I’ve saved writing about the recent vandalism at the University of Alberta on Edger until now for a few reasons. Mainly, I wanted all the heat to settle down, for our new banner to go up, and for as many facts and opinions to come in as possible. Also, it should note this post will mirror the original and follow up posts from my own blog.
So first, let’s try to go through the order of events as objectively as possible.
- We’ve been working at the University of Alberta for a while now to try to achieve a secular convocation ceremony. As part of this campaign, I wrote an opinion article for the campus newspaper, which attracted both negative and positive reactions (about two weeks worth of letters).
- The UofA Atheists and Agnostics large (5′ x 8′) hanging banner gets vandalized over a weekend after hanging in an atrium for several weeks and the entire previous semester. The contact email and website were cut from the bottom and the phrases “God loves you,” “Jesus is coming,” and hearts and crosses are drawn across the banner.
- We later figured out, after removing the banner (while unveiling the new one), that the heart and cross were added to cover up some other writing. We couldn’t make out what was written under the heart, as the writing was mostly indistinguishable.
- I reported the incident to campus security the morning I discovered the banner and issued press releases to all the media outlets in town that I could get a hold of. CTV (local television) later did an interview with me (not YouTube’d yet). I also wrote my first blog post on it.
- After having a number of the “atheist community” blast me for using the word “hate” I wrote my second post saying simply that I called this act for what it was, although it wasn’t the position my group had taken. This was further clarified later in the week when another member of my club’s exec appeared on campus radio to discuss the issue.

So what are my thoughts on the issue?
First, one of my Christian friends (who heads the local IVCF chapter), wanted to point out:
1. The hate crime (I don’t mind calling it one… it was) was performed as it seems as a response to previous events on campus in which I had only a few glimpses of knowledge.
2. To comment about the vandalism without commenting about the convocation debate seems in some sense to be making a sideways response to the one event.
I find it utterly appalling that he tries to justify this action as a retaliation for my writing an article in a campus paper. I wrote some words. They drew and permanently damaged property that wasn’t theirs. Big difference. I may have offended them, but they actively worked to remove the ability of my group to advertise itself – a right possessed by every group on my campus (including the Pro-Life group). Being offended isn’t a protection we afford people in Canada (generally).
But what else happened here? When I went out actively looking for support, I instead was told: “this is more of a love crime” from some atheists. People I expected to side with me and back me up in denouncing an act of targeted intolerance against my group instead chastised me for overreacting.
Let me emphasize, my friend, an evangelical Christian, and the Pentecostal group on campus agreed with my denunciation of the event, while atheists and the United Church chaplain (a very liberal church in Canada) thought I was being unreasonable for expecting some sympathy.
I can understand having small posters vandalized or ripped down – at 5-15c a piece, I would be surprised to see all of them after a week. But for someone to go out of their way to deface and damage a large hanging banner, required planning, time, and effort (I believe they actually removed it from the building it was hanging in, did their damage, and then re-hung it – mainly because it was attached to the wire it hung from differently).
So why the argument? I really don’t see why, as an atheist, I can’t say that an act of intolerance against my group is equivalent in terms of intolerance and hate to writing “God hates fags” on a gay-support group’s banner, or “terrorist” on a Muslim banner. Just because they put a heart on it doesn’t mean that’s what they’re feeling.
Even if I grant that they may actually feel that God does love us, that still doesn’t change the intent of the actions, which was to imply that our group shouldn’t be spreading its message, and should instead accept Jesus (or burn in hell, as the implied alternative).
So I just thought I’d put it out there: clearly a double standard exists within the atheist community that we can’t cry foul, even when it happens to us. And I think this is the greatest tragedy of this entire debacle.
So here’s where I’ll summarize my positions:
It’s a hate-crime to commit any crime based on intolerance. However, standing on a bench shouting that atheists should burn in hell, while in bad taste and rudely offensive, should not be a crime, but should not be encouraged.
Finally, to end on a positive note, here’s the video of my group coming together to repaint and hang a new banner:





This term “fundamentalism”
Monday, October 20th, 2008Thus it is use most correctly when we are using it in response to liberalizing modern biblical hermaneutics – or to give this some modern condentation, those that strive to keep the constitution in its original form, those that treat it as a pseudo-sacred text and as the inviolable foundations of which the U.S law is based on.
When people start talking about “fundamentalist islamic terrorists” or something of that nature I want to rip my hair out. Not only are the more common areas of Islam *not* fundamental on any level, that entire phrase has almost lost meaning. Its the same as when people refer to the conservatives in the United States as fundamentalists.
The American movement of American Portestantism that came up a centruy after the fundamentalists stressed the infallibility of the Bible, all the way through to historical records, such as creationism and a physical resurrection. However – just because someone is a conservative who doesn’t believe in abortion doesn’t mean they’re a fundamentalist. If you’re refering to a creationist who wants to stone gays and ignore millions of years of history … then fine, throw out the word fundamentalist. But seriously, Fox News, CNN and bloggers everywhere throw the term around like it holds no real context. This is tres stupid, and not to mention, tres annoying. Please stop.
Now I understand the argument that “words change meaning” over time. That is absolutely true…like naughty, the immediate thought with crack, gay, nice, queer, punk, brat, hot (or hawt)… etc. But the issue with fundamentalism is that people are still technically referring to what it *used* to be, it hasn’t changed meaning at all – people still mean it as being a totalistic commitment to something. If people were using the word correctly there wouldn’t be any “fundamentalist atheists” out there…and someone deeply in love with Christ but who is a member of the United Church of Canada also wouldn’t be called a fundamentalist.
[/rant]
Tags: atheism, atheist, christian, Fundamentalism, fundamentalist
Posted in Commentary | 7 Comments »