives nobody, you know, a special place when your religion gets to get up
in meetings and say a prayer before everybody else. It kind of implicitly tells that religion's followers that they're more important than everybody else, and then when you stop doing it, it can kind of it can be adjustment for those people to realize, oh, you know, my religion isn't the most important. There are other religions that I have to kind of think about and take into account, and there
are other perspectives in the world. So I think this is a great, great thing, and it reminded me of the I don't know if this used to be the model of the United States e purbus unum, you know, out of many one that's I think that is the point of government is to bring everybody from different backgrounds together and solve problems and make everybody's lives better and
improve things. And I'm just really proud of these people for doing the work necessary to make their province better for everybody.
Yeah, I definitely agree with that. You know, I know that we have talked about at nau's different municipalities in the United States specifically, and also even a federal level, where prayer mostly from Christians Askara meant earlier, is pretty
much standard practice before you start your thing. I mean, we still even have a national prayer break in a country where we're supposed to be secular, and as much as we have all talked about and also our other fellow nonprofit hopes in the past talked about like how that should not be a it still happened. And in actuality, when you look at the story, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled in twenty fifteen that opening city council meetings with
prayer violates citizen rights. I mean, like, so this is like almost ten years ago when the ruler came out. So but Kara, since you introduced the story, I want to ask you, why do you think it took nearly a decade for some municipalities in British Columbia to comply with the Canadian Supreme Court ruling?
You know, I think it gets back to something Aaron mentioned earlier, which is that if people think that their religion is the most important one, and it's the only one that they ever see represented anywhere, and it's the only thing that they've ever experienced, and it just seems natural and normal for it to be taking place everywhere, I think it's in some cases hard for people to understand why it would be inappropriate in some places, and so to some extent, I think it could be a
case of people just actually not considering how detrimental and harmful the practice was. But at the same time, I think that these are people who were aware of the law, especially after they received letters from the Humanist Association reminding them that they were doing something that was in violation
of the law. So I don't want to give people a complete pass on it, because I think the second piece of this was not just having to realize that, Okay, you're not the only believer in the room, you're not the only person whose opinion and background and experience matters, but secondly that people notice what you're doing and you're
going to be held accountable. You can't just keep doing this and railroad over other people thinking that well, you know, yes they made that law, but you know, nobody else actually believes that other stuff. We're the majority here in our community. This is our faith, so it's okay here, Well no it isn't. You're in violation of the law, and there are people that are noticing and that we'll call you on it. And I think that was a huge piece here that they needed to be called out.
And we saw in the article that as soon as they started getting these letters, most of the municipalities that were still doing the practice backed off. There were some that ignored the letters until they got a follow up, and there were some that came back with these kind of wishy washy things like, well, we're not saying we'll keep doing it, but we're not saying we won't, or we're just doing it at some ceremonies and not all
the meetings. But then the few holdouts after that, after they got the letter saying Okay, well, since you are violating the law, we're going to sue if you don't stop, all of a sudden, then they stopped. And so I think it's important to recognize that just having the law isn't enough. People have to be held to account. And that's exactly what happened in this case, and it was very effective, and I find that very heartening personally.
Yeah, I feel it heartening too. It kind of reminds me and I want to give a shout out to one of our other ACA hosts, The Cross Examined, who has his own podcasts well where he talks about different cases and the law and how it even you know, and how those things actually happen and show up in politics today and how it affects us, especially those who
are trying to push like secular value. And he recently actually had a lawyer on from the Freedom from Religion Foundation where they talked about the case specifically in Louisiana and how normally what they do is that they'll send a letter, as you mentioned, Kara, saying that, hey, what you're doing is kind of against the law. You should kind of stop.
Okay, thanks, have a nice day.
And you know, the lawyer actually mentioned that a lot of times, sending a letter pointing out the error of that particular area, organization, municipality, local government, whatever, actually works because a lawyer is saying to you using lovely legal language, and of course I'm not one, but I can imagine what it looks like that what you're doing is wrong, it's against the law, and you need to stop. And if you keep doing it, then you're going to face
repercussion like a lawsuit. And that does work. And in this particular case, that's exactly what the BC humans ended up doing, writing a letter to these municipalities who are still practicing the whole prayer uh before a city council meeting and then saying like, hey, you need to stop because the Supreme Court said back in twenty fifteen that you're not right. So you are actually inviting further repercussion
if you keep engaging in this practice. But you know, one of the things that could be a case is some of the issues that some British Columbian humanists are still actually they're still actually getting like some you know issues because not everyone is following what the letter said, right, We're still having some issues where some of the municipalities are saying, well, we don't always do it, and we do it selectively and maybe one day, you know, we'll stop,
but you know, we'll think about it and we'll get
back to you, right. But you know, I think that one of the things that this article is like really points out is that it's very important for organizations who actually care about this to engage in activism and really put forward the effort in order to make sure that these things are not because it should never be the key where you are dealing with a city council meeting that has to do with the business of the people and you're putting specific religious edicts front of it before
you do the business of the people, especially when the people that you represent are not all Christians? No, And speaking of religious diversity, and I'm coming to you because like one of the things that the article mentions is that Vancouver included representatives from various religious backgrounds and it's twenty twenty two inaugural event. And in your opinion, why is it important for municipal municipal ceremonies rather to reflect religious diversity, especially in multi cultural side.
Well, I guess it probably depends on how those religions are being represented in the ceremony. If they're there just to represent, you know, groups of the of the citizenry and to represent and so people have representation, I think that's fine. I think it would get a little bit greyer if they're being asked to give prayers or do other kind of religious things. But if they're just there to represent the diversity of cultures, I think that's great.
And then the more diverse, the better, you know. I'm not sure what the threshold of percentage population needs to be religion to show them reflected up on the stage. I think if you wanted to do a perfectly representative thing, you probably maybe don't include. I think I think it can be a tricky issue. I'm not sure I've given it that much that much thought, and I have I would probably err on the side of saying, let's maybe just not include religion in anything that has to do
with our government just because who gets included? Why do they get included? Is there a threshold for percentage of people that have to be a member that religion to get included. Do the Satanists get included even though there's not very many of them? Do you get to put in a petition for your group to be included? What's the I mean, what's the point?
Why?
Why? Why are we having them up there? Is it a day of celebration for religions? Then okay, maybe, but probably on the side of let's just let's just keep it secular. I think that's the most equal thing, the equal way, and to do it.
Just to keep it secular. Well, let me let me ask thee the other two represented on the panel, like Tail and Care. I'm going to come to you first, Tale and then Care based on what Aaron just said about like when I'm bringing up like the representation and also includes for the purpose of white diversity and culture to possibly represent more religions on the state. Is that something that you think should happen, No, why or why not?
Tale and then care well. I enjoyed when we're hour in the secular I.
Think, I mean, I do agree that people need their right to follow whatever belief they want to as long
as they don't hurt themselves. Which it's debatable, but I have said several times if there was a government tried to forbid people from having their own beliefs and religions, due to my activism, I would have the obligation to be there fighting against this government because people need the freedom to follow whatever they want, and if we want to help them, we have to give them the tools that they require in order to have a secular way
of thinking, to realize what things are harmful, what things are untrue. But I do think that having a secular government and a secular way of living, and to having every person they leaving their own little babble of religion of whatever they want. It's not that the best solution, but it's the wonder we could try to achieve, and that we could be the best one according to the
type of society that we live in. So in that sense, I agree with our just keep religion for yourself There is a phrase that I really like a guy said once and I have quoted him there. At times, having your own religion is like having a penis. It's okay having one. It's okay to be.
Proud of it. I am very proud of mine. Just don't show it to people on the street, and don't put it down the children's throats, and that's it. Just give it to yourself and be proud of it if you want to. And that's it. We should treat religion like a dick.
You heard it here first, people, Tail is proud of his penis. Karen, I'm a secular sexuality.
Karen, what say you do you agree? How do you segue from that? I have no idea, boy, I'm gonna try. How do you agree with Aaron?
Should we just, like, you know, just keep these instead of if we're thinking about diversity and equity and inclusion, which in according to right Wings, that's a bad term, a bad word up there with woke. Is it okay to have representation when it comes to, you know, religious ideas on the stage when we come to these particular areas, or should we just keep a second?
Well, you know, I think when it comes to something that is being promoted by or run by a government entity. I think the best way to promote inclusion and diversity is to not comment on the matter, because that's what leaves space for individual people and groups to show up and feel that they are able to and allowed to show up and be the way they are without risking running a foul of you know, the current administration or
the powers that be. I think that as soon as you start instituting a practice that represents one or two, or three, or even five or ten different belief systems, you're always going to be leaving some out, and you're going to be leaving out the atheists or the non believers just simply by default, and you can't include everyone. I do think that in general, being inclusive and diverse is, of course the right thing to do in all cases.
But the way to be inclusive and diverse with beliefs is to not privilege one or more of them over the rest of them by instituting them as an official practice.
And that's the most important thing when it comes to this question, and that's the decision that the Canadian Supreme Court came to, was that in order to remain neutral, it had to mean not taking a position one way or the other on any of the practices, and personally, I think that is the best way to allow people to decide for themselves what they're going to practice and how they're going to show up in public life.
Yeah, I agree with that. I think that there is a fine line when we're talking about diversity, equity, inclusion, and also being culturally competent when we're discussing representation when it comes to religious practice. Now, we all know that
like religion and of itself, is a component of one's culture. However, there is also that slippery slope that if we say that, Okay, we're going to give room for this particular religion because your culture is we want to represent your culture, right, then we have to think about the other religion and the other religion, the other religion and really religion, right, and then the turtles all the way down. Even though I don't believe that's the same analogy, but I'm going
with it. So you know, it's up there with you know, there's a teapot circle, NERD wrong show, I'm getting back. Regardless, there is still a place where we can definitely talk about being able to display and having people being proud of their their cultures, even their belief systems, and how it has shaped them as a community without necessarily being
to the point where it's being interjected in government entities. Right. So, for example, like I know that when I was in college, they used to have like these inter faith coalitions, and sometimes like interfaith coalitions that had representatives from many different religions and people who happen to not be religious or irreligious.
We're able to come together and discuss, like you know, different things that concern them about campus life and things of that nature, and also being you know, tolerant of others and even you know, to the point where they want to give both people a seatd table. Now, if
that's the case, I'm all for it. But when it comes to actually saying that, okay, well, now that we have to be conscious of people who happen to be a practitioner of said religion, we're going to start inviting an emon or a pastor or you know, like a Buddhist priest or a Hindi priest or whatever to come and do their invocation, which I know other municipalities tried to do. But in actuality, if we just say we're not doing none of that. We're just gonna be at
the business people. Okay, We're starting our meeting on seven seventeen and nine thirty five pm Central Time. Hit the gable. Let's get started right. And I think that would be a better way to go than interjecting any person's faith or any person's religious beliefs or anything like that, especially when it comes