Gayle Jordan is the Executive Director of Recovering From Religion. Her biography states: “Gayle is a former Southern Baptist who left the faith 10 years ago when her then-teenagers began asking questions she could not answer. Her research led her (and her children) into the light of reason and rationality. Years later, she still feels the effects, both positive and negative, of that dramatic shift in perspective and attitude. It is this sympathy and compassion that drives her to reach out to help others navigate the emotional and physical process involved in leaving one’s faith. Gayle is an attorney and former personal trainer. She lives on Freethought Farm in middle Tennessee, where she spends her days amongst her longhorns, goats, donkeys, chickens, and dogs. She blogs about life on the farm, endurance event training, and secularism at Happy. Healthy. Heathen.“
*Interview conducted on June 6, 2020.*
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So! Today, we are with one of my favourite women secularists who I have been waiting a long time to interview. Happily, Dr. Darrel Ray of Recovering From Religion and the Secular Therapy Project gave the recommendation to me. Another person doing the work that needs to be done that hasn’t gotten enough coverage. I want to bring forward something the public may not know about, at least, in Canada, which is a quote or statement from a politician, male politician, who said, “In my 40+ years in politics, I’ve seen few candidates as dangerous as Gayle Jordan. We need to strongly reject her assault on faith and our Tennessee values.”
Gayle Jordan: [Laughing].
Jacobsen: Before we get into the other stuff, what was the context around that? How were you using that quote from that particular male politician?
Gayle Jordan: Thank you for remembering that. I ran for the state senate here in Tennessee in 2016 and in 2018. In 2016, it was a different era. If you remember, it was before the hard times for the U.S. [Laughing]. I didn’t get a lot of attention. It was my first time running for office. When I ran in 2018, it was unique circumstances. It was a special election. We were the only thing on the ballot. Trump had been elected. Things were a little bit different. I have been an atheist activist in my community for about 10 years. There was no getting around the fact that I am an out and vocal and visible atheist, nor did I have any desire to do that. So, when I ran for office that time, all of a sudden, it became an issue.
When we released the first campaign announcement, we said nothing about my beliefs. I was neither going to run on being an atheist, not was I going to run from it. A particular politician tweeted and attached the campaign video – thank you very much.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Jordan: That I was the most dangerous woman he had seen in his 40 years of politics. That person, the politician, was the Lieutenant-Governor of the State of Tennessee. It was a small state senate race. He felt the need to tweet that I was the most dangerous woman he had seen in his 40+ years in politics. I have highlighted that when telling my experience of running as an atheist. There is a talk available on the internet somewhere. I talk about, “Am I that dangerous?” I follow that up, “It depends on what you’re afraid of.” If you analyze it, if you are afraid someone will call you out for the Christian nationalism or the violation of church and state, then I might be the most dangerous woman in politics for you. Thank you for asking about that.
Jacobsen: If we take a long view, I have had some correspondence with some believers along a fundamentalist spectrum from Christian nationalist to end-timers. In corresponding with them, they have this notion, which is unusual as a Canadian. We don’t have this kind of social or political discussion as much if at all, at least in the mainstream media. In America, there is a mainstream discussion, which is illegitimate in my opinion. It comes down to America was founded as a Christian nation. If we look at the Treaty of Tripoli with John Adams stating, “America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” The Constitution of the United States of America has no mention of the resurrection, of Christ, of Christianity. It has a firm bound between church and state. Where, then, is this coming from? Even around minor points of “In God We Trust” on the money, but I looked at that too, it didn’t come from 1776. It was imposed in 1956. So, where is this discourse coming from?
Jordan: Goodness sake, that’s the question of the hour. Isn’t it? Especially with the evangelical support of Trump and all of his policies, I can help but plug my friend’s, Andrew Seidel’s, book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American. It gives so much background on how we have come here and the propensity for people, if you believe that the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. It was the greatest motivator. Those two things are connected. The debate is overwhelming. I think it is a combination of the Dominionism of wanting to have control. I think it is the demographic freight train bearing down on a certain political party in our country. They see it the light at the end of the tunnel, as the freight train is bearing down on the. I think a lot plays into it. It is the question of out time. The belief on the part of those evangelicals that to be a Christian is to be a patriot. It is so entwined. Those of us who don’t share that belief are having to make our voices heard, “Really, really, no, that’s not what makes a patriot.” Here’s how I try to bring it around, it is to ask if our Founding Fathers/Founders wanted to make this a Christian nation; how would the Constitution read if they intended it?
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Jordan: The Constitution is so secular. So when you ask the question that way, maybe, it helps people to think. If they wanted this to be a Christian nation, imagine if they wanted the language, then they simply didn’t.
Jacobsen: In the inception of the country, I agree with George Carlin in one of his last interviews. When he noted, of course, there were the crimes against the Native Americans with genocide and stealing of territorial land, enslavement of black Africans into North America, as well as annexation of Mexican land, but the ideas were good. That’s the story of America. Its narrative is a lot of civil and social rights movements, including the emancipation of women. So, at the same time, it is almost as if there has been a lost voice in the freethought community. We hear from Black Nonbelievers of Mandisa Thomas. We hear from Dr. Sikivu Hutchinson in a recent book, Humanists in the Hood. We hear from Hispanic freethinkers. We hear from general community in different categories of atheist, agnostic. All more or less on the same page.
But there’s one group not talked about as much or at all. I am talking about Native Americans in America or Aboriginals in Canada. For clarification of those reading this later on, in Canada, this means First Nations, Metis, and Inuit, where Metis is French-First Nations mix. If you look at the Vice-President of Humanist Canada, he’s Metis. If you look at the Freedom From Religion Foundation of the great Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, Barker has Lenni Lenape or the Delaware Tribe of Indians heritage. So, they’re around in community, but I don’t see this discussed as much. Have you noticed this as much?
Jordan: I’m so glad that you brought this up, Scott. I haven’t put a voice to it, quite so much. But as you talk it through and as you identify that, I agree with you. I think that’s a miss on our part if we neglect that. In theory and in the abstract, I think we’d all say, “Yes, let’s reach out, this would be part of the greater secular community.” I don’t think there would be any disagreement about that. But as we have learned through the ages, it takes effort and elevating those voices. I think you’re correct about that. Perhaps, it’s an area where we all need to focus and give some attention and resources to.
Jacobsen: Now, one note, I have heard from some who don’t want mention. But within community, if they’re Aboriginal or Native American, whatever the particular band that they might be from, if they come out as a freethinker – in other words, they reject the supernaturalist claims, though having the ethnic heritage, when they told me, it was the same narrative, I heard, from African Americans who come out of the Baptist Church or the Methodist Church. If they leave, the idea of African American identity being connected to the black church is so entwined. That to leave the black church is to be considered not as much African American anymore or to have “thrown away the black card.” You lose all of the communal and collective resources, e.g., social, financial, etc., within the community, when you reject that supernaturalism. It appears to be the same, at least in some small sample that I’ve heard from, in some of the Aboriginal or Native American communities. That would be something that I would want the public to be sensitive about if they were to do any of this form of outreach. It will not be easy.
Jordan: Clearly, and unfortunately, as we have discovered through the African American community, and through others who have struggled with this, there appears to be one way out of that. That is visibility and breaking free of it. Those folks who are leaders, e.g., Mandisa, and others in the African American community. It takes taking the pushback and getting all of the negative comments, the negative feedback, and everything associated with that seems to help a way out. We have to help those people show that it’s not true. That just because we have rejected supernatural beliefs, and because we have rejected this cultural tradition, this church or whatever belief system, doesn’t take away from us, our heritage. I think you’re right. I think we need to go into that kind of outreach with that kind of sensitivity, as in every cultural movement. Those leaders, those folks who lead the way. They have to take so much of that pushback. I think that’s, tragically, the way out of it. It is to become visible, to become vocal, to become seen.
Jacobsen: Now, you are the executive for Recovering From Religion. First things first, how did you get involved?
Jordan: I am a formerly religious person. When I made my transition, it was 10 or 12 years ago now. Recovering From Religion was nothing but a germ of an idea in the brain of the brilliant Dr. Darrel Ray. As I began to transition, as I began to become familiar with the secular community, when the opportunity became available for this, it was such a wonderful experience. Our mission statement is so straightforward, Scott. We provide hope, healing, and support for folks who are struggling with issues of doubt and non-belief. We zealously guard mission drift. Everything we do has been focused around that statement. In such alignment with my own experience, it was a pleasure and a privilege for me to join the organization and to have the opportunity to lead it forward. It has been one of the greatest joys in my life.
Jacobsen: What are some of the heartening stories?
Jordan: As you know, we have a 24-hour telephone chat and 24-hour internet chat. The reason is we’re international. Not only are out clients around the world, our volunteers are as well. As folks reach out to us, we have a spectrum of where people originate. They might just be having doubts. They might be highly religious and just have doubts, and feel as if they can reach out with a question as we are a non-judgmental place. They may be very far in their journey, but they may need a little support. The stories that we’ve heard. Some of them start arduously. They are starting to have doubts and working through them. We ask questions and give feedback to help them process what they’re thinking and feeling. Some of those conversations, even in the course of a chat or a telephone call, you can see the person, not make progress to discount their beliefs but them, develop their critical thinking skills, developing their own skepticism. So, they can look squarely at what they embraced and have been taught to believe, and apply their minds to whether or not this is a reasonable, scientific evidence-based logical belief to embrace.
To me, that is the heartwarming stories. Of course, there are always stories of people who have always come through some pretty fundamentally damaging experiences and have come through the other side, but, for me, the gratifying phone calls are when people learn, “Okay, why do I believe this? Where did this come from? Let me examine it. Is there evidence for it?” That’s the process. We don’t want to tell people what religion does. It is not healthy anyway. We want them to tap into their own ability to be skeptical and critical of their beliefs. From my perspective, those are the heartwarming stories.
Jacobsen: Where are you getting most of your calls?
Jordan: Most of them start in the United States. But we, recently, added unique numbers for Australia and the United Kingdom. So, they can use our phone system. Before, they were limited because they were limited to the internet. With the addition of the other numbers, there is an increase. Let’s say there is a call from Australia, but it is ringing into an actual Australian volunteer, we see this beautiful picture happening with the clients and the volunteers coming from all over to provide this hope, healing, and support to those folks who are having these questions.
Jacobsen: What are some of the most common concerns brought to you?
Jordan: If you think this question through yourself, then you can probably do pretty good. One is, “How can you be a moral person without religion?” It seems to underly a lot of things. That seems like a big one. Another is the lingering fear of hell. The underlying stuff of the belief system, you should because it is such a horrifying concept. Another reason people reach out to the helpline because of the fractured social relationships. When you disassociate with a faith, there are people in community who cannot manage that any other way than saying, “You’re discarding me, this community, by rejecting what we commonly believe.” It is not the truth because people leave a religion, not the family, but the rest of family is in the grips of the religion. It is difficult for those folks to reject the belief without rejecting the family. The fracturing, it is the main reason for the internet and the phone line.
Jacobsen: Are there different kinds of questions men and women bring forward when they are looking to find a way out of a religious community? I can give an example as a trend. If you look at some of the former Muslim communities coming out of theocratic or outright theocracy countries, they, often, note the men have a lot more social freedom, a lot more access to financial resources. The men have a lot more leeway in terms of freedom in their lives. The women don’t. They are stuck in the home and don’t have control over the financial situation. Also, they don’t have any training to become independent in any way. Women would have more concerns, concrete and actionable, based on more degrees of freedom for the men and the fewer degrees of freedom for the women.
Jordan: What an astute analysis of the gender issue that would arise in the helpline, you’ve already identified from the surface, so many religions are so patriarchal. The restrictions on the men are so vastly different, particularly in the fundamentalist versions of all the religions. The role restrictions for men and for women, another thing is the women are often stuck with the childrearing. It feeds into their questions. Let’s say a young mother having concerns about that, it will reflect directly on her parenting. She will be terrified of this. She is applying critical thinking skills. At the same time, she has the burden, “I am going to have an impact on my children if I come out.” The men do too. But I think the women, particularly in traditional relationships, traditional families, which is another thing. Women have to deal with this as they come to us. It is not just gender roles. It is sexuality as well. Religion is so intrusive into our management – so to speak – of our sexuality. It is another entire layer, which has to be dissected and examined, relearned, and unindoctrinated, to come to conclusions about one’s gender and sexuality. Those issues are heavy with the religious community as people come to us to work with their struggles.
Jacobsen: Also for the DMS-V, in 2013, sex or sexual addiction was proposed for inclusion. It was rejected. Therefore, it is not a formal psychological condition, syndrome, or disorder. However, as I have done some research on many of these, many Christian counsellors will specialize in what they term ‘Sexual Addiction.’ They’re coming out of these training institutes or universities, private. They will specialize or do treatment in ‘Sexual Addiction.’ At the same time, they probably will know as well. It is not included in any DSM sections. In a manner of speaking, they are broadly doing malpractice to the general public when they are proposing this as a psychological construct. It is, actually, Dr. Darrel Ray pointed out to me. It is a theological construct posed as psychological.
Jordan: What a perfect segue into The Secular Therapy Project, we have a professional staff of colleagues and counsellors. Advocates who only provide evidence-based therapy. When a client reaches out, they are able to find them in their community. Secular therapists are at a disadvantage. If they hang out a shingle saying, “Only secular therapy here,” America is so heavily religious. In a lot of religious areas, this would decimate their practice. Even though religious people want a secular therapy, oftentimes, they will have an adverse reaction to “secular.” They’re in a catch-22. Recently, we’ve helped our 20,000th client because we have done the groundwork in making sure therapists only provide that (evidence-based therapy). The expression, “Sex Addiction,” the language, itself, implies sex is a bad thing. You have too much of it. It is going to be a problem. You’re right. It hasn’t been included as a diagnosis. However, often, therapists who are not secular therapists and who are not as scrupulous about providing secular therapy will go about treating, thinking, “This is a thing.”
Dr. Darrel Ray, the founder of Recovering From Religion and the president of the board of directors, if you look online, has a massive amount of lectures, which he as done on this. He has studies he has done on this. This is something Recovering From Religion supports through The Secular Therapy Project is ensuring that you do not walk into a therapist’s office who doesn’t look remotely religious on the outside. Yet, you open up in the sessions. You reveal personal information to them. Then in the 3rd, 4th, or more sessions, and then they begin to hear about finding a church community and about ‘sex addiction.’
Jacobsen: Now, I have done some educational sessions with Dr. Caleb Lack. Who are some other individuals people should keep in mind, support, signal boost in other words, on behalf of The Secular Therapy Project and Recovering From Religion?
Jordan: I appreciate you giving the opportunity to say that. Dr. Caleb Lack was the director of The Secular Therapy Project for about four years. He stepped down last December. He serves as emeritus and gives us counsel. Dr. Eric Sprankle is now the director of The Secular Therapy Project. He and his staff, all of the information can be found at our website: www.recoveringfromreligion.org and https://www.seculartherapy.org/. The work that they’re doing on what you mentioned earlier about academics. The people coming out of training with licenses and degrees. Yet, they are providing religious therapy to people. That’s a problem. Because people lean into this. It is not legitimate therapy. He and his staff, Dr. Sprankle and his staff are working to educate folks and help clients who reach out to us understand. It matters. Evidence-based therapy matter in the long-term mental health in everyone who needs some kind of mental health assistance.
Jacobsen: Is this part of another long-term trend in the United States, Canada, elsewhere, or religious individuals consciously being told by religious leaders to reach out to vulnerable people to spread the Gospel or whatever it might be?
Jordan: I think so. In trying to give them every benefit of the doubt, and trying to see them in the best light possible, perhaps, they are doing that consciously or their indoctrination coming through. Or perhaps, it is a little more insidious and intentional. They do see the value of exploiting folks who need a little bit of support and assistance. Drilling down on those doubts and fears, and supplanting and furthering religious doctrine, so, people can stay longer in the religion. I mentioned the demographic freight train with young people leaving religion. I would hate to think that religious mental health practitioners are doing this intentionally. Unfortunately, religion has the power to do that to people. I think the answer is it is probably more intentional than we would like for it to be.
Jacobsen: There is a lot of talk, appropriate at the moment, around forms of institutional discrimination. There is a long-term one, as long as many others, which is anti-freethought-ism, or something like this, where individuals, by the nature of legal apparatus and the policy and law framework, are left out of the power structures of the society. Dr. Herb Silverman made a record in South Carolina when he challenged a case around atheists not being allowed to run for public office. Many of those laws are on the book. That’s one case among many. How could we, potentially, for instance, alongside your own efforts, make a public effort of identifying these discriminatory policies and frameworks?
Jordan: That’s a good question. There are seven states whose state constitutions prevent an atheist from running for office. I think the language is something like a ‘belief in a higher power.’ They are archaic. Yet, they exist. They are still there. We have learned from LGBTQ brothers and sisters, and other social movements, that visibility is everything. It is the way we normalize it whenever we’re visible. Every time we get blowback. It is less if they have seen a series of freethinkers. You can almost gauge a person’s exposure to this thing [Laughing] by how strong their reaction is.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
Jordan: Because the next person is a little bit less, and the next a little bit less. It is the key to letting people know. I am not the first person to think of this. As secular organizations, we all recognize visibility normalizes us. It makes people realize, even in the most religious of communities, that there are freethinking people among us. Whether you are running for state senate or just a member of your community, or volunteering on your local animal control board, or whatever it is, it is not that you have to wear an atheist shirt every time that you show up. Each person has to make a determination as to how they are going manage who they are, but not keeping it a secret that you are a freethinker, going with the flow, not disabusing someone of the notion that you’re a religious person. These are things that we need to get away from. Let us be visible, let us be vocal, let us be verbal, and agree, that kind of thing does more to further what we’re doing.
You don’t have to be outstanding or a high achieve, just a normal member of community who happens not to be a member of the community. As we make progress as a society, the more we can show that we are happy, healthy, functioning, contributing members of a society, and do not have religious belief. I think that is where the progress will come from. We need the big dogs. We need the big visibility. But not everyone can do that or wants to do that. Your family, your small neighbourhood, “I am a normal person like everyone else. I have struggles. I have issues. My kids are involved in this. Yet, I am not a religious person.” That on the granular level is as important as the high achievers.
Jacobsen: Now, on the gender and sex point, I wrote a several ten thousand word article incorporating several interviews over a significant amount of time of women in the secular community in terms of disproportionate negative treatment cases with some noteworthy news cases or a lack of representation of women of color in some of the organizational leadership, or the void in coverage on the history of women who have been very powerful moral forces in the history of secular activism across the freethought spectrum. It can even come to the case of people like Frederick Douglass being the first African American man part of a congress or a conference of women’s suffragists. And so, we see these areas of just below the surface, not hidden history, just overlooked history. What do you think are some things in the 2020s secular organizations could do to better cover the history that is there, and then to provide better representation for women in leadership? Some are doing this. It is not a concern for them. It is area of newer emphasis.
Jordan: Sure, it is a good question. My answer will not surprise you. The number one thing our secular organizations can do is to model this and to bring in women in positions of leadership, not just women, e.g., people of color. The modelling is the very first step. There is value to campaigns to try to educate people. The Freedom From Religion Foundation does a good job, highlights the voices in history. I think we all need to do that. At least as important as that, it is modelling. It is elevating them to positions of leadership, so they can be heard, can be highlighted. I think our movement is not perfect. I think as a secular movement as a whole; if we’re not succeeding at it, at least, we’re recognizing it. Of course, we can always do better. Out of all of the areas of our society, we have a responsibility because we understand the value in recognizing the lesser heard voice, to highlight them and bring them to the front. I think it takes an active intention on the part of our organizations – implementing and doing it is another thing. Modelling is the most important part of it.
Jacobsen: And this is a moral or an ethical question, which leads to something I wanted to talk about as well. A split in philosophical discourses in America and the United States, far more in the United States than in Canada. One is a transcendental traditional religious ethic, where morality gets outsourced to a transcendent object, which asserts grounds this morality more. Another is an international (secular) human rights framework for deciding or deliberating on various ethical questions. Now, the former does not permit equal status for the other part, while the latter does permit freedom of religion, belief, and conscience, which implies equal status for all. So, if we’re going to have an equal future together, religious/non-religious, then it will have to be an international human rights framework rather than a transcendental religious framework as nations and individuals. What are some risks in the United States with the rise of President Trump, Evangelical Christian nationalism, even Dominionism, into areas of decision-making power, policy-making power, with extraordinarily devout movements who simply want to have a religious framework on the world placed into political power and legal structures, which is not theocracy outright but is a theocratic orientation, certainly?
Jordan: What a profound question [Laughing], and what a profound topic, that’s everything. It has been the desire of the secular movement. We go through phases. We go through progressions, “What is our focus?” Sometimes, we focus on the right to not be religious, which is great. We fight for it. Sometimes, we fight for current cultural issues, racism, sexism. All of them are valid. What underlies all of that, and, maybe, the conversation fundamental to all of it is, “What does it mean to us, to be a good, moral person?” That is fundamentally the conversation. What do we mean by those words? What is a fundamentally good person? How do we dissect what religion teach and what a secular worldview gives us? Let’s first talk about, what does it mean to us to be a good, kind, moral person?
When we define that, it may be a little more subjective. It may not be entirely objectively because of regional and cultural differences. But if we can lay the groundwork for respecting other people’s human rights, respecting other people’s civil rights, giving people to follow their conscience, first, we have to decide that. What does it mean? Then, now, we can move onto the conversation. What most fosters that? What most fosters people being good members of the community, of the society? What are the activities one needs to take? DO we embrace universal education for all citizens? Let’s define what we mean by being a good human being, being a good citizen, how do we have that happen? Do religions foster that? Any religion of any kind, do they do that? Does a secular worldview do that? I think religious folks, as they struggle through this, as they work against their indoctrination; this authoritarian, Dominionist attitude, let’s not make it too personal, yet, on particular religions.
First, let’s talk about caring about fellow human beings, what does it take for a village or a society to thrive, for everyone to thrive? Then let’s see how we do that, I have gotten a little far afield. Your question is profound. I wish I had the answer to it. Fundamentally, backing away from “Is religion good?” or “Is there a God?”, those are great and theoretical. But first let’s identify, what makes for a healthy, thriving society, which, of course, is made of healthy and thriving individuals? Then we can go forward from there. Maybe, that is the conversation that we’re not having enough of; it may help reach the religious brothers and sisters more rather than bringing religion into it from the beginning.
Jacobsen: Looking to the final question for our denouement, on the note we started, for the woman seen as the most dangerous woman in 40+ years of this politician’s political life, what are the most effective pivots, pressure points, for secular activism in America now?
Jordan: I think, in the United States, it is a shit show. We have so many issues, which are critical “pressure points,” “pivot points,” as you call them. Secular people need to lead the way on this, whether criminal justice, economic equality. All of the components of that. We have sexism. We have such foundational inequality in economics. We have educational inequality. All of these, we are in a mess right now. We’ll get through this. Right now, instead of seeing this as a tremendous difficult time, we can see this as the secular worldview in which there is not the decisiveness of religion. It may not be a way to solve these issues, but to better resolve these issues. Let’s model the way that secular thought and embracing, we’re all human beings, faulty human beings. The secular worldview of there’s no chosen people. There’s not a blessed people. When we get away from that, we will see that we are all in this together. We will all thrive when we work take care of one another, build our communities, work together, when we try to resolve some of these issues, the secular worldview has a greater ability to bring us out of this. It is not an easy task. It will not be solved in one generation, or even two or three. It is our best avenue out of these cultural issues that we are beset by, as we go through this difficult time in our history. I think all of these are potential pivot points. I think all of us need the attention of the secular community and the explanation of how a secular worldview can bring us closer to resolving this issue than any kind of religious worldview ever has.
Jacobsen: Gayle, it’s been lovely. Thank you so much for your time.
Jordan: Oh! It has been lovely. I am so grateful for being able to do this. It has been wonderful, Scott. Not only am I grateful for it on behalf of Recovering From Religion, but I have thoroughly enjoyed it, I appreciate you reaching out to me.
—
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com.
—
*Associates and resources listing last updated May 31, 2020.*
Canadian Atheist Associates: Godless Mom, Nice Mangoes, Sandwalk, Brainstorm Podcast, Left at the Valley, Life, the Universe & Everything Else, The Reality Check, Bad Science Watch, British Columbia Humanist Association, Dying With Dignity Canada, Canadian Secular Alliance, Centre for Inquiry Canada, Kelowna Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists Association.
—
Other National/Local Resources: Association humaniste du Québec, Atheist Freethinkers, Central Ontario Humanist Association, Comox Valley Humanists, Grey Bruce Humanists, Halton-Peel Humanist Community, Hamilton Humanists, Humanist Association of London, Humanist Association of Ottawa, Humanist Association of Toronto, Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics of Manitoba, Ontario Humanist Society, Secular Connextions Seculaire, Secular Humanists in Calgary, Society of Free Thinkers (Kitchener-Waterloo/Cambridge/Guelph), Thunder Bay Humanists, Toronto Oasis, Victoria Secular Humanist Association.
—
Other International/Outside Canada Resources: Allianz vun Humanisten, Atheisten an Agnostiker, American Atheists, American Humanist Association, Associação Brasileira de Ateus e AgnósticoséééBrazilian Association of Atheists and Agnostics, Atheist Alliance International, Atheist Alliance of America, Atheist Centre, Atheist Foundation of Australia, The Brights Movement, Center for Inquiry (including Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science), Atheist Ireland, Camp Quest, Inc., Council for Secular Humanism, De Vrije Gedachte, European Humanist Federation, Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations, Foundation Beyond Belief, Freedom From Religion Foundation, Humanist Association of Ireland, Humanist International, Humanist Association of Germany, Humanist Association of Ireland, Humanist Society of Scotland, Humanists UK, Humanisterna/Humanists Sweden, Internet Infidels, International League of Non-Religious and Atheists, James Randi Educational Foundation, League of Militant Atheists, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, National Secular Society, Rationalist International, Recovering From Religion, Religion News Service, Secular Coalition for America, Secular Student Alliance, The Clergy Project, The Rational Response Squad, The Satanic Temple, The Sunday Assembly, United Coalition of Reason, Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics.
—
About Canadian Atheist
Canadian Atheist is an independent blog with multiple contributors providing articles of interest to Canadian atheists, secularists, humanists, and freethinkers.
Canadian Atheist is not an organization – there is no membership and nothing to join – and we offer no professional services or products. It is a privately-owned publishing platform shared with our contributors, with a focus on topics relevant to Canadian atheists.
Canadian Atheist is not affiliated with any other organization or group. While our contributors may be individually be members of other organizations or groups, and may even speak in an official capacity for them, CA itself is independent.
For more information about Canadian Atheist, or to contact us for any other reason, see our contact page.
—
About Canadian Atheist Contributors
Canadian Atheist contributors are volunteers who provide content for CA. They receive no payment for their contributions from CA, though they may be sponsored by other means.
Our contributors are people who have both a passion for issues of interest to Canadian atheists, secularists, humanists, and freethinkers, and a demonstrated ability to communicate content and ideas of interest on those topics to our readers. Some are members of Canadian secularist, humanist, atheist, or freethought organizations, either at the national, provincial, regional, or local level. They come from all walks of life, and offer a diversity of perspectives and presentation styles.
CA merely provides our contributors with a platform with almost complete editorial freedom. Their opinions are their own, expressed as they see fit; they do not speak for Canadian Atheist, and Canadian Atheist does not speak for them.
For more information about Canadian Atheist’s contribors, or to get in contact with any of them, or if you are interested in becoming a contributor, see our contact page.
—
Image Credit: Recovering From Religion/Gayle Jordan.