Why, oh why, CFI?

A couple years ago, I went for a long ride with my friends Chas, CJ, and Abbie to meet one of my favourite women in secularism and hear her give a talk. On the way there, Abbie ragged on me a wee bit for wearing a shiny little CFI lapel pin on my blazer. I cannot now recall the particular details of that conversation, but I do remember defending CFI’s founding values and their achievements to date. Of late, I find myself wondering whether I may have been much mistaken.

As you probably are aware, I helped start a fundraiser to allow fellow SINner Justin Vacula attend Women in Secularism 2 in May. I’ve explained a few of my reasons for doing this elsewhere, but perhaps the most important reason went unstated, and that is my belief that the ongoing disagreements between various freethought leaders can only be solved by seriously engaging with each other, carefully listening to the other side, and at least coming to the point where we can begin to agree on what precisely we are disagreeing about.

CFI has claimed to value this approach in the past, saying that “[n]o topic should be placed off limits to scrutiny,” and demanding “free inquiry in all aspects of human interest.” Their open-minded approach humanism has always impressed me, and until very recently, I’ve never had reason to doubt their dedication to these principles. Of late, though, we’ve seen people like Josh Slocum and Martin Robbins openly calling for a ban, along with this charming fellow, and who knows how many other A-plussers privately writing letters to Ron Lindsay in support of a preemptive ban.