I first recall humanist philosopher and social progressive John Dewey , who warned in 1930 that prioritizing individualistic liberty too much only forges new chains of slavery. The old individualism of the Revolutionary Era wanted a distant, small government that couldn't control robust local communities. The 20th century saw the decay of community, as people chased personal liberty all over the land. By 1930, the machinery of protecting innumerable rights, both civil and economic, had dramatically enlarged the government. In political jargon, all these "negative" rights, the rights to say No to interference, were adding up to a monstrous positive.

Dewey hoped for a new individualism that supported communities, because in the end, that is where we all have to live. But he predicted that communities might get completely overwhelmed and dissolved. Willing citizens would let vast corporate powers using even vaster bureaucracy divide people into atomic and replaceable units of production and consumption. The victory of the "free market" only means that we'll all be free to walk past the strangers in neighboring houses to join the unemployment line.

At the start of the Great Depression, Dewey saw deeply into the American spirit and mostly faulted the people. Dewey preferred plenty of democracy, but when responsibility ultimately rests on the People, you have to see through pleasant mythology and hold the People responsible once in a while. As another atheist, H. L. Mencken, once said, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." If people would instead fight harder for the responsible bonds of local community, they could worry less about even worse masters. Yet individualism, this "me-first" attitude, has hardly abated.

Now I think about how the Great Recession staggers on. Blame the rich, blame the greedy -- but don't dare blame our system that makes them possible! What Dewey pessimistically predicted, our America has largely fulfilled. What people still haven't realized is that nothing comes for free, not even freedom itself. To secure more and more independence for themselves, Americans have demanded that government guarantee those liberties with legal protections and safety nets. Why is this a nation of innumerable laws and lawyers? Why do we have a huge government whose primary job is to convert taxes from the many into secure jobs for the few? The basic paradox was grasped by Plato long ago: more rights for you, more chains on everyone. As David Brooks has endorsed in his NYT essay "Broken Society" , we must "take a political culture that has been oriented around individual choice and replace it with one oriented around relationships and associations," in the words of British writer Phillip Blond .

In some ways, America has yet avoided the worst evils of excessive individualism and corporate power. Government regulations restrain capitalism to a fair degree, and workers are safer and better paid than most other places around the world. This friend of democracy, like Dewey, supports things like unemployment insurance, more education, and better health care for all.  But the titanic "struggle" between corporate capitalism and bureaucratic government, so fascinating since they are now symbiotically dependent on each other, has left the people fighting over the leftover crumbs.  Not even religion has had much effect, or anything anti-religious. There are stronger currents in motion.

Is our remedy just more individualism? Shall we "organize" under a banner of refusing to follow anything anymore? Call me skeptical towards just more separatism. But please ask whether just saying "NO" is the best answer. When people ask for a positively helpful answer, I urge that we support ethical and just communities. We the people have a lot in common and so much to fight for, together. Nonbelievers have positive ideas and hopeful ideals, and we have potential allies in unlikely places. We have a tradition of humanism worthy of fidelity, and now we need to make it explicit and militant.

Starting in 2005, American public was hit with a fresh wave of secular thought openly criticizing organized religion and religious faith. It started with Sam Harris’ 2004 book “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.” Soon after, Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion,” 2006) and Christopher Hitchens (“God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” 2007) published books similarly critical of religion (1). Moreover, in 2006, Harris penned a rejoinder to his book, “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Religious critique of this kind wasn’t contained to bookshelves, either -- the Web exploded with blogs, podcasts, and self-made YouTube videos. Perhaps the most prominent Web-based atheist is the biologist P.Z. Myers, who runs one of the most-read atheist blogs, Pharyngula.  

Many have called these authors and their followers the “New Atheists” -- practitioners of a form of atheism that is outspoken and brash in its condemnation of religion and religious belief. These atheists were not content to disbelieve and go on with their lives; they also wanted to let religious beliefs know they were wrong (though it should be added it is not like these men broke into homes; they sold books and wrote blog posts). But this new, bold assault on religion did bring many secularists out of the woodwork – and what made wave perhaps unique was a call by men such as Dawkins and Myers to organize around atheism and sharp rhetoric.

A year after his book was published, Dawkins launched the Out Campaign (2). Lamenting that too few atheists were public about their disbelief, Dawkins started the Out Campaign in an effort to have atheists stand out and become visible as atheists, loud and proud about their worldview. Dawkins even designed pins and t-shirts with the scarlet letter “A,” a symbol of someone’s atheism, to be worn in public. P.Z. Myers jumped on board with the movement, arguing at the Beyond Belief conference in 2007 it was imperative for atheists to out themselves as such (3).

There has been, as one would expect, bountiful criticism of the arguments found in the “New Atheist” books, and the philosophical merits of atheism. Aside from that, it is generally agreed that some good did come from these books in that they pushed important issues to the public. However, an issue that received less focus was a more strategic one: the fact that many atheists define their entire lives around unbelief and critique of theism. Oddly enough, Sam Harris picked up on this observation. In 2007, Harris gave a talk called “The Problem With Atheism” at the Atheist Alliance International conference, describing some tactical problems with formulating a movement based on atheism (4).

Firsts: what is atheism? By definition, atheism means the absence of belief in theism or God. Atheism doesn’t imply whether a person believes “God definitely doesn’t exist” or whether he or she is a bit more lenient on the matter. Atheism does not tell us how much one cares about religion; it does not tell us if one is friendly to religion, or hates it. It does not tell us if one is absolutely unreasonable in his or her other beliefs generally. There are terrible atheists. Atheism is not encompassing in any other sense than, because it is so broad, many people might be atheists that do not realize it. As Robert Ingersoll once said, even if God does not exist, humans still have their work cut out for them. Atheism isn’t enough. This is the first argument against atheism. It is not a philosophy or a worldview, it is a lack of a specific religious belief, and that isn’t enough to carry us forward in any meaningful way.

This brings us to the second argumen t: atheists tend to view religion as either the problem, or the cause of the problem, even when other problems are apparent. But while theism is a problem, it is not the problem, and while atheism might be correct, atheism is not the answer. As the philosopher Massimo Pigliucci has noted, the larger predicament we face is uncritical adherence to ideology -- a problem that spans more than just religion (5). From birthers to Tea Partiers, from climate change deniers to conspiracy theorists, there is a lot of unhinged thinking out there. The approach must be more comprehensive.

The thir d argument against the march of organized atheism is it's tendency toward an angry, uncompassionate line of attack. It is argued that the general approach to the matters taken by, foremost, Dawkins and Hitchens is one of sneering at religious belief, thinking that anyone who believes in God or other religious claims is stupid. In fact, neither of these men believes all religious people are stupid, as they have both written and spoken about how a large problem humanity faces is that very smart people can cordon off certain beliefs -- for example accepting all the benefits of the modern life sciences but rejecting the what underwrites it, the theory of evolution.

However, there is something to hearing these men speak, and reading certain of their writing, that sends the message they have a short temper for religious belief (and the occasional believer). This attitude has trickled down, as well: for their followers, too often pride has led to arrogance -- and not arrogance about the specific position on religion, but general intellectual arrogance at that. Yet the problem isn’t necessarily the arguments, but the tone. There is not enough room or time here for an exhaustive sampling, and a quick visit to Myers’ blog, or YouTube to watch some clips from Hitchens or Dawkins would give you a better insight, but consider some of the following: Hitchens has charged Christianity is a “wicked cult” (6); Dawkins has said that “it is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane” (7); Myers has publicly desecrated a communion wafer and called the WWII Pope Pius XII a “sniveling rat bastard” (8); and even Harris wrote that the Bible and Quran contain “mountains of life-destroying gibberish" (9). And these are just the tip of the iceberg, and in fact, Dawkins has called for even sharper rhetoric (10). While these statements might be true, aren’t there more sophisticated, thoughtful, and inviting ways to put them? Do these statements make discussion attractive to other parties? Does it allow for progressive discourse?

This brings us to the fourth argument: this view of the world divides people rather than bringing them together. This is a symptom of the atheist tendency to see the world through religion. It is seemingly as divisive as seeing the world as a Catholic and nothing else. While I am no friend of theistic beliefs, and one could argue dogma and faith are found -- and kindled -- more in religious circles than anywhere else, focusing mostly or even entirely on theism divides us too cleanly on religious affiliation. Defining oneself as an atheist gives off the impression to those who do not define themselves as atheists that you have nothing in common. There are many good things included in religion (to be sure, they are found elsewhere and many are a product of the evolution of human nature) that cut to the core of human experience -- community, fellowship, awe and wonder, a desire to transcend yourself and do collective good. To stand opposed to all religion is to give off the impression you deny these. As Harris noted in his talk:

“Atheism is too blunt an instrument to use at a moment like this. It’s as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment -- with peaks and valleys and local attractors -- and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.”

In short, the atheist approach does not serve to unite a broad group of people together for progressive dialogue nor progressive change.

The fifth argument against using “atheist” is that atheists already face is that people have the tendency to see the atheist approach as “against” and not “for.” Of course, one cannot debunk or be against anything without really being for something. We are seemingly only able to critique if we have something to weigh the critiqued belief against. When Hitchens rips apart a religious idea, he is surely tearing something down -- but he is doing so because he values evidence, reason, critical thinking, science, democracy, and more. The term atheism doesn’t tell others the reasons for critique.

We need to move beyond and above atheism. I am not arguing we ought to avoid admitting who we are. I am also not arguing all atheists want to organize their lives around atheism (11). But many do, and given what I have said, it seems to be a mistake: it is too empty, too narrow-minded, and too divisive. Instead, it would seem smarter to develop something more comprehensive (12).

One place where these atheists have gotten it right is in pushing for religious belief to undergo the same scrutiny all other beliefs do -- the argument that unfounded moral and ethical beliefs should receive critique similar to that for unfounded scientific or historical beliefs. So while one can believe and act with a free conscience, they are not free from scrutiny. As we have seen, not all secularists line up on that, and it is worth noting how valuable this contribution is. But it doesn't make atheism the desired approach (13).

Notes:

1. Daniel Dennett published “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,” in 2006, but it wouldn’t be fair to lump him in the other authors, as his was apparently milder than their books.

2. Dawkin’s Out Campaign is here .

3. Myers can be heard here .

4. Harris’ talk at the Atheist Alliance International conference can be found here . I also pull from my own experience as executive director at the Center for Inquiry in New York City. 

5. Pigliucci's comment can be found on his blog, Rationally Speaking, here .

6. Hitchens' comment can be found here .

7. Dawkins, quoted from Josh Gilder, a creationist, in his critical review, "PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science" (September, 2001)

8. Myers' actions can be found here , his comments can be found here . This type of approach and discourse is constant on Myers' blog.

9. Harris, End of Faith, pg. 23.

10. You might be best served making a quick visit to Myers’ blog, or YouTube to watch some clips from Hitchens or Dawkins, or even Google their names and key terms. Also see, for instance, this ridiculous blog post by Dawkins (note: the first post is a Jerry Coyne story; scroll the comment 16 for Dawkins' input).

11. The American Atheists is one example of an atheist organization, another is the New York City Atheists. Many other atheist groups exist. Note that I am not calling for the banning or even end of the word atheist. I am simply saying it seems forlorn to get behind it.

12. One note on labels: Of course, we can’t just snap our fingers and make words disappear. We do need to use words of some sort. I have argued elsewhere that humanist, freethinker, secularist, and skeptic -- which all tend toward atheism but are not explicit in their denial and are more comprehensive -- seem much better words to me. But still, we’re stuck on labels. The truth is, it is near impossible to tell someone the enormity of our beliefs with one word. It is even hard to imagine a single word defining our beliefs about such broad topics as religion or politics. We see atheists and Christians and Democrats and Republicans at war, but they are not. Those two sides agree on more than they let on. But even if we need to have labels, that doesn’t make all labels equal -- and I would surely rank atheist below any of the labels listed above. 

13. To be sure, this is not an exhaustive account of the atheist approach, but I think it provides enough material to at least question whether any atheist approach is really worthwhile.

Readers of my blog are aware that I'm occasionally critical of religious beliefs.

OK, more than occasionally.

Critical examination of beliefs, religious or nonreligious, is a worthwhile endeavor in and of itself. We should question our fundamental beliefs and try to ensure they're justifiable based on reason and the available evidence.

In fostering a secular society, however, we should not limit ourselves to supporting critical reasoning. As stated in CFI's mission statement, we also need to work to end the influence that religion has on public policy. The heavy and distorting hand of religious influence on public policy can be felt in many areas, but the current debate over health care legislation provides us with a very poignant and disturbing example.

As everyone knows, debate on the Obama administration's health care plan is coming to an end and an up-or-down vote will be taken soon. The vote will be very close. The outcome may well depend on a small group of Democrats, led by Bart Stupak of Michigan, who have stated that they will vote against the proposed legislation because they are concerned that the bill may allow federal funds to be used to finance abortions. They are supported in their opposition to the bill by the nation's Catholic bishops.

First, by way of background, you should be aware that current law prohibits federal dollars from being used to fund abortions. The health care bill will not change that.
Nonetheless, because the health care bill will fund Community Health Centers (CHC) and will provide subsidies to some individuals to help them purchase private insurance, Stupak and his friends claims that federal funds might be used to pay for abortions. They make this claim despite the fact that no CHC currently provides abortions. Furthermore, they make this claim despite the fact that the current language in the bill would require women who receive coverage under a subsidized plan to write a separate check for that portion of the premium that provides abortion services. Effectively, Stupak and his friends are worrying about an entirely hypothetical situation that has little, if anything, to do with the proposed legislation.

Stupak's position is so extreme that the other day a group of nuns and Catholic hospital administrators threw their support behind the current health care bill, rejecting the reasoning of Stupak and his allies.

What is truly amazing about this situation is that a handful of Congressional representatives, motivated entirely by their religious beliefs, can hold hostage a bill that is of monumental significance to millions of Americans. Obviously, there's a division of opinion among Americans about the merits of the proposed health care bill. Some maintain the bill is essential to remedy inequities in our health care system and that it is cost-effective. Others maintain it is a budget-buster and improperly requires Americans to obtain insurance coverage. But whatever one's views on the bill, the debate on the bill and the final vote on the bill should be based on the merits of the legislation -- not fears and suspicions fueled by religious dogma.

It is a tragedy that the status of American health care in the 21st century may depend on how some powerful clergy and their religiously rigid supporters interpret church doctrine.

Our secular society is still very much a work in progress.

Actually yhe stement is icncorrect: "there is not a single documented case of a missing person being found or recovered due to psychic information." here one from a group I participate in form the police chief in charge: "Thank you for all your help with our missing person in the City of Perry, Kansas. Our victim Mr. Shawn Fowler was found about an eight of a mile from his home. He was found at approximately 1345 hours on March 19,2009. He was found floating in the Delaware River within 100 feet of one of the GPS readings your team provided. The river had been searched a couple of times by boat and scanner with no results the day prior to the body coming to the surface. Part of the information we concentrated on was the area around a submerged tree as predicted by one of your Team members. I have shared your Team efforts with Deputies, Firemen and Medical persons who assisted in the three month long search. Again THNK YOU ... THANKS TO THE TEAM !!!! The Family now has closure! Respectfully: Ramon C. Gonzalez, Jr. Police Chief"

My heart sank as I read this! Could it be that I was wrong about this? Was there really a case as recently as last year when a missing person was found or recovered due to psychic information? Had I overlooked an important exception that would require me to reconsider my position on the topic? I spent a few minutes searching the Web, and then posted the following reply:

Good try, but you really should read more carefully. Missing man Shawn Fowler was NOT found by a psychic at all, but instead by a random fisherman:

"Jefferson County Sheriff's officials said Fowler was found about 3:36 p.m. Thursday by a man fishing in the Delaware River in Perry."

http://cjonline.com/news/local/2009-03-20/missing_man_found_in_perry

Fran Quigley wrote an op-ed column for the Indianapolis Star titled, "A Place for Inquiring Minds," after visiting CFI Indiana one Sunday afternoon and witnessing the children's program in action.  In 1828, Frances Wright wrote, "Turn your churches into halls of science."  Wouldn't it be great if instead of filling children's heads full of dogma, the churches would teach them the scientific method?

Two Sunday afternoons a month CFI Indiana's CFI Kids program under the direction of volunteer parent, Joe Oliver, does just that. Saturday, March 13 was the first Darwin Day for Kids at CFI Indiana.  About 40 kids and 30 adults participated. The children's programs at CFI Indiana are child/parent programs.  At least one parent must accompany their child/children. 

At 10:00 am, Charles Darwin ( Craig Gosling ) appeared.  He talked about his childhood, home life, bad experiences at boarding school, and further education. Darwin was an avid collector of things such as beetles, minerals, leaves, coins, eggs feathers, sea shells, fossils, etc. Parents of each child were given samples of the things Darwin collected. Darwin explained how life began and how evolution works. Kids had a chance to compare the size and shape of their hands, feet, ears, and face with actual casts of a gorilla, orangutan, chimp, and monkey. These casts were made by Craig when he was on the medical school faculty.  Darwin told the kids about their relationship with other primates. Craig is a retired professor of medical illustration from the Indiana University School of Medicine .  He is an illustrator, sculptor, Darwin admirer, nature lover, writer, poet with books about science and superstition. 

After a pizza lunch, the children were divided into groups and took turns visiting the various stations which were set up by CFI Indiana Friends of the Center Craig Gosling, Fred Mandelkorn, Joe Oliver, Steve Silbaugh, and Margaret Schwarz.  

The title of Steven Silbaugh's station was "Building Blocks of Life and the Universe ---The Elements of the Periodic Table."  Kids had hands-on experience with both common and uncommon elements. Hopefully, they started to understand that all the world is made of elements and their combinations. When you think about it, biological evolution really acts by selecting those elements and molecule combinations (i.e. organisms) that best suit their environments.

Kids located several elements on the periodic table, experienced which are heavy and which are light and did tests to learn which moved toward or away from magnets.  For example, they learned that iron, cobalt, nickel and gadolinium are strongly magnetic, that magnesium is weakly magnetic and that bismuth and one form of carbon move away from a magnet! Europium was also a big hit, since kids could see that one of its compounds would glow if activated by a bright light.  Kids also learned that the elements with higher atomic number are radioactive. One radioactive sample was a pre WW II orange Fiestaware plate with a uranium oxide glaze.

Steven Silbaugh, PhD., is a former Eli Lilly senior research scientist and homeschool science instructor.  He did some of his early training in the same lab that did the medical testing of the first American astronauts.  During his career, his research focused on the lung.  In New Mexico, he did studies to evaluate the biological effects of air pollution and inhaled radioactive materials.  At Lilly, he did research to discover drugs to treat asthma.  His current interest is helping kids (and their parents) truly understand the most important principles of science --- plus try to do it in a fun and motivational way. 

Joe Oliver's station was on a round piece of plastic on the floor.  He covered Super Absorbent Polymers (SAPs) and their uses-–agriculture/landscaping, diapers, hazardous material cleanup, etc.  They grow as much as 500 times their original size.  The kids loved to watch them grow before their eyes and shove their hands in the slimy feeling material.  He then covered buoyancy with a ping pong ball and an air stream.  The kids were fascinated with the floating ball and learned that if the pressure below and around the sides of the ball is greater than the downward force of gravity the ball will stay in the air in one general place.  He finished with a short lesson on centripetal force with a penny in a balloon.

Joe is CFI Kids coordinator at CFI Indiana.  This group has started a series on the scientific method.  The last one was on static electricity, which the kids had more fun with than Joe ever expected.  The next one is magnetism.  Future ones will be on electricity.  The kids are picking the experiments based on what they wish to learn more about.  

Joe is the father of four freethinking children.  His wife Amber also helps out with the group.  Joe has done prior service in the Indiana Army National Guard receiving education from the Army School of Information Technology.  His civilian career has been in industrial technologies.  He currently sells electric motors and diagnostic equipment and is back in school studying biotechnology.  

Fred Mandelkorn who is a retired electrical engineer with a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania talked about light, telescopes, and stars.  This tied in with Steve's display of the elements, because the heavy elements are formed in stars and their supernovae.  Fred demonstrated imaging with a lens and light bulb, and then had the kids make a simple telescope by holding two lenses in line.  He also had a simple hand-held spectroscope (to see a "rainbow" from white light), so that kids could see that white light from an incandescent bulb is different from white light from a fluorescent lamp.  He also ran interactive computer simulations of various scientific demonstrations on a computer.  This was probably the kids' favorite activity at his station.    

Margaret Schwarz who is an avid bird watcher and member of the local Audubon Society .  Showed pictures and talked about birds and how they evolved. 

All in all it was a great day for kids and adults alike.   We are already making plans for Darwin Day for Kids, 2011.

Pictures of CFI Indiana Darwin Day for Kids 2010

{link}

On Monday, March 15, the Center for Inquiry submitted an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez .  CFI argued that religious student organizations do not have the constitutional right to violate public colleges' non-discrimination policies. 

The case concerns a student chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) at the University of California, Hastings College of Law.  CLS sued the school after being denied official recognition and funding because the student group excluded non-Christian, gay and lesbian students, in violation of the school's non-discrimination policy.  That policy requires that student groups can receive funding and official recognition only if they are open to all students. 

A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled unanimously against CLS because the school's policy prohibited every student group, whether religious or secular, from excluding students that disagree with the group's mission.  CLS appealed that decision, claiming that it had a constitutional right -- not enjoyed by any secular organizations -- to receive state funding while discriminating against students on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.  

CFI argued that student groups that want to exclude certain classes of students should not demand school subsidies and official recognition.  CFI further argued that the school's non-discrimination does not impose any substantial burden on the student organization's free speech rights.  CLS members are still permitted to use school facilities without official recognition and funding from the school.  Moreover, if CLS had abided by the school's non-discrimination policy, it would have received school funding and would not have been prevented from expressing its views about religion and homosexuality.

CFI's brief also argued that religious organizations do not have a constitutional right to special exemptions from generally applicable regulations.  CFI urged the Supreme Court to reject the student organization's "invitation to ignore an unbroken line of precedent denying groups exemptions from generally applicable laws based solely on [the group's] religious beliefs."

CFI's brief was drafted by Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jorge G. Tenreiro, Benjamin N. Brust and Justin L. Ormand at the New York City firm of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, with input from attorneys at CFI.  Click here to access an electronic (.pdf) copy of the brief.

Last week the City of Winnipeg (Manitoba) voted to fund in the amount of $2.5 million a Youth for Christ Community Centre.  This public funding opens the door to a possible stimulus funding of $3 million from the federal government.

Christian youth centre gets public funding:  Proposed youth centre likened to residential school

In response, Centre for Inquiry Canada spokesperson Michael Payton issued the following open letter to the Director of Youth for Christ John Courtney.  We encourage our supporters to send versions of this letter to the politicians involved in passing this funding and any media that picked up the story.

Dear John,

I am writing in response to your story which appeared in the CBC News column entitled “Youth Centre Director eager to meet critics”. You can think of me as one of your critics.

John, I am an atheist and a secularist. This means that I neither believe in God, nor do I believe that religion fills a significant or important role for society. So when I heard that your group would be given almost 7 million dollars to build a youth centre in downtown Winnipeg, I felt completely betrayed.

I urge you to be fair and try not to chalk up my feelings to my humdrum atheist grumpiness. And yes I am a little grumpy. When my groups attempt to put up bus ads that say “there is probably no god,” city councilors call our signs offensive and morally damaging. In the end we have to go to court to get our signs put where they belong. Your group, on the other hand, seems to be getting millions of dollars from this very same government to actively convert people to evangelical Christianity.

But that really isn’t the point of all this. I think, and I'm sure you would agree, enough venom has been spewed on either side of this issue. What I am now most concerned with is the ability of Youth for Christ as an organization to properly aid this community. Apart from any philosophical differences between you and I, we can both agree that the main concern here should be to give these people the best help possible.

On that issue I have doubts about your organization’s ability to handle the kinds of problems we see in Winnipeg. I do not believe that your record has been very forthcoming on this front and I believe you have deliberately misrepresented your organization in order to further a religious cause.

For instance, in an interview with the Winnipeg Free Press you stated that your workers “occasionally” talk about Jesus. This implies that your first priority is social work and if it so happens that this issue of religion should come up then you might take some time talk about it.

But this is not the impression I get from researching your group, Mr. Courtney. For instance, a few quick internet searches revealed that your organization does in fact reach back to the 1940’s, when it was founded by Billy Graham. I also found out that you have been training your “workers” primarily as missionaries. A schedule of events for your Annual General Assembly of workers, where you take your workers for a weeklong training session every year, devotes almost half it’s time to events marked “prayer time” and “bible time.” (http://www.yfci.org/ga/schedule.html).

Even the basic description of your 2-year training program for these workers consists in the following: completing Biblical studies course, training in prayer, going to the General Assembly mentioned above (where they apparently learn about the bible and prayer) and ministry skills training.

Damningly absent from this treasure-trove of useful skills is any sign, at all, that your workers would have the slightest clue how to help an at-risk teen (other than to tell them about the bible or help them pray).

The closest I was able to come to a rigorous educational program for youth was the Violence Intervention Project. From what little information I could find the program appeared to be exactly what we need in Winnipeg. Parenting courses, community based therapy, school support and Children’s Social Skills Program. None of your project aims focused on Jesus or the Bible and instead spoke about enabling children to stay safe from crime, empowering parents and changing a culture of violence. Again, these are exactly what we need.

However, I couldn’t help but notice three things about this project. Firstly, it was not your project, it was a collaboration between Youth for Christ and a half dozen other organizations. Secondly, the preamble to your online document for this project notes that at the time of writing (2007) there had been “relatively few” projects of this kind pioneered by YFC; your team had to go to great lengths to study other projects in order to know how to best serve this community. Thirdly, the Violence Intervention Project was performed in a very small community, in England, three years ago. I was unable to find any information weighing the respective successes and shortcomings of this program or any indication that the program has been replicated in other parts of the world. All of this leads me to believe that for all of the successes of the VIP project, it surely represents the exception rather than the rule.

The parents belong to the Followers of Christ Church, which has long history of child deaths from lack of medical care. The judge said that the parents committed a crime that "was a product of an unwillingness to respect the boundaries of freedom of expression."

If religions would at least practice the "right to life" they proclaim, these crimes shouldn't happen. Many religions often encourage believers to impose their view of what god wants on others, even to the point of murder. Fortunately, civilized societies try to protect the right to life and liberty of all, even those deemed by a religion as unworthy to live.

Reports on this sentence are at the Pew Forum and OregonLive.

These alarming developments are the latest in a series of attacks on freedom of expression in the name of protecting religion.  The Center for Inquiry's international representatives have drafted the statement below in support of Dr. Narisetti.  CFI intends to lobby the appropriate officials within India and at Indian embassies. We will continue to monitor Dr. Narisetti's case, and will post updates here.

The Center for Inquiry and its branches around the world strongly protest the treatment of our colleague, Dr. Innaiah Narisetti, a volunteer representative for CFI in India.

Based on information from Dr. Narisetti, it appears that the Indian police searched his home and arrested him in connection with the publication of a book critical of Islam. Dr. Narisetti maintains that the police filed false reports against him, that the police lacked a search warrant and an arrest warrant, and that he neither wrote nor published the book in question.

We appeal to the Indian government officials to put an end to these apparent efforts of intimidation and censorship. They can begin by providing legal and personal protection to Dr. Narisetti, and dismiss all legal charges against him and any others connected with this case.

We condemn anti-blasphemy laws and the direct threat they pose to the guarantees of freedom of speech and belief found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We also urge the international community to condemn this apparent perversion of the Indian legal system, which makes a mockery of the concept of the just state and its responsibility to its citizens.

We will continue to closely monitor the situation in India and the protection and safety of Dr. Innaiah Narisetti and the right of freedom of expression.

Signed

Dr. Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO, Center for Inquiry
Derek C. Araujo, Vice President and General Counsel

Dr. Paul Kurtz, Founder of CFI and Professor Emeritus of Philosophy,
State University of Buffalo, N.Y.

Fundatia Centrul pentru Constiinta Critica
CFI Romania
J. Beth Ciesielski and Dr. Gabriel Andreescu

Ian Figueroa Baltazar
CFI Philippines

Dr. Jugal Kishore
CFI New Delhi, India

Professor Nadel Niang
CFI Senegal, West Africa

Armedeo Sarma
CFI Germany, GWUP German (Skeptics),
ECSO European Skeptics Organization

Andrzej Dominiczak
CFI Poland

Hugo Estrella
CFI Italy

Floris van den Berg and Annemarieke Otten,
CFI Low Countries, Netherlands

Stephen Law
London

Suresh Lalvani
London

Dear Itawamba County School Board members and Itawamba County Agricultural High School administrators,

Hello, this is Michael De Dora Jr., executive director at the thinktank Center for Inquiry in New York City. Please note that while my duties at CFI are important to note, I am writing this message on my own behalf, not as a representative of the organization. I hope it finds you well and that you consider it in its full breadth.

I am writing you because I am concerned about the situation at the Itawamba County Agricultural High School. In short, I have learned that the senior prom was canceled to avoid entering into a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) after the organization came to the support of Constance McMillen, an 18-year-old girl who was told by the school that she could not attend the prom with her girlfriend (though the ACLU has since filed the suit anyway).

Before going further, you might be wondering why someone from New York City cares about an issue so far away. What do I have to worry about? However, as an American citizen, I am interested in my fellow citizens’ natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and their equality -- wherever they are. We live not only in our own bubbles of existence, but in a large nation of 300-plus million people, and a planet of even more. What happens in your neck of the woods, then, is of interest to me because in some sense that is my neck of the woods as well.

Given both the ban on homosexual couples attending the prom that led to the current situation, and your decision to cancel the prom rather than allow McMillen and her girlfriend to attend, it seems obvious the majority of the school board and school administration has a problem with homosexuality. I will not avoid the fact that I disagree with this position. I believe gays are equal to straights, just as blacks are equal to whites. I believe that gays are no less moral than any group of Americans generally. I believe homosexuality is not chosen, but given by nature (homosexuality is found widely in non-human animals). I believe that even if homosexuality is a choice in some way, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. I believe that a lifestyle is not mistaken merely because it is different than mine. I believe that one sentence in the Bible cannot make for American public policy (even Christians will admit the Bible contain some horrid passages; and there is, of course, Jesus' teachings of love, not hate).

But while your position troubles me as a person of secular orientation -- as a public voice for secular values -- our apparent disagreement on homosexuality itself is not what I care to address. Rather, I think this issue sheds valuable light on how we can collectively disagree in the proper, American democratic manner, for how we debate is just as important as what we debate.

We live in a society in which we cannot completely cordon off others with whom we do not want to interact, with whom we disagree. We can avoid certain situations, surely, and hunker down in our own corners of the world. But any person interested in partaking in this pluralistic society cannot avoid that we live not just within our own families, or neighborhoods, but also in cities, and moreover, a country of people with varying backgrounds, preferences, and beliefs. In essence, people who are different from us -- who disagree with us on many things -- surround us. This is not a problem, per se. We should not expect, or even desire, that everyone live the same way. How boring would that be? And we should expect people to disagree with us. This is not necessarily a bad thing either; it is the price we pay for our freedom of conscience. In our democracy, you have every right to formulate, hold, and act on your beliefs as you will.

Fortunately, we are not left to our differences, helpless amid opposing convictions. America has a rich history of open and full public debate on important issues. If we disagree, we talk about it. We take it to the public square, where the beliefs of all -- moral or otherwise -- are debated over which are reasonable and which are not.

But while our disagreements with others and their ways of life might become so vehement that we turn to hatred, we should not wish that others' minds be forced, that they be subjugated for their beliefs, and deemed lesser people. Consider the related issue of gay marriage. Few gay marriage advocates are attempting to outright force churches or religious people to open their arms wide to gay marriage. Instead, what most of these advocates want is equality as citizens in the eyes of the government and their neighbors. As the adage goes, respect the believer, not the belief. From there, let the debate ensue. So while you might believe it is wrong to deeply love others of the same sex, the way to solve the issue is not to deny basic rights and equality of those who do so. That would be effectively forsaking American ideals. We are, and should strive to be, better than that. Rather, we should debate those we disagree with while collectively granting and protecting their rights and equality as American citizens . For who knows which group will come into power next, desiring the limit the rights of others after theirs were limited in the past? The point is that certain rights, and equality, should be inalienable.

Ask yourself, then, the following questions: Is homosexuality so terribly wrong that you cannot treat gays as equal humans while debating the intrinsic worth of their sexual preference? Is homosexuality so wrong that not just two gay teens, but an entire school class should be punished for the very existence of gays among us? Your decision also seems an attempt to shelter children from the fact of homosexuality. If so, can you truly expect these children to be shielded from people who are different from them their entire lives? Would you even want this? If we do not interact with others, how can we learn about them and their worldviews, and attempt to make collective progress as a society? Lastly, what sort of standard does your action set for the young men and women who will soon join the public square -- who will soon be debating, voting on, and perhaps even making our social and political policy?

The latest news on this matter is that the American Humanist Association -- which advances a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity -- has made available $20,000 to fund an inclusive prom . But one need not be a secular humanist to demand that all humans be treated equally, even if we disagree with what they believe, with how they desire to lead their lives. Indeed, many religious believers embrace gays as they embrace anyone else; as members of their moral circle.

In consideration of all I have written, I urge you to rethink your decision, reinstate the prom, and allow Constance McMillen to attend with her girlfriend alongside their straight classmates. I urge you to set an example to these students, and the citizenry at large, that while we might both battle over whether homosexuality should be welcomed or rejected, we should be able to have reasonable dialogue on the matter while securing the basic natural rights of gays. We cannot avoid others, and we cannot make them who we want them to be. But we can debate their views while treating them as equals. This is the American democratic way.

Sincerely,

Michael De Dora Jr.