Note: the views expressed below are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Inquiry, its affiliates, or its employees.

Earlier this week, Greta Christina wrote a thought-provoking blog post on whether it would be “mission drift” for atheist and skeptic organizations to widen the scope of their work and engage in social justice activism.

As you might already be aware, this issue has been at the center of heated discussion in the atheist and skeptic communities since blogger Jen McCreight proposed the concept “Atheism+” in 2012. However, the subject of how broadly formal atheist and skeptic organizations should interpret their missions actually stretches back to their inception in the 1970s. 

That history is important, but in the interest of time, I would like have to leave it aside for now and move on. 

The position put forth by Greta (and that of most Atheism+ advocates) is as follows:

a) atheism and skepticism are philosophically consistent with moving “into new areas having to do with politics and social justice”;

b) fighting for social justice is a moral good; therefore,

c) atheist and skeptic organizations should broaden their work to include social justice activism, both internally (hiring, event organizing) and externally (political advocacy).

In theory, I largely agree. I would counter-argue that being an atheist does not necessarily mean a person should or will care about social justice (see: Ayn Rand), whereas humanism and its positive ethical outlook is more closely linked to caring about social justice. However, since it appears Greta essentially equates atheism (or, Atheism+) with humanism, then in substance we agree. 

Furthermore, I view skepticism as a philosophical process in which humans employ reason and science to critically examine any and all claims to knowledge — no sacred cows. You can read more about my views on skepticism here and here. As such, I agree that skepticism can — and, in fact, should — be used to example claims related to social justice. 

Yet, theory aside, I think there are practical reasons atheist and skeptic organizations might hesitate to widen the scope of their work and engage in social justice activism.

Before getting to those reasons, let me clear up a few things.

First, there is no tension between theory and practice internally speaking. For example, atheist and skeptic organizations should practice fair hiring standards, and adopt just harassment policies at their events. Moreover, at their events, atheist and skeptic organizations should try to include speakers who discuss a wide range of issues, including social justice, from atheist and skeptic perspectives. 

Second, some atheist and skeptic organizations already support social justice work. For example, the Center for Inquiry sponsors events like Women in Secularism, programs like African Americans for Humanism, and through its Office of Public Policy advocates for LGBT, women’s, and civil rights. So, the question for some atheist and skeptic organizations is not whether to engage in social justice activism at all; it is whether to engage in more social justice activism. 

However, organizations still face practical obstacles in considering this shift. The most obvious one is that most atheist and skeptic organizations have very small staffs and limited resources; widening their scope to include (more) social justice activism would mean spending less time working on issues core to their mission.

In other words, the more time atheist organizations devote to social justice activism, the less time they can devote to keeping religion out of our laws. The more time skeptic organizations devote to social justice activism, the less time they can devote to protecting the public from frauds like Sylvia Browne. 

To be absolutely clear: I believe social justice activism is philosophically consistent with the missions of atheist and skeptic organizations, that social justice activism is a moral good, and that atheist and skeptic organizations should do more of it. But the truth is that these organizations are already stretched thin trying to focus on core mission goals such as defending separation of church and state, or promoting scientific knowledge and critical thinking. An increase in social justice activism would spread these already thin resources even thinner.

For example, the Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy has one full-time staffer (me) and one part-time staffer (Ed Beck). That’s it. Our mandate is to advocate for reason, science, and secular values at all levels of government — from Congress to statehouses across the U.S.; from the Obama Administration to foreign governments and the United Nations.

As you can imagine, we work overtime simply trying to keep up with issues that fall within the strict boundaries of religion and government, and science and policy. These include:

• Protecting the rights to freedom of religion, belief, and expression;
• Defending reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care;
• Closing loopholes that allow religious groups receiving taxpayer funds to discriminate against employees and beneficiaries on the basis of religion;
• Preventing the growth of school voucher programs that divert taxpayer dollars from the public education system to private and religious schools;
• Informing lawmakers about the scientific consensus on climate change and encouraging appropriate legislative action;
• Educating policy makers on the lack of evidence for alternative medicine.

We also advocate on social justice issues such as marriage and gender equality (I am told some of our outreach communities also help out at public schools in low-income areas). For having such a small staff, I think we get an impressive amount of work accomplished. But, given our resources, we have to be careful in regards to how many issues we take on. Would it be feasible right now to expand our scope much further? Unfortunately, I don’t think so. 

It is worth noting here the Center for Inquiry, at least financially speaking, is the largest atheist/skeptic organization out there. If CFI’s resources are limited, what do you think it looks like at other organizations?  

There are at least two other obstacles organizations might consider.

One is that there already exist many organizations working on social justice issues, many of which are experts in the field. In the same way, some might say atheist and skeptic organizations exist for a certain purpose, are experts in their respective fields, and ought to focus on accomplishing their respective missions. Few organizations exist to advocate for secular government, and even less to protect the public from psychics and false medicine. 

There is some merit to this point, but notice that it does not address the proposition that social justice work is important and more of it needs to be done. I would add that atheists and skeptics have valuable voices add to conversations about social justice; these conversations are poorer without them. 

Another obstacle to consider is membership and donations. I imagine many people who give money to atheist groups care deeply about ending the stigma attached to being an atheist, and ending the influence of religion on public life. Atheist groups might then lose financial support if they begin working outside of those goals (again, see: Ayn Rand). The same might be said about skeptic groups which have traditionally focused on investigating extraordinary claims relating to the paranormal. They might lose financial support if they turn their gaze toward social justice issues.

I see some merit to these points, but notice that they do not address the proposition that social justice work is important and more of it needs to be done. I think there is also something to be said for the idea that widening the tent to include social justice work will bring in more donors (though there are limits here to how wide an organization’s mission can be without losing its sense of purpose). 

In closing, I think the most compelling obstacle atheist and skeptic organizations face in getting (more) involved in social justice activism is that they do not currently have the resources to ably peform such work without letting work on issues core to their missions fall by the wayside. However, this does not mean atheist and skeptic organizations cannot or should not ably perform such work; it simply means that for it to happen, they need help. More specifically, they need the funds to hire more people.

This is where the atheist and skeptic communities comes in. As someone who tends to think practically and diplomatically, I deeply value my more idealistic colleagues who consistently force me to rethink my positions and perhaps push harder, or into new areas, related to secularism and science. 

But, at some point, the rubber meets the road. Yes, atheist and skeptic organizations need to be convinced to expand their work into new areas such as social justice.

But they also need something much more practical: money.   

On May 2, CFI and other organizations will take part in protests around the world against the persecution of atheist bloggers and other dissidents in Bangladesh.  

1

What comes to mind when affronted by the picture above? If you didn’t know the story behind the picture, or if you hadn’t been online for the last month, you very well might think that the men standing before you are a gang of thieves who have been caught red-handed. Perhaps this is a picture that border guards have posted of some poachers or drug dealers that they have recently detained.

But alas, your speculations would be incorrect if you did indeed believe that the men arrested in this picture are drug lords, poachers, or criminals of any kind. They are, however, a group of brilliant writers. These men are known as Bangladeshi bloggers; the items that are displayed in front of them – the bloggers’ own computers and laptops – have been seized and searched by Bangladesh’s law enforcement. What a nice catch our police force has made!

At times, I fall speechless when asked if I have anything to say about the sorry case of the writers in our country. So many readers like me read their conceptions with such devotion, using their articles as a means to enhance our knowledge as well as our own logic skills. I was even personally acquainted with one of the accused “atheist” bloggers, Subrata Shuvo, who had wanted to publish one of his articles on Mukto-Mona (www.mukto-mona.com, a site for freethinkers of mainly Bengali and South Asian descent which I use to moderate), several weeks ago. His proposed story was on Mr. Shahidul Haque [aka: Shahidul mama (Uncle)], who was a freedom fighter of 1971. It was through Shuvo’s writing that I learned how S. Haque was the major eyewitness of Quader Molla’s – an evil war criminal’s – trial. Since S. Haque was a guerilla fighter, he saw the brutal genocide conducted under Quader Molla’s command. Haque was also an activist in the protests and riots of ’66 and of ’69.

Before reading Subrata’s story, I never knew a person such as Mr. Haque had existed – a person who is so passionate, brilliant, and brave, a person who loves his country more than I do. This fearless soldier came back from Sweden just to testify against Quader Molla, in the hope that he and countless others would finally achieve justice. “I won’t complain against the tribunal, but the sentence (that Quader Molla was only given life in prison) is simply outrageous” said Mr. Shahidul, where many had expected the vicious criminal to be hanged until death, at the very least. Shubrata’s writings covered various topics, examples of which are titled, “Interview: Ferdousi Priyovashini on freedom fighters & war children” and “Daily Shangram: their contribution on covering 1971’s 25^th March.” Both articles were proof of the profound love that Shubrata felt for his homeland. There is no doubt that, because of youths like him, the Shahbag movement could awaken the people of Bangladesh.

And how does our government respond to his actions? Instead of praising or even acknowledging his patriotic contributions to the Bangladeshi community, they locked him behind bars. Their rationale? His ‘atheism’. After hearing about such horrific proceedings, I started reading Subrata’s Bangla blog on mukto-mona to see for myself why the government had taken such offense. To my surprise, I could not find a single entry indicative of the so called radical atheistic mindset that he was being accused of. Well, Subrata did write an essay on Richard Dawkins, one of the famous atheist celebrities of our time, but we all know that Dawkins is more than just another atheist – he is one of the best scientists of our time! Even people with the vaguest interest in science are mesmerized with Dawkins’ writing and logical analyses. Just as a skilled piano player spellbinds us with his keys or as a poet captivates us with his lines, Dawkins’ logic entrances us with his in-depth explanations….and anyone can express gratitude towards him for this reason alone! I myself have done so several times. As I read Humyun Azad’s Shab kichu nashtoder Adhikare jabe (All will go to the rights of Evil), or when I recite Bangladesher Katha (Story of Bangladesh), I encounter the same contentment as when I read Dawkins’ works. Should such feelings really be measured on a spectrum separating atheism and theism? Even Einstein, arguably the most celebrated man on the planet, abandoned the idea of a personal savior, saying – “I don’t try to imagine a personal God; it suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.” The beauty and sublimity of Einstein’s words will no doubt affect a person’s mind, regardless of if he is an outspoken atheist or deeply religious.

Russell Pervez is another arrested blogger who was famous for his unique, hyper-article writing style in various Bangla blogs. His writings always reminded me of the style of the late Christopher Hitchens, because both writers used their immense knowledge in history, politics, science, literature, and religion to produce quality works. In a recent newspaper article, Arif Jebtik, the eminent blogger and columnist wrote a column in an online newspaper (bdnews24) under the title Ekmatro Bikalpa Bhalo Manushder Shakriyata(The only alternative is the activeness of a few good men)[1]. He began by asking why an exceptional scholar such as Russel would leave his comfortable and respectable life in the US to teach kids science in Bangladesh. Russell loved Bangladesh so much, that he left America for Bangladesh with his 2 year-old-child, despite the fact that his wife was still busy finishing her Ph.D. He took his son with him to book fairs, cultural programs, and to Shahid Minar to show gratitude towards our martyrs. He left America’s high-paying corporate jobs and took over teaching science in school instead. Soon, his wife joined him in Bangladesh, and she started teaching as well. One instant, Russell was busy spreading love for his country and knowledge about the freedom war of 1971; the next minute, he is in jail, accused of being an Atheist, which has suddenly become a punishable crime in our country.

The day after Asif Mohiuddin – another reputed blogger — was arrested, he was interrogated by the detective branch about his earlier protests against the raised fees that Jagannath University’s students had been afflicted with. His writing — which was heavily critical of religious dogma, bigotry and superstition – and his political activism angered the government, as well as marked the beginning of the threats he received from fundamentalists. These threats eventually led to action in mid-January this year. Mohiuddin was brutally stabbed and severely injured by three suspected but unidentified Islamist fundamentalists. When Asif returned, the BTRC (The Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission) allegedly told the blog communities to stop spreading his messages. Complying with the threat, Somewherein, Bangladesh’s first Bangla language community blog site, ultimately banned Mohiuddin, who used to write there regularly (and was even 2012′s User Winner for “Best Social Activism Campaign” at the Deutsche Welle’s International Blog Awards)[2]. Now, of course, he is arrested. While Asif has been an object of criticism for a number of groups, many young freethinkers in Bangladesh look to him as a nonconformist idol, who has fought against the tyrannical state machinery until the very end. Asif’s last status and a forceful writeup(published in richarddawkins.net – just before he got arrested) about the arrested bloggers reads,

There was a time in the 17-18th century in Europe when women who excelled in knowledge, science and philosophy more than men were blamed for witchcraft and were burned alive by the churches and their theocratic government. Education and thus advancement for women has always been a threat for radicalism so this is why the church and the government indulged in burning the progressive women by branding them as witches.The exact same situation is in Bangladesh right now. The whole new generation who brought in a revolution in Bangla blog community with their advancement in science, philosophy and critical mind, who wrote against the religious fundamentalism and in favor of our great liberation war, freedom of speech, secularism and democracy will be burned alive just like witch-hunt in the late middle ages. I was threatened a lot when I spoke against governments autocracy from so many other bloggers, but where are they now? Are they supporting the two headed snake government who acts secular but shelters the fundamentalists?

Asif went to jail with his head held high. This was enough to give the government a reassuringly sharp slap in the face, courtesy of the blogger community.

2

A few weeks ago, I wrote a Bangla article for an online Bangla newspaper that caused me to rethink deeper about the issue[3]. Here, we still have malicious Facebook pages like ‘Basherkella’ & ‘New Basherkella’ who spread religious hatred among Muslims, and instead of it being banned, they are going viral! Lots of citizens belonging to different religious group are losing everything, even their lives. Some are taking of rail slippers with intentions of damaging rail systems, so that trains will slide and passengers will be killed. The Facebook pages that advocated these actions were not deactivated, and nothing was done to stop them. Even the newspaper “Amar Desh” (whose editor, Mahmudur Rahman, has been arrested few weeks ago) is still active online and is spreading made-up stories describing the personal life of a murdered blogger, calling people names and tagging them atheists. Uneducated Mullahs, who don’t have a single idea about what a blog or blogger is, are proclaiming the bloggers to be evil. “Ansarullah Bangla team”, whose members are sidekicks to Hijbut Tahrir – which was banned in Bangladesh for terrorism – is still working online. The team is imprinting fictitious messages in the heads of youths, posting tutorials on how to make bombs in a regular kitchen, and asking our sisters to join the Suicide Squad. The killers of Rajib were given gallant honor on their website! While the government should be taking care of these terrorists, it spends its time arresting progressive bloggers instead.

The weirdest and most disgusting aspect of the entire ordeal is how the media portrayed the bloggers; they were deemed as crooks in the public eye. Nobody has seen anything like this before. Our government is the ruling party that has housed known criminals like Shamim Usman. We normally see detectives running in circles to catch high-profile criminals or killers. What they caught instead were these couple of ‘dangerous’ bloggers – men who were presented as criminals and robbers for minding their own business and writing about freethinking and political issues. Co-blogger Nijhoom Majumder remarked, “DB (detective branch) usually takes photos like these when they arrest some serious criminals. The way the picture was taken, someone would think these three bloggers were caught red handed while stealing a computer! As a blogger myself, all I feel is pity.” I’m pretty sure that we are all feeling the same. It’s a shame for all of us — for writers, bloggers, and free thinkers worldwide. As an act of protest, several prominent blog sites such as Sachalyatan, Muktomona, Amar blog, Muktangon, etc, went on blackout by turning their sites off at that time. Just after the bloggers got arrested, Mukto-Mona issued a statement titled, ‘Bangladesh government squishing freedom of speech by arresting and harassing young bloggers inside the country’[4]. Dr. A. H. Jaffor Ullah, one of the prominent members of Mukto-Mona, composed a very powerful article under the title – ‘Muzzling the voice of freethinking bloggers: An alarming development in Bangladesh!’. Both his article and the statement were cited by international press and also were shared (in Facebook) and twitted numerous times.

3

However, in the darkest of hours I still see a slither of light. Prominent citizens and intellectuals like Dr. Salahuddin Ahmed, Dr. Zillur Rahman Siddiqui, Dr. Sirajul Islam Chowdhury, Dr. Anisuzzaman, Dr. Ali Akbar Khan, Dr. Ajoy Roy, Qayyum Chowdhury, Ramendu Majumdar, Dr. Sarwar Ali, Advocate Sultana Kamal, Rasheda K Chowdhury, Khushi Kabir, M M Akash, Dr. Yasmin Haque, Dr. Iftekharuzzaman, Tarek Ali, Dr. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Shaheen Anam, and Robaet Ferdous stand boldly on our side. They have requested the government not to block free speech and free thinking[5]. “Everyone has the right to practice their religion, but nobody should block free speech”, they proclaimed. It provides me with some solace that even when the free thinking spirit is being gagged, we still have so many enlightened people on our side. Several days later, the teachers and students and online activists formed a human chain in front of Dhaka Central Jail on April 22, demanding release of four bloggers. They gathered there wearing black badges and masks and holding placards, some of which read, “Either release the arrested bloggers from jail or put us into it.”[6]

Pic: The teachers and students and online activists gathered in front of Dhaka Central Jail holding placards- “Either release the arrested bloggers from jail or put us into it.”

We also have the international support from a few influential organizations. IHEU, the world umbrella organization for freethinkers and humanists, issued a strong statement titled, “Government is stepping right into the trap set by these Islamic fundamentalists”[7]. A few days later they issued another alert: ‘Call to action: Defend the bloggers of Bangladesh’[8]. Atheist Alliance Int’l (AAI) also demanded immediate release of the bloggers. The American Humanist Society also sent a petition to the US Ambassador to get involved. CNN, BBC, Huffington Post, and Slate published articles criticizing Bangladesh’s actions towards the bloggers. Psychology Today published an article on April 10, 2013 titled, ‘Atheism Shouldn’t Be a Crime: Blasphemy should be celebrated, not outlawed.’ In it, Dave Niose reminds us of the obvious, yet necessary, point that atheism should not be criminalized:

One of the many problems with the concept of protecting religion from defamation is that ideas (including religious ideas) cannot be defamed – only people can be defamed. If governments feel that any idea must be shielded from scrutiny, questioning, or even ridicule and satirical commentary, that idea must be extremely weak, or alternatively the society in question must be repressive.

This is why blasphemy should not be criminalized, but celebrated. Those subversive individuals with the bad manners to remind us that no idea is sacred – that governmental defense of any theology necessarily weakens the legitimacy of both the government and the theology – should be thanked for making us think and for reminding us that we live in a free, open society.

Nonbelievers are valuable contributors to society and deserve no inferiority complex or stigmatization, yet their government encourages it. “Theistic supremacy” is too often the official governmental line, only because politicians find it easy to pander to religious voters by exalting religious belief. It may not be akin to throwing atheists in jail, but it still isn’t right.

Amnesty International issued a statement titled, ‘Bangladesh: writers at risk of torture’. Center for Inquiry (CFI), a New York-based global secular group has requested the US Secretary of State John Kerry to ‘pressure the government of Bangladesh to reverse its policy of arresting atheist bloggers who were critical to religion’. CFI sent a letter to Secretary Kerry and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Suzan Johnson Cook ‘to do all they can to raise public awareness of this situation’. Other influential organizations such as Free Society Institute of South Africa, Reporters Without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists, Global Voice Advocacy, and several other bodies have also called for immediate release of the Bangladeshi bloggers and appealed to several other foreign authorities to press Bangladesh on the issue.[9]

Besides these organizations, many influential writers and activists, including Taslima Nasrin, PZ Myers, Hemant Mehta, and Maryam Namazie, publicly expressed their support. Among them, the Iranian-born activist, commentator, broadcaster, and 2005’sSecularist of the Year award-winner, Ms. Namazie called for 25 April to be an international day to defend Bangladesh’s bloggers and activists[10]. Dhaka University students and teachers have also called for a strike on April 25^th to press for the release of the four bloggers. An international coalition of atheist and humanist organizations led by CFI also planned demonstrations in New York, Washington D.C., London, Ottawa, and other cities around the world on the same day[11]. The rallies being organized by groups such as Center for Inquiry, American Atheists, and the International Humanist and Ethical Union were supposed to be held outside Bangladeshi embassies and consulates to demand the release of the bloggers who were arrested on charges of blasphemy[12].

Then, struck the Savar tragedy. An eight-story building collapsed on April 24^th in Savar, a small town in the outskirts of Dhaka, killing at least 300 people and injuring more than 1,000. April 25^th, the day after the tragedy, has been proclaimed the National Day of Mourning in Bangladesh. In effect, official protests to be led by CFI have been postponed to May 2^nd. Dhaka University students and teachers also cancelled the strike anticipated for the 25^th of April[13].

Pic: Aaron Underwood, vice president of the MU student atheist organization, speaks to a crowd at the Defend Dissent protest on Thursday April 25, 2013.

However, several freethinking groups, including the American Atheists and Secular Coalition for America, decided to continue with the protests that were originally planned for April 25^th, since the day had already been declared ‘International Day to Defend Bangladesh’s Bloggers.’ American Atheists led protests at the consulate office in New York City and the embassy in Washington, D.C. (with assistance from the Secular Coalition for America). Defending his decision, American Atheists’ president David Silverman said,

“My decision to continue … is based on the fact that I feel this is an urgent problem. People are in jail for doing nothing but self expression, and that is wholly immoral. This protest is weeks in the making, international in scope, and we aren’t canceling it because of an impromptu day of mourning imposed by the very people imprisoning atheists like us.”

Pic: Freethinkers rallies on Thursday (April 25) outside Bangladeshi embassies.

Maryam Namazie led another protest rally in Trafalgar Square in London. A day prior to the demonstrations, she wrote a powerful blog titled, ‘While we remember the dead, let us also remember those fighting to live.’ In it, she expressed,

Today 25 April has been declared a day of mourning in Bangladesh for the victims of the nation’s worst factory disaster. The death toll of the collapsed garment factory has risen to 160; more than a 1000 have been injured. Rescuers continue to hunt for survivors.

Those who died in the building collapse did not need to die. Workers saw cracks in the building the day before but were ignored.

Today is also the International Day to Defend Bangladesh’s Bloggers, four of whom are imprisoned, and more than 80 others who face death threats by Islamists. Here too their safety and lives have been ignored by the Government.

In both these cases, the Government has failed to defend fundamental rights. Unfortunately, it is too late for the many garment factory workers. But there is still time to save Bangladesh’s bloggers. The Government must act before it is too late.

On 25 April, whist we remember the dead, we must also remember those who are fighting to live.

Protests in Columbia, MO also ensued. Members of local groups of skeptics, atheists, secular humanists, and agnostics convened on Thursday at the University of Missouri’s campus to be part of the global movement[14].

Pic: Several freethinking groups protested globally on April 25^th, whereas many others will continue on May 2^nd  [More pictures can be found here].

The remaining groups who did not participate in the April 25^th protests, have rescheduled for May 2^nd. These groups include the Center for Inquiry, CFI-Canada, and British Humanist Association. They will lead protests in Washington, D.C., Canada, London, and NYC. An additional protest rally in Dhaka, Bangladesh is also planned for May 2^nd.

It is clear that international pressure against the Bangladeshi government is rising(please refer to my piece which can be found in BDNews24, an online Bangla newspaper, and in Mukto-Mona Bangla Blog- here). If Bangladesh does not change its course of action, it is clear that our country will not progress. Of course, only time will tell what direction it takes. If the bloggers are kept against their will, Bangladesh will be well on its way to being a fundamentalist autocracy; if it does, however, let the bloggers go in peace, there may be some hope for redemption. For now, the cards are in the government’s hands.

Courtesy of: Aldrin Malakar (for translating portions of one of my Bengali articles) andTrisha Ahmed (for corrections and the final proofreading)

References:

[1] Arif Jebtik, Ekmatro Bikalpa Bhalo Manushder Shakriyata,(The only alternative is the activeness of a few good men), bdnews24.com (opinion); Published: 2013-04-04

[2] Bangladesh gags award-winning blogger, Deutsche Welle Report.

[3] Avijit Roy, Bloggerder Bak swadhinotay chaina hostokkhep, (Do not squish the freedom of speech of the bloggers) banglanews24.com, published on 23 Mar 2013

[4] A Statement from Mukto-Mona: Bangladesh government squishing freedom of speech by arresting and harassing young bloggers inside the country, April 3, 2013

[5] Muktachintar poth ruddho na korar ahobaan, A Statement from prominent Citizens of Bangladesh; banglanews24.com, 05 Apr 2013

[6] Human chain in front of jail for release of bloggers, The Daily Star, April 23, 2013

[7] A Statement from IHEU: Arrests of “atheist bloggers” shows Bangladesh authorities are “walking into a trap set by fundamentalists”, 4 April, 2013

[8] IHEU Action Alert: Call to action: Defend the bloggers of Bangladesh, 9 April, 2013

[9] US body against blogger’s arrest, Staff Correspondent, bdnews24.com, Published: 2013-04-17

[10] Maryam Namazie, On 25 April 2013 we stand with Bangladeshi bloggers and activists!, http://freethoughtblogs.com,

[11] Worldwide Protests for Free Expression in Bangladesh, Campaign for Free Expression, CFI.

[12] Kimberly Winston, Atheists Rally Around Jailed Bangladeshi Bloggers, Huffington Post, Posted: April 25, 2013

[13] Kimberly Winston , Atheists postpone protests after Bangladeshi disaster, The Washington Post, April 25, 2013

[14] Karyn Spory, Bloggers’ imprisonment sparks free-speech rallies, Columbia Daily Tribune, Friday, April 26, 2013

About the Author: Dr. Avijit Roy is a Bangladeshi blogger, published author, and prominent defender of the free-thought movement in Bangladesh. He is an engineer by profession, but well-known for his writings in his self-founded site, Mukto-Mona(mukto-mona.com) – an Internet congregation of freethinkers of mainly Bengali and South Asian descent. As an advocate of science, and metaphysical naturalism, he has published seven Bangla books, and many of his articles were published in magazines and journals. Dr. Roy lives in Atlanta, Georgia, and he can be reached at charbak_bd@yahoo.com

As you probably already know, the Court was hearing oral arguments over Proposition 8 (today they heard oral arguments over the Defense of Marriage Act). Accordingly, there was a lot of action outside the Court: the pro-marriage equality United for Marriage Rally and anti-marriage equality March for Marriage each drew several thousand people—though I will gladly note that the United for Marriage Rally was larger, lasted longer, and continued today. 

Ed and I spent our time at the Court speaking with marriage equality activists, debating marriage equality opponents (you can see Ed in action in this Washington Post photograph), talking with the media, and reading all of the clever and witty signs. 

One of the signs that caught my attention read, “Marriage Equality IS Religious Freedom.” On the other side it read: “Another Minister for Marriage Equality.”

I thought it was great to see a positive message from a religious leader, so I quickly snapped a couple pictures (one of which was noted in this compilation by Business Insider) before the crowd forced me in a different direction. 

Upon returning to the office, I was reminded that unfortunately not everyone agrees. In my Google alert for “religious freedom” was an article by Erick Erickson, in which Erickson claims that same-sex marriage and religious freedom are completely incompatible. His evidence? Several cases in which companies got into legal trouble for discriminating against lesbian or gay persons. News that some state governments are no longer providing taxpayer funds to organizations that exclude same-sex couples in adoption services. Oh, and the case of a person who was reportedly fired from his job after writing an essay against marriage equality. 

In other words: for Erickson, religious freedom entails the freedom discriminate against those you do not like, and the freedom to make others live according to your religious beliefs. Equality? Civil rights laws? The secular U.S. Constitution? The Establishment Clause? Lemon v. Kurtzman? You might like these things, but religious believers have religious freedom, and are not required to respect or follow them. Or so says Erick Erickson. 

Suffice it to say that this is a severely warped version of religious freedom. Allow to me to briefly correct Mr. Erickson regarding what religious is, and why it is compatible with marriage equality.

• Religious freedom allows individuals to believe and worship as they wish; it also allows houses of worship to promote and practice their religious tenets as they wish. It does not allow believers or houses of worship to expect their beliefs will form the basis of our public policy. 
• Religious freedom allows churches to not perform same-sex marriages; it also allows churches to perform same-sex marriages if they choose to.
• Religious freedom allows religious believers and religious groups to operate organizations which provide social services. However, it does not require them to operate such organizations, nor does it require the government to fund them with taxpayer dollars. 
• Religious freedom allows religious believers to operate businesses. However, it does not allow businesses to discriminate simply because they are run by religious believers. 

Don’t want to get married to a gay or lesbian person? Fine. No one is forcing you. Don’t want your church to perform same-sex marriages? Fine. Marriage equality laws include, as they should, exemption clauses for houses of worship and religious leaders. Don’t want to serve gay or lesbian persons or couples? Fine. Then don’t open up a business that serves the general public. Don’t want to place children with same-sex couples? Fine. But don’t expect the government to fund your work. 

True religious freedom respects the rights of all invidivuals over their own conscience, including decisions regarding who and who not to marry. True religious freedom is not only compatible with marriage equality—it is an essential component of marriage equality. 

I know at least one minister who agrees with me. Perhaps Mr. Erickson should ask him for his take on this issue. Who knows—he might learn a thing or two.

The session, commonly referred to as a “vote-a-rama,” began Friday around 4 p.m., and ended Saturday around 5 a.m. The Senate weighed in on 70 amendments before finally passing its first budget in four years. 

Three of the more than 400 proposed amendments concerned federal school voucher or similar programs that would allow taxpayer dollars intended for the public school system to support private and religious schools: Amendment #515, sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN); Amendment #290, sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL); and Amendment #201, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). 

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) was well aware of these efforts, and joined the National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) last week in writing every senator to vote down these or any similar last-second amendments. We followed up those letters with calls to every senator’s office. 

We also urged our members to contact their senators and tell them to vote “no” on any voucher amendments. 

Today, I am glad to report that the Senate considered only one of the three proposed school voucher amendments, Amendment #515, which it soundly rejected by a vote of 60-39. 

By Dr. Elizabeth O’Casey 

At the end of last week, the European Union (EU), supported by the South American group, tabled a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Now, whilst any resolution that highlights the importance of protecting every individual’s right to freedom of religion or belief is always extremely welcome, what is shamefully inadequate about this resolution is that it expressly excludes any concern regarding discrimination and violence against non-believers.

I attended one of the informal consultation meetings on this resolution and argued for ‘non-believers’ as a category meriting explicit mention within the context of discrimination, particularly given the severity and breadth of such discrimination against non-believers and people of no religion around the world. In a follow-up email, sent on behalf of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), we suggested that a mention of non-believers might be included specifically in a paragraph on violence against individuals. Where the original paragraph expressed deep concern at “the increasing number of acts of violence, directed against individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities,” we thought it apposite to mention non-believers as amongst such persons.

The EU’s rather unconsidered reply to our suggestion was that non-believers are already covered in the resolution, by the ‘right to belief.’ In response to this almost flippant, if true, statement by the EU, I want to note two things.

Firstly, it might be pointed out that whilst the rights of religious minorities are, as with non-believers, covered by the right to freedom of religion or belief, in their case the authors of this resolution saw fit (rightly) to mention explicitly this group of people in order to highlight the types of discrimination they suffer from. I am left baffled as to why the authors did not treat non-believers with the same consideration.

Secondly, what the EU representative and her colleagues have failed to understand is the importance, within the context of this type of resolution, of expressly underlining the institutionalised persecution and discrimination that non-believers are subjected to globally, as well as making explicit ‘non-believers’ as a category of persons who come under the protection of any right to freedom of religion or belief. The necessity to make this fact plain is demonstrated through the apparent ignorance of it by so many governments across the world; an ignorance manifested through, for example, the use of the death penalty as a potential punishment for atheism in seven countries, and the effective criminalisation of atheism in many more.

In specifically excluding non-believers within the context of violent discrimination, the EU’s resolution fails to acknowledge the bravery and resilience of millions of non-believers. One example of such a non-believer is Kacem El Ghazzali, a colleague of mine at the UNHRC. Kacem is a Moroccan refugee now living in Switzerland who, after posting several articles online about his atheism, was a victim of death threats, physical violence, and discrimination by agents of the Moroccan State. Kacem and the many others like him deserve recognition in forums such as the UNHRC. The EU’s refusal to include any direct reference to non-believers as a group meriting special protection from religious intolerance fails people like Kacem. It also fails the one in six people across the globe who do not self-identify as religious. That’s a lot of people to fail.

For those who do not know Rogers, she is widely respected expert on First Amendment law and the relationship between religion and politics. Most recently she worked as a nonresident senior fellow with Governance Studies at Brookings and director of the Center for Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School. Formerly she was executive director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

You can read more about Rogers here.

As some of my colleagues in the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination have already noted, the White House has made a wise choice with Rogers—one that marks a significant and applaudable administrative shift. The previous director of the faith-based office, Joshua DuBois, was a Pentecostal minister and Obama advisor who regularly downplayed or ignored the concerns of church-state advocates. Rogers, on the other hand, is a lawyer who thoroughly understands and respects the principle of separation of church and state (by the way, she is also a practicing Baptist). 

In fact, Rogers previously served as chair of President Barack Obama’s inaugural Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, a diverse group tasked with with making recommendations to the administration on how to improve the function and constitutionality of partnerships between the government and private groups. Under Rogers’ leadership, the Council released a report recommending several important reforms which were included by Obama in Executive Order 13559 and welcomed by church-advocates. One of her tasks as director will be to ensure the full implementation of those reforms. 

Unfortunately, despite continued pressure from the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination and the general public, Obama has not enacted another important reform he promised to make while campaigning in 2008: close a harmful loophole that allows groups that receive federal funds through the program to discriminate in hiring. Yet I can think of few people who would be better to work with in trying to change that than Melissa Rogers. 

So, welcome aboard, Ms. Rogers, and thank you, Mr. President, for appointing someone to head the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships who respects the idea of secular government. It is a breath of fresh air.

After almost one year of political wrangling, Congress last week reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a piece of legislation that provides both communities and people essential resources to help combat domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking.

The Senate and House also disagreed over a “nondiscrimination clause,” designed to bar groups that receive federal funds through VAWA from discriminating based on, among other things, religion. This clause read:

(13) CIVIL RIGHTS.—

(A) NONDISCRIMINATION.—No person in  the United States shall, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States 13 Code), sexual orientation, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of 19 Public Law 103–322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 09–162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

  

Again, the Senate version of the bill included this provision; the House version did not. So you can probably imagine that groups which support separation of church and state were worried in regards to how the final VAWA reauthorization bill would look. 

As such, when the House scheduled a final vote last week, 60 religious, education, civil rights, and women’s rights groups — including the Center for Inquiry— urged House members to reject any amendments that would weaken or remove the nondiscrimination language.

Fortunately, when the vote came down, the House approved the full Senate version of the bill. Which, as I said, meant a victory on several fronts: the fight against domestic violence, the fight for LGBT equality*, and the fight to protect separation of church and state. 

The bill, otherwise known as the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, passed by a vote of 352-74.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) opposed this measure as misguided and unconstitutional, and urged its members via an action alert to contact their U.S. Representative and tell him or her to vote “no.”

Several of our members, as well as many U.S. Representatives who spoke during floor debate in support of the bill—such as sponsor Rep. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) and co-sponsor Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY)—claimed that opposition to H.R. 592 was equivalent to discrimination against religion, and a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I would like to briefly explain why CFI rejects this reasoning, and voiced opposition to H.R. 592.

Before getting to the constitutional merits of H.R. 592, I should first directly address an important misconception advanced by its advocates: that current government policy regarding construction work on houses of worship is discriminatory.

Like most other nonprofit organizations, some houses of worship are eligible for loans from the U.S. Small Business Administration, so long as they meet certain requirements. But FEMA grants work differently. As my colleague Maggie Garrett of Americans United for Separation of Church and State so clearly explains:

... houses of worship, like most non-profit organizations and businesses, are eligible for government loans—just not direct grants—to rebuild.  In addition, houses of worship are not the only nonprofits that are ineligible for direct grants for reconstruction.  To the contrary, only nonprofits with facilities that are used for emergency, essential, and government-like activities are eligible. And, eligible facilities, such as community centers, must also be open to the general public. To say that houses of worship are singled out among all other non-profits, therefore, is untrue.  It is similarly inaccurate to claim that FEMA grants should be extended to houses of worship because the grants are akin to “general government services,” such as police or fire.  FEMA grants—unlike general government services —are not available to every business, nonprofit, private residence, or other building.   

As such, H.R. 592 makes no sense from a policy perspective. It is one thing for the government to provide loans or grants to facilities which offer emergency services or serve the public in some other way, and which also happen to be affiliated with a religious group. It is another for the government to provide loans or grants to build or rebuild places dedicated solely to religious activities. 

Which is precisely why it is also unconstitutional. From a institutional perspective, amending current law to allow government funding for the rebuilding of places of religious activity is not supported by, but actually violates the First Amendment, which mandates that the government should make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It also violates decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has fleshed out the principle of separation of church state as requiring the government to remain neutral on matters of religion, neither supporting or advancing, nor hindering or restricting religious practice.

In fact, H.R. 592 directly contradicts two Supreme Court rulings—Tilton v. Richardson (1971) and Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist (1973)— which mandate that “the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place” and “it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair.” 

From an individual perspective, H.R. 592 also runs against the notion that no taxpayer should be forced to fund a religion with which he or she may disagree. This idea can be traced back to the Founding Fathers. For instance, James Madison wrote in the 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.  

True religious freedom protects the conscience of the taxpayer by ensuring that his or her money is not used to support or advance religion with which he or she may disagree. It protects a Jewish person from funding a mosque and Islamic activities; it protects an evangelical Christian from funding a church and Catholic activities; it protects an atheist from funding any religious activity; and it protects us all from funding, say, the Westboro Baptist Church.

Two members the House, notably Rep. Jerry Nadler (R-NY) and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), understand this message, and had the courage to speak out against H.R. 592. Seventy others joined Reps. Nadler and Scott in voting no. 

To be clear: CFI realizes that Hurricane Sandy and other natural disasters cause immense damage. But, even in times of extreme difficulty, we believe that the government must adhere to reasonable policymaking and the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

Let’s hope there are at least 51 U.S. Senators who feel the same way. 

The notice addresses two main issues: it alters what HHS considers as an exempt “religious employer,” and clarifies how employees of organizations that are exempt from the rule will receive coverage. It also discusses issues how HHS might handle objecting non-religious employers.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claims the changes provide “women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns.”

However, while we are still examining the detailed outline of today’s proposals, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) is concerned that the changes unreasonably expand the definition of “religious employer,” and could make it more complicated for employees to access contraception. We are also disappointed that HHS has once again bent over backwards to please the religious lobby. 

As you might recall, HHS originally announced the birth control rule on August 1, 2011, with only houses of worship being exempt. The rule faced immediate and fierce opposition from religious groups seeking to either eliminate the guideline or else widely expand the exemption clause to include religiously affiliated organizations, such as hospitals, charities, and universities. Still, the rule was confirmed on Jan. 20, 2012.

Then, on February 15, 2012, HHS attempted to accommodate continuing religious objections by announcing that it would allow religiously affiliated organizations not to offer contraceptive coverage directly, and instead require insurers to provide coverage.

CFI rejected this accommodation on the grounds that it was unwise and unwarranted. Several months later, on June 11, 2012, we filed a formal letter with HHS urging the agency to finalize the mandate as is, arguing it was justified on both scientific and constitutional grounds.

Today’s announcement signals that, HHS agreed with CFI on certain points, and disagreed on others. For example, CFI has argued—and HHS had previously accepted—that non-profit organizations should only be exempt if they meet the following qualifications:

• exist mainly to promote religious values;
• employ persons who share its religious values;
• and serve a specifically religious population.

(Note: for-profit companies, such as Hobby Lobby, remain ineligible).

In comparison, we argued that religiously affiliated hospitals, charities, and universities should not be exempt because they: 

• exist mainly to provide secular services;
• hire persons of all backgrounds;
• serve the general public;
• almost always receive some form of funding from the government.

HHS has rejected these definitions and now posits that non-profit groups should be able to qualify for exemption so long as they meet the following qualifications:

• oppose providing coverage of contraceptive services on account of religious objections;
• organized and operate as a non-profit entity;
• and holds itself out as a religious organization. 

As you can see, this is radically different than the previous standard. HHS claims, and some news outlets are reporting, that this will not provide any broader an exemption than was previously outlined, and that it was simply designed to protect, for instance, churches which operate soup kitchens for the general public. 

Yet CFI is concerned that this is too broad and open a definition of “religious employer.” Consider just a few questions: How will HHS determine what does and does not count as a “religious objection”? What does it mean for an outfit to “hold itself out as a religious organization”? For example, will a humanitarian organization with a devoutly religious board of directors that claims it directs the organization based on Biblical principles qualify for exemption? Or are there other qualities included in “holds itself out as a religious organization”? By what standards will HHS determine all of these questions?

We are also concerned by the possibility that non-profit employers which are not “religious” could still receive exemption. According to Howard Friedman of Religion Clause, today’s announcement also “fleshes out accommodations for non-profit religious organizations that do not meet the definition of ‘religious employer,’ but oppose providing coverage for some or all contraceptive services.”

They may self-certify their objection to their health insurance issuer or third-party administrator. The health insurer will issue the organization’s employees (or students if the religious organization is a college or university) an individual market contraceptive coverage policy at no cost. The insurer can afford to do this because the policies cover the same set of individuals they are already insuring, and they will experience lower costs from improvements in women’s health and fewer childbirths. 

All of that being said, it seems that HHS did take to heart CFI’s recommendation that, despite the unnecessary accommodation, all exempt groups should at least be responsible for notifying insurance companies that they will have to set up coverage for employees: 

With respect to insured plans, including student health plans, these religious organizations would provide notice to their insurer.  The insurer would then notify enrollees that it is providing them with no-cost contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies.

With respect to self-insured plans, as well as student health plans, these religious organizations would provide notice to their third party administrator.  In turn, the third party administrator would work with an insurer to arrange no-cost contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies.

Insurers and third party administrators would work to ensure a seamless enrollment process. The proposed rules lay out how the costs of both the insurer and the third party administrator would be covered, without any charge to either the religious organization or the enrollees.

Broadly speaking, we are glad the administration appears to be holding steady on its commitment to provide women with free access to safe, preventative health care, and full control over their reproductive systems. But there was no need to change and make more complex what was already a sound policy. The new definition of “religious employer,” along with the other exemption guidelines announced today, could feasibly allow for more exemptions, which would needlessly complicate the process by which women arrange for and receive free contraceptive coverage. 

It is also troubling that HHS has given so much influence to the religious lobby on a major health and public policy decision. This drawn out debate over something as basic as birth control is a perfect example of the harmful influence of religious belief on public policy.

Moreover, while today’s proposals should satisfy critics of the rule, it is unlikely they will. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, one of the most prominent opponents of this rule, has not yet issued a statement, but it’s hard to believe they will welcome the news with open arms. And both the Family Research Council and The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Christian advocacy group leading legal challenges to the rule, have already condemned the proposals. 

Fortunately, HHS will accept public comments on today’s proposals until April 8, 2013. CFI will spend the next several weeks analyzing what has been suggested and formulate a detailed response. We let you know when it is ready.

Until then, we welcome input below or at opp [at] centerforinquiry [dot] net.  

Update: you might be interested in reading statetements by our friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Catholics for Choice, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

In a landmark move welcomed by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), the United Nations General Assembly has adopted for the first time a resolution calling for a global end to female genital mutilation.

The measure, A/67/450, calls female genital mutilation, or FGM, “an irreparable, irreversible abuse that impacts negatively on the human rights of women and girls” and “a harmful practice that constitutes a serious threat to the health of women and girls.”

It reads, in part:

“Urges States to condemn all harmful practices that affect women and girls, in particular female genital mutilation, whether committed within or outside a medical institution, and to take all necessary measures, including enacting and enforcing legislation to prohibit female genital mutilation and to protect women and girls from this form of violence, and to end impunity;

Also urges States to complement punitive measures with awarenessraising and educational activities designed to promote a process of consensus towards the eradication of female genital mutilation, and further urges States to protect and support women and girls who have been subjected to female genital mutilation and those at risk, including by developing social and psychological support services and care, and to take measures to improve their health, including sexual and reproductive health, in order to assist women and girls who are subjected to the practice;”

The UN World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 140 million women and girls worldwide currently live with the consequences of FGM, while an additional three million globally are at risk of being subjected to the practice. 

The resolution, which passed by consensus, was championed by a number of African member states and non-governmental organizations such as the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices.

“This practice, justified on false pretenses by supposed cultural and religious tenets, remains a taboo subject, misunderstood and misinterpreted in several societies,” Burkina Faso representative Der Kogda reportedly said. “It is time to break the silence that has surrounded female genital mutilation ... and move towards its elimination.”

The measure’s approval certainly sends a strong political message to governments, as well as one of hope to millions of women and girls. However, as noted by UN Women Assistant-Secretary General and Deputy Executive Director John Hendra, it is now extremely important that the UN and its member states work to implement and support the ideas outlined in the resolution.

“This is a very important step to bringing about cultural and attitudinal change,” said Hendra. “Just as important though, is working on the ground with governments, communities and other partners to end FGM. ... while efforts to criminalize FGM are vital, they need to be backed up with services for victims, engaging key influencers and supporting community-based activities to change social norms, as well as practical actions to bring perpetrators to justice.”