Cal Poly’s Secular Society club serves as a forum for students to debate issues relating to religion, philosophy, science and current events.
The club represents students with increasing concerns on the role that religion plays in society and the separation of church and state, Shelayne Werfel, club president and nutrition sophomore, said.
“We want to show that people who are not religiously affiliated are not the bad guys,” Werfel said. “We care about other people. We’re interested in making the world a better place, and one of the things we think can make the world a better place is to have it be more secular so it’s an equal playing field for people of all denominations and faiths.”
This year, Werfel said she hopes to involve the club with a letter-writing campaign, guest speakers, a fundraiser for Haiti relief and increased interaction with other campus clubs and organizations.
“We really want to get people involved and build a bigger base,” she said. “It’s fun to have a bunch of atheists in a room, but you don’t get very much original input.”
The Secular Society differs from the Cal Poly chapter of Brights, though they share club members. A bright is a term for someone who follows a naturalistic (free from supernatural and mystical elements) world view. Brights are more focused on non-belief in and of itself and less about its influence on the political and governmental sphere, Werfel said.
“We share common cause with supporting science and advancements and examining religion, but the Secular Society tries to stay as much as possible away from critiquing the religion itself because we want to create an environment that’s open to people of all faiths,” she said.
Nicholas Utschig, computer engineering senior, is the secretary for the Secular Society and president of Cal Poly’s chapter of Brights. He thinks it’s important to have both clubs.
“There is a dividing line between promotion of understanding and taking action in what you believe in,” he said.
Utschig also said through the clubs he has joined a community of friends that hang out aside from philosophical discussions.
The Secular Society was founded by a group of friends in 2008. The founding members are mechanical engineering alumnus Harrison Weinstein, history alumnus Greg Perello and architectural engineering senior Walt Handloser.
“We wanted to try to make sure religious ideas didn’t dictate people’s decisions,” Weinstein said.
On average, meetings garner 10 to 20 students who tend to be atheist, although they are open to anyone who is interested in religious or non-religious discussion, he said.
Handloser describes religious debate as one of his favorite hobbies. He said he would like to see more people come to meetings with political backgrounds.
“I think this cause needs more political folks,” Handloser said. “We have the religious side. If you’re going to be in activism you need both sides of the pictures. We are always looking for more.”
First, I want to say I am glad to see the Secular Society back and open to working with students from all faiths towards a common goal to ensure equality for differing faiths in the political sphere.
However, as last year’s president of the CP Brights, I also want to clarify some statements.
[“We share common cause with supporting science and advancements and examining religion, but the Secular Society tries to stay as much as possible away from critiquing the religion itself because we want to create an environment that’s open to people of all faiths,” she said.]
I feel this statement is implying that the Brights is a group with a focus on critiquing religion, which is it NOT. Instead, as previously stated, it is a group that can be used as a constituent base for students with naturalistic worldviews. From the Brights website:
“The movement’s three major aims are:
1. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
2. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
3. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.”
These goals can also be achieved by politically active and other means in order to assure equality for those of religious faith and non-faith. So in no way should the Brights be misconstrued for simply a passive group of non-religious students. Therefore, I feel the following statement by Shelayne, while generally correct when contrasting the two groups, is also misleading:
“Brights are more focused on non-belief in and of itself and less about its influence on the political and governmental sphere, Werfel said.”
However, I also recognize the amount of active work on behalf of CP Brights (as well as any other club) depends on the current leadership and participation of its members. So I encourage members of both clubs to fully participate, not only in helping keep a needed separation of church and state, but to feel open to utilizing this activity to meet the goals as stated on http://www.the-brights.net.
Maybe Shelayne meant ‘and’ instead of ‘but’:
“We share common cause with supporting science and advancements and examining religion, but the Secular Society tries to stay as much as possible away from critiquing the religion itself because we want to create an environment that’s open to people of all faiths,” she said.
A bright is anyone with a naturalistic world view, including some varieties of theists. Both clubs have and do critique religion when the occasion calls for it.
This is directed as much at Mischa as at the original article.
First, I would hope that it is not implied that the Brights critique religion. I didn’t get that from the article, and I certainly didn’t try to insinuate that in my interview for it. What I think was meant, both by Shelayne and myself, is that while the Brights focus specifically on the cause and goal of the non-religious around the world, the Secular Society is attempting to bring people from all backgrounds to form a common cause around secularism, specifically the separation of church and state. This is an important issue to the religious and non-religious alike.
In this, we are not so much distinct from the Brights as allies in a common fight. The Brights are an international group involved in both political and social activism, and the cause they fight for in the equal representation and rights of non-believers is in many ways the fight for a public sphere free from excessive religious entanglement. A secular state is one where the beliefs of the leaders do not unduly affect public policy. Because of that it is also a state where the religious and non-religious find equal representation in a government that keeps out of the private and deeply personal beliefs of its citizens. It is a state where those of all religions –and even non-religion– are free because no religion is enshrined in public policy. This is a state that both the Brights and the Secular Society desire.
The Brights are not passive, nor are they a-political. For that reason, I would hope that we could continue to make common cause with them, and with other groups who genuinely care, as they do, about church-state separation.
This is directed as much at Mischa as at the original article.
First, I would hope that it is not implied that the Brights critique religion. I didn’t get that from the article, and I certainly didn’t try to insinuate that in my interview for it. What I think was meant, both by Shelayne and myself, is that while the Brights focus specifically on the cause and goal of the non-religious around the world, the Secular Society is attempting to bring people from all backgrounds to form a common cause around secularism, specifically the separation of church and state. This is an important issue to the religious and non-religious alike.
In this, we are not so much distinct from the Brights as allies in a common fight. The Brights are an international group involved in both political and social activism, and the cause they fight for in the equal representation and rights of non-believers is in many ways the fight for a public sphere free from excessive religious entanglement. A secular state is one where the beliefs of the leaders do not unduly affect public policy. Because of that it is also a state where the religious and non-religious find equal representation in a government that keeps out of the private and deeply personal beliefs of its citizens. It is a state where those of all religions –and even non-religion– are free because no religion is enshrined in public policy. This is a state that both the Brights and the Secular Society desire.
The Brights are not passive, nor are they a-political. For that reason, I would hope that we could continue to make common cause with them, and with other groups who genuinely care, as they do, about church-state separation.
*thumbs up*
Thanks for the clarifying reply Walt 🙂 I didn’t want to come off negatively but felt the clarifications should be made and do hope to see both groups grow successfully at Cal Poly.
It is good to see these clubs being recognized, but the article was slightly confusing…
It’s good to see these clubs being recognized, but the middle of the article was slightly confusing…