DOCSLIB.ORG

Drexel Freethought Society

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Drexel Freethought Society DREXEL UNIVERSITY Drexel Freethought Society Constitution 2015 ARTICLE I - Name In the spirit of supporting the freedom of ideas and expression at Drexel University, this organization is named the Drexel Freethought Society, also referred to as DFS. ARTICLE II - Object/Mission The Drexel Freethought Society‘s mission is to establish and support a secular community at Drexel University for atheists, agnostics, humanists, and other freethinkers. The DFS encourages free thought and open dialogue; defending science, logic, and reason while discouraging/responding to harmful beliefs and ideas. All through respectful conversation, debate, collaboration and other events at Drexel University. Our mission is as follows: (1) Provide a community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, and freethinkers. (2) Actively defend reason and science at Drexel University.. (3) Offer a secular voice in academic discussions around the University. (4) Initiate discussions on religion, science, and philosophy. (5) Encourage the open and free exchange of ideas. (6) Discourage unsupported harmful personal beliefs. (7) Support the separation of church of state. (8) Organize/participate in events centered on the interests of the secular community. (9) Support skepticism, rationality, and positive atheism. (10) Actively participating in public service. (11) Work with the secular community at large to promote these ideals. ARTICLE III – Membership Section I – Definition of Membership: Membership in the Drexel Freethought Society is open to all Drexel University students, regardless of race, religion, national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, or ability. Any membership rights allocation is under the discretion of the President. To gain membership rights students must attend three meetings. To maintain membership rights individuals must regularly attend meetings and contribute to the community. As per the Drexel University Office of Campus Activities’ rules for student organizations, only current full-time undergraduate and graduate students can be members of the Drexel Freethought Society. Other classifications of students, faculty, and staff may participate in our organization, but are not considered members, and may not have the same rights and rights as members. Individuals that are not part of the Drexel community, but wish to attend a meeting, are not members, and whose visit is under the discretion of the DFS President. Section II – Rights of Members: a. All members have the right to vote or object decisions. b. All members have the right to hold office if qualified and elected, unless previously impeached. c. All members have the right to participate in DFS events and meetings. d. All members have the right to speak at DFS meetings. e. All members have the right to a copy of the DFS Constitution and any other organization documents that are available to the public. f. All members have the right to object to the Constitution or other DFS proceedings, and have the right to suggest revisions. Last Revision: 07/31/15 Section III – Removing Members: The DFS reserves the right to remove current members from the DFS if he/she breaks any rule listed in the DFS constitution as well as any rule put forth by Drexel University, or any State/Federal Laws. Members of Drexel Freethought Society may be removed by a simple majority quorum vote of DFS members (excluding the vote from the member that is being impeached). Quorum vote will hereafter be 60%-75% of the total DFS membership. Any member of DFS may call for a removal vote, but the member(s) facing removal must be given proper notification and allowed sufficient time to prepare a defense. The officer(s) in question may ask for the impeachment vote to be delayed to the next general meeting. Only one request of this kind is allowed. If any DFS member is found committing/engaging in any activity that is criminal in nature, every member of the DFS has the responsibility to report the crime to the proper authorities. ARTICLE IV – Officers Section I – General Officer Duties: Officers of the Drexel Freethought Society are executive leaders and caretakers of the DFS community. All officers must be full-time undergraduate or graduate students. All officers are responsible for planning the annual budget. All officers should be present at all DFS general meetings, DFS officer meetings, and DFS events. If an officer is going to miss a meeting or event, he/she should give the other officers sufficient notice. a. If an officer misses three consecutive officer meetings or events, then he/she is subject to impeachment, unless there is valid reason for missing the meetings. i. Class or co-op is not valid reason to miss three consecutive meetings. ii. Valid reasons will be determined by simple majority vote of the DFS officers. Section II – Drexel Freethought Society Officers: a. The President is the main representative of the DFS, and will lead DFS meetings, activities, and events. He/ she will represent DFS with outside correspondence/speakers/meetings/special figures. This officer is responsible for all monetary transactions, organizing events, coordinating with other student groups and University departments/officials, filing appropriate paperwork with SAFAC and the Office of Campus Activities, and updating organizational materials. The President may delegate work and projects to DFS members; this includes organizing special committees and electing Special Officer Chairs. b. The Vice President will help the President and other officers with general duties. The Vice President is responsible for any interclub/organization correspondence at Drexel University. The Vice President should be present at all meetings and events that the President is unable to attend. This officer must be prepared to take-over the President’s role in case of sudden vacancy. If the presidential office becomes vacant, the vice President will serve as interim President until a Special Election can be organized. c. The Treasurer will be in charge of maintaining the budget of the DFS, and is responsible for ensuring the financial stability of the organization. This officer should be knowledgeable about SAFAC policies and procedures, and work with the President to secure adequate funding. d. The Event Coordinator: will assist the President in creating and managing events for the DFS. He/she will be responsible for registering all events with Drexel University. e. The Secretary is charged with keeping minutes of all general meetings; photographing and documenting all DFS activities and events; posting this material in an accessible place on the Internet. The Secretary is also in charge of the newsletter, its frequency can be decided and its writing can be delegated by the Secretary under the discretion of the President. Last Revision: 07/31/15 f. Special Officer Chairs are positions that work directly under the President, or under another officer, under the Presidents discretion. These positions have limited power, and a very specific purpose. They are individually powered; DFS members are delegated for specific projects for the chair in correspondence with the President. These positions are as follows: 1. Advertisement Chair: This person heads the advertisement needs of the DFS, he/she will lead in the creation of posters, hanging up advertisements, and work with outside venues for advertising requirements. 2. Webmaster Chair: The webmaster will be in charge of the DFS websites, he/she will maintain any and all internet related DFS materials. 3. Current Events Chair: During each meeting we will share current events in the political/religious/secular community; the Current Events Chair will provide current information. Note everyone should also read up on such information. 4. Community Service Chair: This person will find and organize community service endeavors with correspondence with the President. Section IV – Rights of Officers: Officers of DFS have the right to attend officer meetings, which meet before each scheduled DFS meeting or previously scheduled meetings for the officers. During officer meetings all officers have the following rights: a. All officers have the right to vote or object to decisions made by any officer. b. All officers have the right to speak at DFS officer meetings. c. All officers have the right to a copy of the DFS Constitution and any other organization documents. d. All officers have the right to object to the Constitution or other DFS proceedings, and have the right to suggest revisions. e. All officers have the right to pose new material for the DFS. f. All officers have the right to pose new ideas for the DFS. g. Any officer can request extra DFS members for help under the Presidents discretion. h. Each DFS officer has a right to the official DFS email related to the office. i. Each DFS officer has right to edit/utilize information not given to the general DFS members, under the discretion of the President. j. Officers are automatically considered members. Section IV – Electing Officers: a. The offices of President, Vice President, Treasurer, Event Coordinator, and Secretary once voted for are temporary positions. The DFS member in each position may remain until a time they are impeached/he/she chooses to step down for one full year. b. Special Officers are volunteer positions under the Presidents discretion, and in the event that there is more than one member who volunteers for the same chair position, the President will chose the Special Officer. c. If there is a single person running for any given position then there is no need to hold an election as long as that individual is willing and able to continue serving the DFS in that position. d. If there is at any time a sudden vacancy of any officer position a Special Election will be held. Please see Section VII for details on Special Elections. Section V – General Elections: a. Elections will be held during the winter term of every year. b. The election should be announced at least one meeting prior to voting, and allow adequate time for all interested candidates to announce their candidacy and develop platforms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Anarchism and Religion
    Anarchism and Religion Nicolas Walter 1991 For the present purpose, anarchism is defined as the political and social ideology which argues that human groups can and should exist without instituted authority, and especially as the historical anarchist movement of the past two hundred years; and religion is defined as the belief in the existence and significance of supernatural being(s), and especially as the prevailing Judaeo-Christian systemof the past two thousand years. My subject is the question: Is there a necessary connection between the two and, if so, what is it? The possible answers are as follows: there may be no connection, if beliefs about human society and the nature of the universe are quite independent; there may be a connection, if such beliefs are interdependent; and, if there is a connection, it may be either positive, if anarchism and religion reinforce each other, or negative, if anarchism and religion contradict each other. The general assumption is that there is a negative connection logical, because divine andhuman authority reflect each other; and psychological, because the rejection of human and divine authority, of political and religious orthodoxy, reflect each other. Thus the French Encyclopdie Anarchiste (1932) included an article on Atheism by Gustave Brocher: ‘An anarchist, who wants no all-powerful master on earth, no authoritarian government, must necessarily reject the idea of an omnipotent power to whom everything must be subjected; if he is consistent, he must declare himself an atheist.’ And the centenary issue of the British anarchist paper Freedom (October 1986) contained an article by Barbara Smoker (president of the National Secular Society) entitled ‘Anarchism implies Atheism’.
    [Show full text]
  • Freethought Society, : Civil Action No
    Case 3:15-cv-00833-MEM Document 86 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA : FREETHOUGHT SOCIETY, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15-833 Plaintiff : (JUDGE MANNION) v. : COUNTY OF LACKAWANNA : TRANSIT SYSTEM, : Defendant : MEMORANDUM The saying has been around since at least the 1800's: “Never discuss religion or politics with those who hold opinions opposite to yours; they are subjects that heat in handling, until they burn your fingers; . .”1 Even Linus van Pelt has acknowledged: “There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people . religion, politics and the Great Pumpkin!”2 Certainly, topics such as religion and politics have been deemed controversial for ages, but can the government prohibit advertising about such topics in public transit advertising spaces without violating the First Amendment? 115 February 1840, The Corsair, “The Letter Bag of the Great Western,” pg. 775, col. 1. 2PEANUTS by Charles M. Schulz, October 25, 1961. 1 Case 3:15-cv-00833-MEM Document 86 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 34 The First Amendment prohibits the government from “abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. CONST. AMEND. I. However, courts have differed on how that guarantee applies when private speech occurs on government property. Depending on the forum in which the speech occurs -- a traditional public forum, a designated forum, or a limited (or nonpublic) forum -- private speech is afforded different levels of protection. One particular area that has frustrated the courts is how to distinguish between designated and limited public forums.
    [Show full text]
  • Contesting Tradition and Combating Intolerance a History of Free Thought in Kansas
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Quarterly Great Plains Studies, Center for Fall 2000 Contesting Tradition And Combating Intolerance A History Of Free thought In Kansas Aaron K. Ketchell University of Kansas, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons Ketchell, Aaron K., "Contesting Tradition And Combating Intolerance A History Of Free thought In Kansas" (2000). Great Plains Quarterly. 2129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsquarterly/2129 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Quarterly by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. CONTESTING TRADITION AND COMBATING INTOLERANCE A HISTORY OF FREETHOUGHT IN KANSAS AARON K. KETCHELL Diversity is the hallmark of freethought in Although the attitudes of freethinkers toward Kansas, for freethinkers were never a homoge­ religion are the primary concern of this essay, neous body. The movement was not only reli­ it must be remembered that freethinkers had gious, or for that matter, antireligious, different ideas about what the movement although the majority of social and political meant and that opposition to organized reli­ issues that it addressed had religious ground­ gion was only one, but a crucial element of the ing. No one specific organized group domi­ freethought agenda. nated historical Kansas freethinking. Instead, In order to understand the history of individuals in the form of editors of various freethought in Kansas one must first define newspapers, journals, and book series became the movement and its ideology.
    [Show full text]
  • Charlotte Wilson, the ''Woman Question'', and the Meanings of Anarchist Socialism in Late Victorian Radicalism
    IRSH, Page 1 of 34. doi:10.1017/S0020859011000757 r 2011 Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis Charlotte Wilson, the ‘‘Woman Question’’, and the Meanings of Anarchist Socialism in Late Victorian Radicalism S USAN H INELY Department of History, State University of New York at Stony Brook E-mail: [email protected] SUMMARY: Recent literature on radical movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has re-cast this period as a key stage of contemporary globali- zation, one in which ideological formulations and radical alliances were fluid and did not fall neatly into the categories traditionally assigned by political history. The following analysis of Charlotte Wilson’s anarchist political ideas and activism in late Victorian Britain is an intervention in this new historiography that both supports the thesis of global ideological heterogeneity and supplements it by revealing the challenge to sexual hierarchy that coursed through many of these radical cross- currents. The unexpected alliances Wilson formed in pursuit of her understanding of anarchist socialism underscore the protean nature of radical politics but also show an over-arching consensus that united these disparate groups, a common vision of the socialist future in which the fundamental but oppositional values of self and society would merge. This consensus arguably allowed Wilson’s gendered definition of anarchism to adapt to new terms as she and other socialist women pursued their radical vision as activists in the pre-war women’s movement. INTRODUCTION London in the last decades of the nineteenth century was a global crossroads and political haven for a large number of radical activists and theorists, many of whom were identified with the anarchist school of socialist thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia V. Chester County
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 65 | Number 1 Fall 2004 Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester County: The esirD ability of a De Minimis Exception to the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Jurisprudence Michael L. DeShazo Repository Citation Michael L. DeShazo, Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester County: The Desirability of a De Minimis Exception to the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, 65 La. L. Rev. (2004) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol65/iss1/15 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester County: The Desirability of a De Minimis Exception to the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Jurisprudence In Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester County, the Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of a display of the Ten Commandments on the facade of the Chester County, Pennsylvania courthouse. The court held that the County's refusal to take down the plaque was not motivated by a desire to endorse religion, but rather by a desire to "preserve a longstanding plaque." It also stated that the plaque was not a "real threat" to separation of church and state, thus invoking the spirit of the legal maxim "de minimis non curat lex" or "the law does not bother with trifles." This article examines the Freethought decision and concludes that it reached an incorrect result by misapplying both tests used by courts to decide Establishment Clause cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Anarchism and Religion
    Anarchism and Religion Nicolas Walter 1991 For the present purpose, anarchism is defined as the political and social ideology which argues that human groups can and should exist without instituted authority, and especially as the historical anarchist movement of the past two hundred years; and religion is defined as the belief in the existence and significance of supernatural being(s), and especially as the prevailing Judaeo-Christian systemof the past two thousand years. My subject is the question: Is there a necessary connection between the two and, if so, what is it? The possible answers are as follows: there may be no connection, if beliefs about human society and the nature of the universe are quite independent; there may be a connection, if such beliefs are interdependent; and, if there is a connection, it may be either positive, if anarchism and religion reinforce each other, or negative, if anarchism and religion contradict each other. The general assumption is that there is a negative connection logical, because divine andhuman authority reflect each other; and psychological, because the rejection of human and divine authority, of political and religious orthodoxy, reflect each other. Thus the French Encyclopdie Anarchiste (1932) included an article on Atheism by Gustave Brocher: ‘An anarchist, who wants no all-powerful master on earth, no authoritarian government, must necessarily reject the idea of an omnipotent power to whom everything must be subjected; if he is consistent, he must declare himself an atheist.’ And the centenary issue of the British anarchist paper Freedom (October 1986) contained an article by Barbara Smoker (president of the National Secular Society) entitled ‘Anarchism implies Atheism’.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Socialism
    Libertarian Socialism PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:52:27 UTC Contents Articles Libertarian socialism 1 The Venus Project 37 The Zeitgeist Movement 39 References Article Sources and Contributors 42 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 43 Article Licenses License 44 Libertarian socialism 1 Libertarian socialism Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism)[3][4] is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialists believe in converting present-day private productive property into the commons or public goods, while retaining respect for personal property[5]. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization. It promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.[6] The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism[7][8] or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.[1][2][9] Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite.[10] Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that
    [Show full text]
  • Secularist History: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects
    Nash, D. 2019. Secularist History: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects. Secularism and Nonreligion, 8: 1, pp. 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.113 RESEARCH ARTICLE Secularist History: Past Perspectives and Future Prospects David Nash This article provides a survey of the growth and development of historiography about both Secularism and the wider secular movement since the onset of the nineteenth century. It analyses and highlights the main themes and their advocates as well as suggesting what historiographical developments we might be likely to see in the future. It is a great pleasure to write an opening piece for this last gasp of social history and history from below, then themed issue because it serves to signal the arrival of secu- the Marxism which overshadowed this outlook had little larist history as, at the very least, a sub-discipline of the time for religious radicalism. Writers like Christopher history of ideology and belief. One hesitates to suggest Hill, when he considered the tide of religious discus- that it is an offshoot of religious history, largely because sion unleashed by the English Revolution, was anxious religious history generally ignored its existence for quite to see how these individuals invented species of politi- a sustained period. It was thus frequently relegated to the cal education through their interaction with religious category of apostasy from religion, or instead labelled texts and ideas. Similarly E.P. Thompson was famously with the semi-religious category of doubt. Agnosticism dismissive of Methodism, further adding to the con- was the earnestly church-bound term for the honest ception that any radical historian who interested them- doubting Christian, a flavour of which we can sometimes selves in such things had veered off the beaten path into recapture in the musings of our current Archbishop of a blind and dangerous cul-de-sac.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion & Democracy
    Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences Summer 2020 Religion & Democracy Robert Audi, guest editor with Kent Greenawalt Samuel Freeman · Paul Weithman Cathleen Kaveny · David E. Campbell Stephanie Collins · Winfried Löffler Lorenzo Zucca · T. Jeremy Gunn Jonathan A. Jacobs · Colleen Murphy John E. Hare Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences “Religion & Democracy” Volume 149, Number 3; Summer 2020 Robert Audi, Guest Editor Phyllis S. Bendell, Managing Editor and Director of Publications Peter Walton, Associate Editor Heather M. Struntz, Assistant Editor Committee on Studies and Publications John Mark Hansen, Chair; Rosina Bierbaum, Johanna Drucker, Gerald Early, Carol Gluck, Linda Greenhouse, John Hildebrand, Philip Khoury, Arthur Kleinman, Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, Alan I. Leshner, Rose McDermott, Michael S. McPherson, Frances McCall Rosenbluth, Scott D. Sagan, Nancy C. Andrews (ex officio), David W. Oxtoby (ex officio), Diane P. Wood (ex officio) Inside front cover: Howard Chandler Christy’s painting of the signing of the United States Constitution was commissioned in 1939 as part of the congressional observance of the Constitution’s sesquicentennial. Completed in 1940, the 20-by-30-foot framed oil-on-canvas scene is among the best known images in the United States Capitol. Contents 5 Religion & Democracy: Interactions, Tensions, Possibilities Robert Audi 25 Democracy & Religion: Some Variations & Hard Questions Kent Greenawalt 37 Democracy, Religion & Public Reason Samuel Freeman 59 Liberalism & Deferential Treatment Paul Weithman 72 The Ironies of the New Religious Liberty Litigation Cathleen Kaveny 87 The Perils of Politicized Religion David E. Campbell 105 Are Organizations’ Religious Exemptions Democratically Defensible? Stephanie Collins 119 Secular Reasons for Confessional Religious Education in Public Schools Winfried Löffler 135 Conscience, Truth & Action Lorenzo Zucca 148 Do Human Rights Have a Secular, Individualistic & Anti-Islamic Bias? T.
    [Show full text]
  • Etta Semple: Sister out of Christ/Kansas Freethinker and New Thought Healer
    Etta Semple: Sister Out of Christ/Kansas Freethinker and New Thought Healer Presented By Vickie Sandell Stangl Franklin County Historical Society 75th Anniversary History Symposium April 2012 Etta Semple was born in 1854 but was a woman far ahead of her time in asking questions about the existence of God and challenging accepted religious dogma. Most unusual was Etta's merging of Freethought principles with "New Thought" healing without religious overtones. Her life and story keenly reveals America's discomfort in acknowledging and respecting dissent or minority viewpoints during the late 19th and early 20th century. By the time of her tragic death in 1914 of pneumonia, Mrs. Semple had won over many detractors due to her selfless work in healing the sick at her Natural Cure Sanitarium. It was difficult for citizens of the early 20th century to accept that nobleness and goodness of character could exist without religion. Etta showed it was not only very possible, but also heroic under such negative opinions about freethinkers. While many prejudices still exists today against freethinkers (Atheists, Humanists, Agnostics) Etta's Freethought philosophy made her a constant target within the community of Ottawa, Kansas where she wrote, lived and advocated for freedom of conscience. Ottawa was founded by Baptists missionaries and by 1888 there were seventeen active Christian churches. However, behind these very visible symbols of religion, America was teeming with dissent; a growing movement of freethinkers were re-examining religious teachings and the role of religion in government. Although it's rarely noted by historians, high ranking individuals within the government and society were alarmed by the rise of religious leaders pushing to amend the US Constitution and declare America a Christian nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Radicalism and the Animal Defence Movement in Late
    EURAMERICA Vol. 42, No. 1 (March 2012), 1-43 © Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica http://euramerica.org An Unnatural Alliance? Political Radicalism and the Animal Defence Movement in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain* TP PT P Chien-hui Li Department of History, National Cheng Kung University No. 1, Da-xue Road, Tainan 70101, Taiwan E-mail: [email protected] Abstract This article explores the still understudied relationship between nineteenth-century political radicalism and the animal defence movement by examining, respectively, the relations between the movement and the secularist and socialists strands of political radicalism in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. It points out that although positive secularist and socialist support existed for the animal cause, the relationship between them and the animal defence movement was far from smooth and cordial due to ideological differences. Nonetheless, from the late nineteenth century onward, with the efforts of freethinkers and socialists in the animal defence movement TP Received May 10, 2011; accepted October 6, 2011; last revised October 19, 2011 Proofreaders: Jeffrey Cuvilier, Chia-chi Tseng, Hsin wen Fan, Ying-bei Wang * The article was first read at “The Seventh Conference on Historiography and Philology—New Perspectives on Social History” held at Soochow University, Taipei. The author would like to express her gratitude to Professor Sechin Chien for his insightful comments at the conference and also to the National Science Council for funding this research project (NSC 97-2410-H-030-011- MY2). 2 EURAMERICA to draw on radical political ideas in reaction against the ideologies of the mainstream animal defence movement, sections of the movement underwent radical change in terms of character, ideology and objectives.
    [Show full text]