The following is a news update from the Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy:

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) today joined 22 faith and humanist groups in urging President Barack Obama to issue an executive order banning discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees of federal contractors. 

You might recall that, while on the campaign trail in 2008,  Obama pledged to work towards a policy prohibiting anti-LGBT discrimination among all federal contractors. Several years into his presidency, Obama has finally announced that he will not issue an executive order, and instead leave the matter to Congress*. Our letter is a direct response to this disappointing move. We hope the White House will reverse course on this vital issue and protect LGBT Americans and their families from discrimination.

You can download the letter here. The full text is below.

* Note: a previous version of this article incorrectly stated that President Obama had promised to issue an executive order. In fact, he never said that.

—

May 3, 2012

ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER PROTECTING LGBT AMERICANS FROM DISCRIMINATION BY U.S. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS

Dear President Obama:

On behalf of the undersigned groups representing a wide variety of faith and belief systems, including non-theistic beliefs, we write to express our disappointment in your decision not to issue an executive order to include sexual orientation and gender identity among the prohibited forms of discrimination in the hiring and employment practices of U.S. government contractors.

We believe that no one should face discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity: Our various faith traditions and belief systems counsel the treatment of all people with dignity. They inspire us to act with compassion and to work to ensure that all are accorded respect and equal opportunity. Moreover, many of us draw on our experience as members of groups that historically have known discrimination as a reminder of the importance of such anti-discrimination measures as a means of ensuring fairness in employment.

LGBT Americans face significant discrimination and harassment in the workplace, which threatens their and their families’ economic security. Research has shown that up to 43 percent of gay Americans have experienced some form of workplace discrimination or harassment; this number is significantly higher for transgender Americans (90%). Moreover, between 8 and 17 percent of LGBT workers said that they had been passed over for a job or fired as a result of their sexual orientation or gender identity. As a result of this discrimination, 14 percent of LGBT Americans earn less than $10,000 per year, compared to only six percent of all Americans (Center for American Progress and the Williams Institute, Memo to Congressman Barney Frank re: LGBT Equality in Government Contracting, January 13, 2012).

The concept of prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in employment is supported among Americans of all political stripes. A poll commissioned by the Center for American Progress discovered that almost three-quarters of those asked supported protecting LGBT people from discrimination in the workplace. Supermajorities of Democrats (81%), Independents (74%), and Republicans (66%) all supported anti-discrimination provisions (Memo to Congressman Barney Frank re: LGBT Equality in Government Contracting).

For these reasons, we strongly urge you to reconsider issuing an executive order prohibiting discrimination by U.S. government contractors on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Signed,

Anti-Defamation League

American Humanist Association

American Conference of Cantors

Central Conference of American Rabbis

Center for Inquiry

The Episcopal Church

The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries

Friends Committee on National Legislation

Global Justice Ministries

Interfaith Alliance

Institute for Science and Human Values

Jewish Reconstructionist Federation

Metropolitan Community Churches

Muslims for Progressive Values

National Council of Jewish Women

National Council of Churches USA

National Minority AIDS Council

Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association

Secular Coalition for America

Union for Reform Judaism

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries

Women of Reform Judaism

As I wrote last week, I traveled to New York City this past Saturday to speak at a rally organized by Unite Women, an outfit working to band together people against the recent attacks on women’s rights—in part by orchestrating marches and rallies across the United States on April 28. Unite Women has been endorsed by a wide range of groups, such as the Center for Inquiry, Americans United for Separation for Church and State, Catholics for Choice, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

The rally in New York City was a success, as were—at least according to news reports—rallies in Arizona, Virginia, Connecticut, and Texas.

While you can watch actress Martha Plimpton’s wonderful address here, I haven’t seen a recording of my speech (or any other speech, for that matter). So, as friends have been asking for it, here is my speech in text form:

Hello! Thank you for coming! As was said in my introduction, I work at the Center for Inquiry. We are proud to be one of the sponsors for this great rally!

For those who don’t know of us, CFI is a nonprofit organization that advances reason, science, and secular values through education and advocacy. You can find more information at our table, which is being staffed by our outreach branch here in New York City.

Now ... my job at CFI is director of government relations. That means I lobby Congress and the Administration for separation of religion and government; for public policy based on scientific evidence and the Constitution; and to protect civil rights.

I am also CFI’s representative to the United Nations, where I work to combat efforts by Islamic countries to restrict basic human rights.

So, in short: not all “lobbyists” are bad!

I’m very honored to be here today, to share the stage with so many esteemed speakers. But let’s be honest: it is appalling that, in the year 2012, we have to hold rallies to demand reproductive rights and equality of sexes.

And while I hate to be a downer, it’s worth pondering for a moment why we are here today—where this war on women comes from. There is a range of factors, but I would submit that religious belief and religious tradition play central roles. And I see evidence for this across the world.

In the U.S., the Catholic Church is focusing much of its energy on fighting simple, effective rules that require insurance companies to cover preventative health care such as contraception and birth control.

Meanwhile, religiously conservative politicians in Congress and statehouses are working to limit a woman’s access to abortion in record numbers. They are also working to defund Planned Parenthood— which, as it turns out, largely provides contraception, cancer screenings, and treatment for STDS. And they want to slash funding for services that protect and help women who have been victims of rape, and domestic abuse.

On the global stage, the Church is also working with political leaders in South America to limit reproductive rights; and in Africa to restrict the use of contraception.

And the picture is even grimmer in some Islamic and Asian countries, where some young women are subjected to the brutal practice of genital mutilation and experience very restricted social lives.

These represent just the tip of the iceberg. Yet these ... these are prime examples of religious belief controlling public policy and public life.

Now, I believe a woman should have full control over her reproductive system. And I believe all persons deserve the full range of moral and legal rights equally—regardless of social or cultural context.

And as my friends and family know, I could give a philosophical lecture on “why” I believe all of this for a good hour. But since I’m probably already over my time, allow me to summarize my thoughts as such:

Religious institutions and their dogma have no place in public policy.

And because I know someone will take this statement as an attack on the right of religious believers to believe and practice as they would like, let me also say this:

I would defend, at risk of death, the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, belief, and expression, but here is what I ask in return: please do not force your religious doctrines on me—or on us. If you don’t want to use contraception or have an abortion, fine. But there are no good secular reasons to restrict reproductive health care or equality among the sexes.

The United States is not a theocracy. We live in an open, pluralistic society with a secular constitution. Our government should be neutral on the matter of religion—neither supporting it nor hindering it. Our laws should not be based on faith, which is private, but on reason and evidence, which are public. They should be able to withstand the most critical of scientific and philosophical inquiries.

Now, all of this is very important, and we ought to think, talk, write, and rally on these issues as much as we can. But let’s remember to not stop with social advocacy—let’s leave here today committed to political engagement.

As others today have said, voting is an important and essential first step in this area. But we can’t sit back after people get voted into office and hope it all goes well. We need to let our elected officials know our views—and often. Write and call your representatives and tell them you stand for reproductive freedom, for full equality, and for government neutrality on religion.

Anything less would leave the health and rights of women to the religious right—and we have seen the damage they can do.

Your representatives need to hear from you— from us. Now let’s use today as a launching point and go make our voices heard!

Let me know if you have any thoughts.

On Saturday, April 28, I will speak before an expected crowd of thousands in New York City as part of a nationwide effort led by the organization Unite Women to help raise awareness on the recent attacks on women’s rights and urge those who care to get politically engaged. The movement is endorsed by a wide range of groups, such as the Center for Inquiry, Americans United for Separation for Church and State, Catholics for Choice, and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

I have noticed that many people—mostly secularist and liberal religionist friends—who would normally support women’s rights have not embraced the term “war on women” and avoided the movement fighting under its banner. I’m not sure why. Perhaps they don’t actually think there is a war going on, or maybe the language strikes them as inflammatory (it is, a bit) and they don’t like conflict.

Well, I think there is much evidence to support to the term “war on women,” and I think it’s a mistake to avoid the current conflict. So, I would like to briefly outline major anti-women legislative actions in the hope that, by the end my essay, those who have been sitting on the sidelines will decide to join tens of thousands across the U.S. on April 28 in working to combat such actions, or else get involved in some other way.

The foremost evidence for the “war on women” is found in recent attacks on reproductive rights by the religious right. In fact, these attacks alone could quality as a war on women. State lawmakers set a record in 2011 for the most anti-reproductive rights provisions enacted in a single year, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Legislators introduced more than 1,100 provisions last year, and enacted 135 of them. To help put this in perspective, 89 such provisions were enacted in 2010, 77 in 2009, and only 34 in 2005. Unfortunately, this pace has not slowed much.

The measures include, but are not limited to:

• “Personhood” proposals that would allow states to completely outlaw abortion, and even emergency contraception. These have had success in states such as Virginia and Oklahoma, and are now being pushed in Nevada.
• “Fetal pain” laws – now in place in Arizona, Georgia, Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Alabama – that ban abortion after 20 weeks;
• Laws that require physicians to perform ultrasounds, and then show and describe the image of the fetus to the woman asking for an abortion;
• Mandatory waiting periods – some as long as 72 hours – between ultrasounds and abortions, which negatively impact women who are poor, without transportation, and/or live in rural areas. Keep in mind that 87 percent of U.S. counties do not have an abortion clinic.
• New regulations on abortion clinics, regarding things like the amount of space in janitorial rooms, and other requirements, which make it physically or financially impossible for many abortion clinics to remain open.
• Efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide range of critical reproductive health services to women across the U.S.

As I’ve previously written, these attacks are wrong on several fronts. There are no serious philosophical arguments in favor of extending the full range of moral or legal rights to embryos and fetuses. We do not grant such rights to mere “human life,” such as small collections of cells, but to beings that have at least some degree of sentience, self-awareness, or agency. Fertilized human eggs clearly lack all three, as do fetuses until at least 28 weeks, if not later. Moreover, the “fetal pain” argument is moot, as only 1.4 percent happen after 21 weeks, and women who receive late term abortions usually do so because of health reasons (in which case the interests of the mother, a fully grown human being, win out) or difficulty in setting one up (thanks to anti-reproductive rights efforts!).

Furthermore, religious doctrines simply have no place in public policy. They are either untrue or too specifically sectarian for law in a pluralistic society – or both. In sum, women ought to have access to full reproductive health care, and the privacy to make a decision over her body with her doctor.

Fortunately, many of the aforementioned reproductive rights laws have been struck down in courts as clearly violating the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, and several later decisions. Yet while attacks on reproductive rights merit serious consideration, lawmakers have taken much broader political action against women that provides stronger evidence for a “war on women.”

Consider just these five examples:

• A large number of Senate and House Republicans opposed the 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which provides women greater legal avenues to pursue equal pay lawsuits (which are unfortunately all too necessary);
• Some Republicans have said they will continue to work to repeal the law;
• Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker recently repealed the state’s equal pay act, charging that it could “clog up the legal system.”
• Florida Gov. Rick Scott (who we’ve discussed here before) last week vetoed $1.5 million in funding for state rape crisis centers.
• And Senate and House Republicans are currently holding up the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg. 

Equality is among the most basic of moral ideas, so it would seem uncontroversial to state that men and women ought to be treated equally, and that we should act to reverse situations in which this is not the case. As evidenced above, apparently many elected officials do not accept this proposition. They should be ashamed of themselves. 

Of course, many of those prosecuting the war on women are women. Consider the statements and positions of just a couple female lawmakers or political leaders across the U.S: Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-New Hampshire), Rep. Michele Bachman (R-Minnesota), South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Yet whether or not all women agree with these actions, they are negatively affecting all women. First, it is hard, if not impossible, to predict how one’s feelings might change regarding abortion depending on the circumstances, such as threats to the mother’s health or severe birth defects. Even the wife of Rick Santorum, who believes abortion is always wrong, apparently took advantage of her legal access to abortion-type services. As such, I think it helps everyone to keep abortion accessible, and let people decide if they would like to partake or not. Or else you get horrible stories stories like these. Second, the attacks on outfits such as Planned Parenthood have an impact not on just reproductive health, but on the overall quality of a woman’s health. Yes, Planned Parenthood performs reproductive services, but they also provide a wide range of health services, such as cancer screenings, regular check ups, contraception coverage, STD-related work, and more. Lastly, we live in a bad economy in which we all have lesser choices, and most women fewer choices than men merely because of their sexual orientation. Their choices become even fewer when they lose control of their reproductive systems and are subjected to unfair economic situations.

All of this is why I think one can reasonably argue there is an ongoing social phenomenon that could be described as a war on women’s rights. It doesn’t matter whether the war is being waged by the religious right or by economic conservatives, or whether these lawmakers are doing it to distract from their lack of solutions for real political problems. It is happening. The question then becomes: what should we do? I think there are two answers. 

Increasing the scope and turning up the volume of the conversation on women’s rights is an important first step, and the Unite Women marches and rallies on April 28 will help. But if you can’t make it on April 28, there are plenty of other things you can do. Write letters to the editor. Write and comment on blog posts and online news articles. Attend local hearings and public forums and voice your opinions. Post links to Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and whatever other social networks you use. Do whatever you can to spread the message.

But that is not enough. A majority of Americans could agree about reproductive rights and sex equality, and yet a small group of lawmakers could still work to pass opposition measures in Congress and statehouses across the U.S.

This is why we need not just social action, but also political action. Sign up for and fill out action alerts as much as possible (here, here, and here) and let lawmakers know that you oppose or support pending legislation. Call, write, or schedule meetings with them to state and explain your views. Write federal agendies when comment periods are open on federal regulations and rules. Hold them accountable. Tell them that they should either support your views, or face the prospect of looking for a new job next election.

You might think that all of this is relatively inconsequential, but that is not true. The more that elected officials hear from you, the more they have to consider your points of view. Remember, they want to keep their job. Also, the more that the public hears the logic and reasons for reproductive rights and sex equality, the greater the chances those who agree might get involved, and those who don’t—either they sit on the fence or lean right—might actually learn something and shift their views. Which means that politicians might have to consider your viewpoints sooner than they thought.

The kinds of social and political action I’m discussing here does not take as much time as you might think, and there is no guarantee anyone else will take up the cause. Simply put, a couple moments of your time could make a difference.

So, yes, there is a war on women—but we have the power to fight back. If you’re near New York City on April 28, please join us. Or, if you live in a different part of the country, visit UniteWomen.org to connect with a march in your neighborhood. Or, if you can’t make any of the events, take some notes from above and get involved. Anything less would leave reproductive rights and sex equality to the religious right and economic conservatives. And we’ve seen the damage they can do.

Note: this entry is also posted on The Moral Perspective.

As you have probably already heard, the controversial public figure Andrew Breitbart died on March 1 of a heart attack. He was 43 years old.

Breitbart’s main line of business was news, in particular, web news. Early in his career, he helped Arianna Huffington start The Huffington Post. He then proceeded to found the web sites Breitbart TV, Big Hollywood, Big Government, Big Journalism, and Big Peace. Yet he is perhaps best well known for being an advocate and commentator who supported the Tea Party movement, railed against the Occupy movement, harshly criticized liberals, and was a major force behind several public stunts — most notably the ACORN video controversy and the resignation of U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod. You can read more about Breitbart’s exploits here.

You might recall that I have previously written about the last of those exploits, Sherrod’s resignation. To refresh your memory: Breitbart posted on his website an edited clip of a longer speech by Sherrod that, without context located elsewhere in the talk, made her look racist. This led to her forced resignation by then Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. In my article, published August 2, 2010, I argued that while Breitbart was responsible for Sherrod’s downfall, a host of other actors — conservative pundits, lawmakers such as Vilsack, and the American public — were also to blame for blindly accepting the claims or bowing to the commands of a man who, for all intents and purposes, had made a career out of smearing his opponents and enemies.

So, it surprised a couple of my friends to learn that I think America — if not the world — will be better off without Breitbart. Given the arguments laid out in my previous article, outlining that Breitbart wasn’t nearly as bad as many liberals made him out to be, how could I possibly believe that? Allow me to explain.

One of the first things I read after Breitbart’s death was an article in the Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi, titled “Death of a Douche.” As you can imagine, the article was not entirely kind to Breitbart. I say “not entirely” because Taibbi does give Breitbart some credit. Then again, Breitbart would have expected, and perhaps accepted, nothing less than Taibbi’s treatment. Remember that this was the man who called the late Sen. Ted Kennedy a “villain,” “big ass motherf@#$er,” “a duplicitous bastard, “a prick,” and “a special pile of human excrement” — all in the just three hours following his death.

In the days following Breitbart’s death, I posted Taibbi’s article on a couple of social media web sites, and passed it along to friends. As I said, I received pushback, which came in three kinds:

1. “You and others are giving Breitbart too much credit. He didn’t have that much power to do harm. He didn’t get Sherrod fired.”

2. “The guy had a wife and four kids. I heard he was a good father and husband, and a nice guy. Lay off.”

3. “How could you have rooted for anyone’s death? Or even be happy that he’s dead? Are you sick?”

Whether or not my friends had read my previous article on Breitbart’s exploits — some had, most hadn’t — they were throwing my own arguments back in my face. For reference, let’s go back and read what I wrote in that August 2010 essay:

“Let me be clear: this essay is neither pardoning the behavior of Breitbart … Rather, this essay argues that while people often find it convenient to blame the media, in this case Breitbart and FOX News, for social problems, they ought to realize that it is a social problem that feeds the media. That is, Breitbart and media outlets cannot be understood apart from the social and political context in which they exist. Why does Breitbart have the power he has? Why do people listen to Breitbart? Because they agree with him.”

I continued:

“By blaming social problems on one man or one organization, we thus ignore the social reality that these men and organizations are backed by millions of Americans, and make the problem out to be much simpler than it really is. They would not exist in such powerful roles without the support of a sizable number of people.”

Here is where things get sticky:

“Contrary to what many would tell you, Breitbart and FOX News did not create the Tea Party and the extreme Right which wants to disable Obama and his administration in any and every way possible. Instead of blaming them for creating social problems, we ought to consider the complex and numerous factors that influence what we see represented and supported in the media, and ponder how much of an effort we’ve made in the battle against that with which we disagree. Anything less would wrongly simplify our problems and let everyone off the hook too easily.”

In hindsight, I admit that I used poor wording. In no way was I trying to excuse Breitbart and others for their actions. In many cases — certainly in the Sherrod case — Breitbart lied to or intentionally misled people to achieve his own goals. Without Breitbart’s actions, Shirley Sherrod would probably still have her job.

My central point was that Breitbart was not the only person responsible. He can’t create a controversy, or for that matter an entire movement, without some help. Many sections of the public were willing to be misled, perhaps because of their lack of skepticism or their prior beliefs about racism, big government, etc. This does not absolve Breitbart of his sins, it merely spreads the blame around. I hope this is now clear.

The other two points are not necessarily related to my previous article, but they are worth considering for a moment.

Regarding the second point: is there a rule written somewhere regarding how soon after a person’s death the public can discuss his or her merits (and demerits)? Is there a rule that only neutral things, or even good things are to be said, because that person’s family members or friends might be reading or watching? I certainly don’t recall these rules being in effect for the worst dictators of human history. I don’t recall them being in effect for even lesser evils, such as convicted mass murderers and terrorists. Do you recall hearing anything like: “Hey, why are you saying so many bad things about Timothy McVeigh?! He just died! And he had a family … and friends. Give it a couple of years. Stop being so mean.” I am going to guess not.

If McVeigh doesn’t work for you, try substituting Osama Bin Laden or Joseph Stalin (I’ve purposely not mentioned you know who). I hope you see my point. Sure, the people in question might have treated their significant others and friends well, and even been nice guys in private. But their actions had disastrous — or, rather, deadly — consequences for hundreds, thousands, even millions of people.

I am not comparing Breitbart to McVeigh, Stalin, or Bin Laden, who were explicitly murderous, but the facts are clear: Breitbart made a living by issuing intentionally misleading and/or inflammatory statements and behaving in a provocative manner, with the goal of destroying those who disagreed with him. He succeeded often. His statements and actions were public, and as such are perfectly fit for debate and criticism. No one knocked on his family’s door, or sent them personal letters (in fact, I extend sympathy to his family). Taibbi’s article was written in Rolling Stone, a magazine that often features public debate. It did not criticize his personal life. It criticized the (I would say radical) beliefs and actions he placed in the public square for all to see and feel. And it did this in retrospect, given his death. So, where’s the problem?

Regarding the final point, I didn’t see anyone rooting for Breitbart’s death, although I wouldn’t be surprised to learn some had. That seems disturbing. I considered Breitbart toxic, but not so much as a murderous dictator. He wasn’t killing people; he just knew how to unethically manipulate public opinion.

That said, I still think the world is slightly better off without Andrew Breitbart and his work. I wanted him to be exposed and less valued in our society — not dead. But I am not going to miss him. Are you?

Note: my views do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Inquiry.  

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) today wrote to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius asking her to reject lobbying efforts to require health insurance providers and organizations to cover acupuncture, and instead base the government’s rules for health care coverage on science and reason.

As you might have already heard, the American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (AAAOM) and other alternative medicine interest groups are attempting to persuade HHS to categorize acupuncture as an Essential Health Benefit (EHB) under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This designation would require health insurance providers and organizations providing health care plans to cover the practice without a co-pay, deductible, or additional insurance.

According to the Institute of Medicine, for a service to be eligible as an EHB, it must: (1) be safe, (2) be medically effective, (3) demonstrate meaningful improvement, (4) be a medical service, and (5) be cost effective.

As we write in our letter, acupuncture meets none of these five criteria.

Proponents of acupuncture repeatedly claim that acupuncture is a safe, efficacious, and cost effective complement to conventional medicine. However, such claims are unjustified, and rely on dubious and discredited research. In fact, an increasingly robust body of empirical evidence has shown that acupuncture is unproven, unscientific, and has no clinical value beyond a placebo effect. Medical interventions that perform no better than placebos should not be covered by the government. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not approve drugs as “safe and effective” when they perform no better than placebos. Similarly, HHS should not classify a procedure as an EHB when it provides no benefits beyond what could be expected from a placebo.

The adoption of acupuncture as an EHB would add significant costs to the United States’ already overburdened health care system, and lower standards of medical training and treatment. It would also lend dangerous and undue authority to pseudoscience, ultimately degrading respect for science in the public realm.

We will let you know if and when we hear anything.

The survey, which can be downloaded here, found similar consensus among all likely voters. Eighty-five percent of all respondents agreed that presidential candidates should participate in a science-focused debate on issues such as health care, climate change, energy, education, and innovation. In comparison, 89 percent of Democrats, 83 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of Protestants, 82 percent of Catholics, 85 percent of women, and 83 percent of men agreed.

In fact, respondents ranked science as the third most important presidential debate topic (84 percent), behind just foreign policy/national security (87 percent) and the economy/taxes (93 percent). Meanwhile, faith and values finished last (52 percent). These findings fit well with last month’s Pew poll, which showed that more Americans than not think political leaders are talking too much about their religious beliefs.

Another interesting result from the new poll: 81 percent of Republicans said it was wrong for elected officials to squash or interfere with scientific reports that conflict with their own views, compared to just 75 percent of Democrats.

The survey was commissioned by ScienceDebate.org, a nonprofit dedicated to elevating the role of science in American public dialogue. It was conducted online by JZ Analytics (John Zogby, Senior Analyst) in partnership with Research!America and ScienceDebate.org.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) for the second year in a row has adopted a resolution aimed at combating religious intolerance that does not include language referring to the harmful “defamation of religions” concept, and that instead focuses on protecting and promoting the rights to freedom of belief and expression.

The resolution, A/HRC/19/L.7, reads in part:  

Reaffirming the commitment made by all States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to, inter alia, religion or belief.

Reaffirming the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion or belief and to implement measures to guarantee the equal and effective protection of the law. ...

Reaffirming further the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious intolerance. ...

The HRC also approved a similar resolution, A/HRC/19/L.23, that states:

9. Urges States to step up their efforts to protect and promote freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, and to this end:

(a) To ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief to all without distinction by, inter alia, the provision of access to justice and effective remedies in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief or the right to freely practise one’s religion, including the right to change one’s religion or belief, is violated;

(b) To ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or security of person because of religion or belief, and that no one is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or arbitrary arrest or detention on that account, and to bring to justice all perpetrators of violations of these rights;

(c) To end violations of the human rights of women and to devote particular attention to abolishing practices and legislation that discriminates against women, including in the exercise of their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief;

(d) To ensure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion or belief in their access to, inter alia, education, medical care, employment, humanitarian assistance or social benefits, and to ensure that everyone has the right and the opportunity to have access, on general terms of equality, to public services in their country, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or belief;

These votes mark another in a string of recent victories at the UN for supporters of the open, secular society, and especially the Center for Inquiry. CFI holds special consultative status as a non-governmental organization (NGO) under the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and has for years fought against attempts to restrict basic human rights, such as freedom of belief and expression, guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In years past, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a group of 57 states promoting Islamic values, had successfully pushed for a UN resolution urging states to combat the so-called “defamation of religions.” The non-binding resolution — which effectively provided cover for blasphemy laws that targeted religious dissidents, minorities, and nonbelievers — was passed annually by the 193-nation UN General Assembly for more than ten years.

However, in March 2011 the HRC voted unanimously for a new resolution, A/HRC/RES/16/18, that made no mention of “defamation of religions.” Rather, the measure aimed to protect believers, stating that “discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes a violation of human rights.” The defamation-free resolution was then adopted by the General Assembly in December 2011 for the first time in more than a decade.

Yet while CFI considers the passage of these two measures progress, we remain concerned about troubling language contained in both, such as:

Condemns ... any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means;

CFI denounces the advocacy and incitement of violence, intolerance, and discrimination, but this line—which is also found in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—could be interpreted expansively to provide citizens with a “right” to not be insulted in their religious feelings, and a “right” to respect for their religious beliefs. These supposed rights have no grounding in international human rights law, nor do they align with the concept of an open, secular society. International law guarantees freedom of religious exercise, not freedom from insult. It guarantees nondiscrimination for individual believers, not respect for belief systems. The UN should work to protect individual religious believers from discrimination, but it should do so without leaving room for laws that shield religious belief systems from criticism, and threaten the rights of religious dissidents, religious minorities, and nonbelievers to express opinions that are unpopular with the majority.

We will continue to work at the UN to ensure that future resolutions and measures are employed to protect all individuals — believers and non-believers alike — without stifling freedom of belief and expression.

You can read more about CFI’s work at the UN here. 

More Americans than not think political leaders are talking too much about their religious beliefs, according to a national survey released earlier this week. 

The survey, conducted March 7-11 by the Pew Research Center, found that nearly four-in-ten Americans (38 percent) say there has been too much expression of religious faith from political leaders. Thirty percent feel there has been too little, while 25 percent believe there has been a proper amount of religious discussion in politics. 

The findings are almost a mirror image of the 2010 edition of this poll, in which more Americans felt there was too little religious expression from politicians (37 percent) than too much (29 percent).

Some other interesting findings in the Pew survey include:

• Most Americans (54 percent) continue to say that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of politics. It’s the third consecutive poll conducted over the past four years in which more people have said churches and other houses of worship should keep out of politics than said they should express their views on social and political topics, according to Pew. That’s also an about-face from 2006, when 51 percent of Americans believed churches should speak out and 46 percent said they should keep quiet.

• More people view the GOP as friendly to religion than say the same about the Democratic Party, a pattern observed for much of the past decade. ... At the same time, 51 percent of the public say that religious conservatives have too much control over the Republican Party.

• Opinions about whether the Obama administration is friendly toward religion have shifted modestly since 2009. Currently, 39 percent say the administration is friendly to religion, 32 percent say it is neutral and 23 percent say it is unfriendly. The balance of opinion was comparable in August 2009, although somewhat fewer (17 percent) said the administration was unfriendly to religion.

• Since October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the rise in the number saying there has been too much religious expression by political leaders has been most pronounced among Democrats and independents. Nearly half of Democrats (46 percent) now say there has been too much discussion of religious faith and prayer by politicians, as do 42 percent of independents. The number of Republicans expressing unease with the amount of politicians’ religious talk also has increased (from 8 percent in 2001 to 24 percent currently). But Republicans have consistently been less inclined than either Democrats or independents to say there has been too much religious talk from political leaders.

You can read the full results here.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) and International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) today issued a joint statement at the 19th annual session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva that urged the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation  (OIC) to protect basic human rights in their own countries if they are truly concerned about hostilities toward Muslims. 

Our statement was read by Raheel Raza, an IHEU representative and Muslim activist who lives in Canada.

You can watch Raza deliver the statement here. The speech reads as follows:

Madam President,

We welcome the initiative of the OIC aimed at combating religious intolerance, the so-called Istanbul Process. But we believe the OIC needs to do far more to eliminate the root causes of hostility towards Muslims. Such hostility as exists in the West did not arise in a vacuum—there is, for example, no equivalent hostility towards Hindus. Much of the hostility is a reaction to how we Muslims are seen: with reports of Muslims killing Christians in Egypt; Sunnis massacring Shias in Pakistan; Shias killing Sunnis and driving Christians from their homes in Iraq; Iran treating Bahais as spies for Israel; the persecution of Ahmadis and Christians in the Punjab; Christianity banned in Saudi Arabia; the heavy penalties for apostasy in many Islamic states; and Afghanistan once again in the hands of men who oppress women.  

One conclusion that can be drawn from the recent Pew Forum report [1] is that the safest place to be a Muslim is in the West. But, while Imams in Europe rail against democracy, against male and female equality, and against rights and freedoms achieved after centuries of struggle against oppression, it should come as no surprise that such calls are greeted with hostility.

Where in all this is there any hope for Islam to be seen as a religion of peace and of respect for human rights?

The Islamic States need to demonstrate their recognition that Human Rights belong to everyone, regardless of race, religion, citizenship, sex or gender identity.

Tolerance, Mr. President, is a two-way street. If the OIC are genuinely seeking greater tolerance towards Islam, we strongly suggest they need to pay far more attention to their problems at home.

Thank you, madam President

Notes:

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Restrictions-on-Religion.aspx

CFI once again welcomed the opportunity to collaborate with the IHEU on this project, as the two organizations share many common goals. CFI, like the IHEU, holds special consultative status as a non-governmental organization (NGO) under the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and has for years fought against attempts to restrict basic human rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Our statement comes just months after the UN General Assembly approved a resolution aimed at combating religious intolerance that did not include language referring to the harmful “defamation of religions” concept. In years past, the OIC had pushed successfully for Human Rights Council resolutions urging states to combat the so-called “defamation of religions.” The non-binding resolution—which effectively provided cover for blasphemy laws that targeted religious dissidents, religious minorities, and nonbelievers—was passed annually by the 193-nation General Assembly for more than ten years.

However, the Human Rights Council in early 2011 voted unanimously to approve a new resolution that makes no mention of “defamation of religions.” This came to fruition in December 2011 when the General Assembly adopted by consensus the new text, which “strongly deplores all acts of violence against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, as well as all attacks on and in religious places, sites and shrines in violation of international law” and calls on countries to take actions “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.” The new resolution was a major victory for supporters of the open, secular society, though it had its shortcomings.

CFI will continue to work at the UN to ensure that future resolutions and measures are employed to protect all individuals — believers and non-believers alike — without stifling freedom of belief and expression.

You can read more about CFI’s work at the UN here. 

In celebration of Darwin Day, the Center for Inquiry-New York City and New York City Skeptics on Feb. 12, 2012, explored these and related questions with a panel discussion featuring prominent psychologists Laurie Santos, director of the Comparative Cognition Laboratory at Yale University, and Felix Warneken, Department of Psychology at Harvard University. Drs. Santos and Warneken joined Massimo Pigliucci, philosopher at the City University of New York, for a discussion about altruism, decision making, and the evolution of human cognition.

Full video of this event is now available on CFI’s YouTube page.

Click here to watch.