Skip to content

Implosion at CFI Canada because of accomodationism vs confrontationalism

  • by

blog was written today on the implosion of CFI Canada.  As long as we keep having these accomodationist vs confrontationalist arguments we will continue to have implosions. Frankly, it disgusts me that we have done this. I felt the wrath of the accomodationists when I was known for being a confrontationalist. I probably will still have the perception of being one. Even though I am creating a feel good project that supports all atheists.  I think I am a blend of both.  I hope you are too.

Being able to adjust your method depending on who you interact with is a strong suit.  And if someone sees you are confrontational, why must they label you as always confrontational?  It is also highly hypocritical to be an accomodationalist but be confrontational on the issue of confrontationalists.  It’s time for us to elevate our game.  This division has gone on long enough.  We must think critically and with reason.

I have always supported the efforts of those who are excessively passive, and think they should support mine. We must embrace each other even when we don’t completely agree. Part of the reason I started Atheism United was to show people how there can be a united front. I look forward to universally supporting both camps.  It’s sad how I know the only way to make it work is to not rely on these groups to actually unite.  I will support them whether they support me or not.  And would you believe that there will actually be people who will kick this gift horse in the mouth?  For what?  Because I told someone Jesus was fake on twitter?

Please people, ponder it… we must work together, share a planet together. We can’t make such a big deal over tact and approach. Vocalize your disagreement so that your position is known, but you can’t let it get to the point where you are shooting yourself in the foot.

And if we’re really going to make these labels “accomodationist” and “confrontationalist” can we at least admit there are more groups than that?  If we do, we must include a class of people who are still so downtrodden by religion and brainwashed by it’s followers that they refuse to speak up and would argue vehemently against someone who does.

Accomodationists aren’t a problem… people who are scared to speak up are.  Those people need to sit back and allow everyone else to help humanity move forward, they need to go work on something else.  Maybe environmental clean up, helping the homeless, or relaxing at the pool would be a better activity for people who are so beat by religion that they argue everyone should be quiet.  I used to call that group “Chicken Shit Atheists” but you can come up with a politically correct 15 letter name if you’d like.

Reposted from: Accomodationist vs Confrontationalist

6 thoughts on “Implosion at CFI Canada because of accomodationism vs confrontationalism”

  1. Your title already shows a complete miscomprehension of what happened at CFI Canada. Unless confrontationalist/accommodationist just means jerk/non-jerk, that debate had nothing to do with the in-fighting. Justin Trottier has a reputation for treating CFI employees and volunteers poorly, and otherwise being a lousy manager of people. Derek Pert was more professional, and got on well with most people (except those poisoned by Justin’s allies). If Justin was fired for being confrontational, this is what it was about. Nothing about whether we are dicks to the religious.

  2. There’s plenty of evidence on that page to show there was a rift in part because Justin was viewed as a confrontationalist.

    “The squabbles at CFI are part of a larger disagreement between accommodationists and confrontationists.”

    “As the former National Director of the Center for Inquiry Canada, Justin Trottier clearly fell into the Confrontationalist camp.”

    I understand you have a different opinion. I also understand that you could have made your post under your own name very easy. You could have logged in with any number of services yet you chose to make your post in secret. Since your post is all hearsay, and you’re anonymous forgive me for not jumping right on board.

    At least log in.

  3. Robert "Kapkao" Hester

    I like it!

    Suggestion: if what is happening with atheism right now could be thought of in terms of division and factionism, perhaps the problem isn’t what schools of thought or approach to theism and religion one takes. Perhaps it is merely a question of what positions a person is diametrically opposed to (as you suggested.) In the setup I have in my head, it isn’t a problem of a willingness to unify… it is a problem of diametric opposition. That is to say, “accomodationism vs confrontationalism” “anticonfrontationalism vs antiaccomodationism”. Of course, this is only in my very limited experience with activism of any sort. In broader terms, diametric opposition is a defining trait of religions, cultures, ideologies and organizations with access to Information Age technologies across the globe; essentially everyone who can buy a tablet device. In such a scenario, where so many people have access to instant communication and 21st century data organization (internet communities, that is), many billions of people immediately recognize they have vehement disagreements with ideals spawned across the globe. In many cases, practicing such ideals or concepts become what is known as a “deal breaker”, and can even part close friends (I’ve already seen a live example of the latter and it wasn’t pleasant.) Apparently, religion is the ultimate dealbreaker for you, Sapient in the sense that you have no place for religion in your personal habits and behaviors. Indeed, when it comes to helping rather than causing harm, religion is the second most ineffective tool of human society. The absolute most ineffective is 21st century war.

    When people define their positions in terms of what they are against, rather than what they advocate, they have the option of holding opinions and supporting beliefs that may contradict themselves in terms of whatever school of thought they might normally be labelled with in terms of advocacy.

    For a (fake) hypothetical: I am ANTItheist and ANTInonsecularist, where nonsecularist= a person who attempts to bridge the gulf between society and religion as much as possible. I am not necessarily atheist or secularist. Think about it, if you will. But don’t think I borrowed this idea from Hitch (I didn’t.)

    There are apparently a multitude of ways to define your opposition to a particular idea or another, and sometimes simply appending the prefix ‘ANTI’ is the best way to go, if the idea is the maximum rhetorical advantage.

  4. Minor addendum: You’re going to take heat for being a gifthorse, at times, because of your high visibility in activism and your innate leadership skills. People feel angry at RRS or atheism in general, you would likely be on the receiving end of that anger. Mostly this amounts to anonymous trolling and verbal abuse, which is a definite plus, considering how theists usually resolve their anger.

    Dawk received the same kind of treatment before going “RDNFubar”, as I understand it.

  5. By the way, the Centre for Inquiry Canada is a completely different organization from the Center for Inquiry. The Center for Inquiry has no control over the Centre for Inquiry Canada. Your blog may mislead readers.

Comments are closed.