Various United Nations bodies, including the UN’s Human Rights Council, have adopted resolutions condemning so-called “defamation” of religion.  Although currently not legally binding, we anticipate efforts will be made to have such resolutions acquire the force of international law.  Recent advances by Islamic countries in gaining acceptance of the notion of religious defamation illustrate the increasing threat presented by these efforts. Even some Western European countries are debating laws that would criminalize religiously offensive statements.  Currently, Ireland seems poised to enact a new blasphemy law that would prohibit publication of material “insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion.”  

As this video from the Center for Inquiry illustrates, prohibiting discussion of certain subjects is absurd and violates our fundamental right to express our views.

In addition to religious institutions, many governments try to—and do—place severe restrictions on free expression. The recent suppression of protests in Iran, along with media coverage of such protests, constitutes a vivid reminder of government interference with free speech, but there are many more examples. China has announced plans to require all personal computers to have Web filters that would block access to government-disfavored sites, and even nominally democratic nations such as Russia legally prohibit insults “of a representative of authority.” Then, of course, there are the unofficial means of suppressing free speech, such as the murder of journalists and dissenters.

CFI believes we must increase public awareness of these threats to freedom of expression, discuss and develop plans to prevent curtailment of free expression, and demonstrate that people care about their rights to free expression and are eager to exercise them.  To that end, CFI plans a campaign for the balance of 2009 that will include these elements among others:

• An essay contest on the value of free expression, open to all students currently enrolled in accredited colleges and universities, with a grand prize of $2,000;
• A cartoon contest, judged by professional cartoonists, in which the theme will be the doctrines of humanity’s various religions (we aim to be as ecumenical as possible); 
• Sponsorship of International Blasphemy Day, September 30, 2009, when persons around the world will demonstrate their right to uninhibited expression of their views of religion; 
• The launching of a new Web site, www.pleaseblock.us ,which will be maintained and updated by CFI’s affiliate, the Council for Secular Humanism, and, as content is added, will feature reports on recent censorship attempts and controversies as well as original material that would be suppressed under the laws of some countries; 
• Special events with prominent guest speakers; 
• Web pages devoted to the discussion of  contemporary champions of free expression; 
• A petition drive aimed at preventing suppression of speech critical of religion.

Details of all these initiatives—and others—will be forthcoming in the near future.

In the meantime, please commit to joining us in making 2009 the year in which we make it clear to all governments, religions, and other institutions that our voices will be heard—on whatever subject we choose. No topic off limits! No more taboos!

Ideas don’t need rights—people do. Protect dissent.

Read the CFI Campaign for Free Expression press release here.

Igwe is spearheading an international Center for Inquiry Anti-Superstition campaign across Africa to raise consciousness about and combat the tragic atrocities committed in the name of witchcraft, unchecked superstition, and fear of malevolent magic. The press release announcing this campaign, which has already attracted media attention from the Associated Press, BBC World Service “Newshour” 5/28/09, and “The World Tonight” with Rob Breakenridge (Calgary, Canada) can be found here.

From the BBC Website:

Do traditional beliefs in witchcraft or the power of juju hold back development in Africa? Well yes according to some people and that includes Weekend Network's guest this morning, Leo Igwe, who describes himself as a humanist.

Leo, who hails from Nigeria, has just been attending a conference here in London which centered on some of the traditional practices which can also affect individuals in a society.

Listen to the full interview.

The Council will sponsor a screening of "Root of All Evil?", the 2006 British television documentary featuring scientist and author Richard Dawkins. The controversial program presents many of the arguments against religion that figured in Dawkins' international best-selling book, The God Delusion.  This film is not yet available for DVD sale or other general U.S. distribution.

Other co-sponsors include the Center for Inquiry/San Francisco and the San Francisco Atheists.

The Festival will be held from noon to midnight Sunday, June 28 at the Roxie Theater, 3117 16th St., San Francisco. Details are available on the Festival's Web site,

http://atheistfilmfestival.org/atheist_film_festival/Schedule.html .

Also screening will be Julia Sweeney’s acclaimed “Letting Go Of God,” sponsored by CFI/San Francisco; 2006 Academy Award Nominee “Deliver Us From Evil;” the provocative Michael Newdow story “Pledge of Allegiance Blues;” the faith-as-obsession documentary “Audience Of One;” the irreverent comedy “Evolution: The Musical;” the infamous and tragic culmination of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s critique of Islam “Submission;”  as well as comedy and short film features by Ricky Gervais, George Carlin, and Monty Python.

In addition, meet the creators of the infamous and often freaky comic book-style Jack T. Chick tracts and learn the history of all things Chick—the art, artists, writers, controversies, death threats and more from the world’s largest underground publisher.

Press Conference on Sotomayor

Accepting an invitation from Kareem Dale, Special Assistant to President Obama’s Outreach for Law & Justice Policy, Toni Van Pelt, Policy Director for the OPP and Ruth Mitchell, OPP staff associate, attended a press conference in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, hosted by Vice President Joe Biden. Representatives of law enforcement from across the U.S. endorsed the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The press conference focused on the earliest part of Sotomayor's career, when, fresh out of law school, she served as an assistant district attorney in Manhattan under legendary district attorney, Robert Morgenthau. Now 90 years old, Morgenthau was present at the press conference and enthusiastically endorsed his former assistant district attorney.

The speakers made their endorsements in front of a line of city police chiefs, including Cathy Lanier, Chief of the Metropolitan DC Police.  Other speakers included Joseph I. Cassilly, president of the National District Attorneys Association, and John F.Timoney, Chief of Police in Miami, FL, and president of the Police Executive Research Forum. The audience consisted of representatives of police organizations and district attorneys from near and far.

In his remarks, Vice president Biden stressed Sotomayor's experience as a district attorney, sharing the experiences of police and prosecutors in combating crime in New York neighborhoods.  He appealed to the shared experience of everyone in the room as a reason to support her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Van Pelt interviewed on Sirius Radio and in the Politico

Toni Van Pelt appeared on Stand Up! with Pete Dominick on Tuesday 9 June. The show is featured on Sirius 110 and XM 130 satellite radio. Toni talked about a news article that appeared earlier in the day in the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico . The article, entitled “Atheists Keep Faith with Obama,” included quotations from Toni and Nathan Bupp, vice president of communications for the Center for Inquiry. Referring to her group as “nonbelievers” and “secular humanists,” Toni emphasized the need to tread lightly on certain issues, in order to avoid a backlash. “Pragmatically, there are some really serious things that we need to focus our work on.”

Pete directed the conversation to CFI’s current work on the Hill and one of the most important issues of the day: Charitable Choice. Toni recounted the history of Charitable Choice and what it meant in the Religious Right's fight to tear down the wall separating church and state. CFI performed a detailed historical study of federal funding for faith-based programs, extending from the rise of “charitable choice” legislation during the Clinton administration through the explosion of taxpayer funding for religious programs under George W. Bush’s Faith Based and Community Initiative. Charitable Choice and Faith Based Initiatives are the most potent weapons being used in the battle today. For more information on this crucial issue please read CFI's position paper on the topic. Toni may be heard on the Pete Dominick show from time to time–a ”semi-regular,” as Pete said on air. Stay tuned to an important voice for secular humanism.

For regularly updated news, announcements, and alerts from the Office of Public Policy, please visit www.centerforinquiry.net/opp.

• The Winds of Change are Blowing
• What Kind of Change Will Obama Bring?
• Leo Igwe at the Center for Inquiry/Kenya
• Updates on:
  • CFI/Nigeria
  • CFI/India
  • CFI/Senegal
  • CFI/Ontario
  • CFI/Kenya
  • CFI/Uganda
  • CFI/Philippines
  • CFI/London
  • CFI/Transnational

Download the Winter 2009 issue of CFI Transnational's newsletter (4.6MB, PDF)

New for the 2009 season is a professionally produced 14-1/2 minute orientation video produced in High Definition (HD) Video. Visitors will view the presentation on a 47” flat screen, featuring an image quality four and a half times sharper than regular broadcast television. This marks the first time an orientation video in HD has been presented at a historical attraction in the west-central New York region. The video was produced by Inquiry Media Productions, funded by a grant from James Hervey Johnson Charitable Educational Trust. 

For the full official press release, please visit the Center for Inquiry Newsroom

A new Council resolution decries a “campaign of defamation of religions” in which “the media” and “extremist organizations” are “perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions and sacred persons,” and urges UN member states to provide redress “within their respective legal and constitutional systems.” Capitalizing on concerns about racial profiling and discrimination in the era of the war on terror, the language conflates criticism of Islam with anti-Muslim bigotry and seeks to stifle peaceful speech in the name of “dialogue” and “diversity.”

Similar resolutions have been passed at the Council since 1999 and by the General Assembly since 2005. The resolution passed with 23 in favor, 11 against, and 13 abstentions, gaining two votes since the last time it was adopted by the Council.

“The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ is both absurd and dangerous.” said Ronald A. Lindsay, CFI’s president and chief executive officer. “Legally speaking, it’s gibberish, and any ban on so-called ‘defamation’ would effectively prevent any critique of religious beliefs or practices.”

In the opinion of a broad range of civil society organizations, these pronouncements do nothing but lend legitimacy to the repression of political and religious dissent around the world, particularly in Islamic countries. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, for example, which carry mandatory sentences of death or life imprisonment, are frequently used against members of the Ahmaddiya community, a peaceful minority Muslim sect.

Through its UN representative, Dr. Austin Dacey, CFI participated in the negotiations over the resolution during the March session of the Council in Geneva, and delivered an oral statement before the plenary meeting on March 24. Most worrisome, according to CFI, is that the present language equates religiously insulting speech with “advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence,” a category of speech that is prohibited by existing treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which have the force of law.

“Now the argument becomes very awkward for Europe,” said Dacey, “since many European states have laws against hate speech, Holocaust denial, and even blasphemy (for example, in Austria) that have been upheld by their regional human rights courts. The Islamic states will say they simply want to extend the same protection to all beliefs.”

The Center for Inquiry has submitted a written briefing to the Tenth Session of the Human Rights Council detailing a reading of the case law that separates criticism, satire, and insult from incitement.

 The Council and the Hulls challenged the appropriations of state funds to the contractors both on the ground that the Florida Constitution expressly forbids any aid to churches or sectarian institutions, even if the money given to the churches or sectarian institutions is not primarily used for a religious purposes, and on the grounds that the money given to these two contractors was being used to promote religion. 

 Defendants initially moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. In February, 2008, the court ruled against defendants on the motion, although it did require the Council to file an amended complaint with more specificity about the funding of the contractors. After the amended complaint was filed, the defendant submitted answers and provided some discovery. However, shortly thereafter, the defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings.

In August, 2008, Judge John C. Cooper of the Leon County Circuit Court granted the defendants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings.  The court concluded that because the authorizing statutes prohibited the use of state money for purposes of religious conversion and participation in the programs was voluntary, the legislatively mandated appropriations did not represent a violation of Florida’s “no-aid” provision. The court also found that the Council did not have standing to challenge how the appropriated funds were actually used by the contractors, since this would represent a challenge to contract “performance” instead of a challenge to legislative action.

 The Council and the Hulls decided to appeal this adverse ruling because of the significance of this case. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the Establishment Clause, public revenues can flow to religious institutions under many circumstances. Accordingly, if taxpayers do not want to have public funds support religious institutions, state constitutions, many of which contain language more restrictive than the Establishment Clause on the use of public funds, may provide the only avenue for relief. This appeal will likely result in a definitive interpretation of Florida’s Constitution and a court ruling on whether it means what it says, namely that no tax dollars should be used in aid of any religious institutions. The stakes could not be higher.

 The Council and the Hulls are represented by Christine Davis Graves, an appellate attorney with the law firm of Carlton Fields. A decision from the First District Court of Appeal is expected later this year.

A PDF copy of the Brief is attatched below.

However, the unanimity of the Court on the central question presented by the case masked deep divisions within the Court on the question of whether having the Ten Commandments monument in the park would violate the Establishment Clause. Because neither party before the court of appeals had argued the Establishment Clause issue, the relevance of the Establishment Clause was not technically before the Court, although the Court had the power to issue an opinion addressing the implications of the Establishment Clause. Given the current composition of the Court, this was a concern of the Center for Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. Accordingly, in their joint friend-of-the-court brief, CFI and the Council explicitly asked the Court not to address the Establishment Clause issue.

Fortunately, the majority opinion of the Court expressly stated that the Establishment Clause issue remains open, and emphasized that government speech must be consistent with the Establishment Clause. Not surprisingly, however, religious right Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas issued a separate concurrence stating that the Ten Commandments monument would be permissible under the Establishment Clause.

CFI and the Council caution that some commentators and groups have mischaracterized the decision in Pleasant Grove v. Summum as a victory for church-state separationists because the monument was described by the Court as “government speech,” and surely the government cannot speak in favor of religion. However, this is a superficial analysis of the “government speech” doctrine, as the contours of that doctrine remain unclear. Bear in mind that a couple of years ago, in Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court found that a Ten Commandments monument on public property did not violate the Establishment Clause, given the circumstances of that case.
 The bottom line is that religious monuments and displays will continue to be a focus of controversy and litigation, until the government finally decides to get out of the religion business entirely. Through their advocacy efforts, CFI and the Council hope to prod the government to adopt this constitutionally correct, and prudent, course of action.

The CSH report points to a growing body of research by academic institutions and major survey organizations that clearly documents a downward shift of religious adherence in the United States. Why does the Baylor study contradict this? Independent scholar Gregory S. Paul, author of the CSH report, and labeled as “public enemy number-one” of the churches by MSNBC, says that Baylor has relied on a flawed methodology. “The Baylor team has adopted a curious way of treating atheism, forms of unbelief short of atheism, and religious belief. This approach places a disproportionate emphasis on convinced atheism – the confident rejection that a personal God exists – at the expense of more moderate forms of nontheism,” said Paul. The report suggests that Baylor has failed to document large numbers of Americans who reject conventional religious belief, such as those who self-define as agnostic or “spiritual but not religious.”  The CSH report declares that, “Baylor’s methods largely ignore these doubters, making nonbelief appear less prevalent in society than it truly is. The Baylor team treats almost any deviation from strict atheism as a sign of religiosity. Doing so falsely maximizes the apparent level of faith.” 

The CSH report shows how the Baylor survey omitted key findings of major polling organizations such as Gallop, Harris, and Pew. These polls document clear evidence of the increasing secularization of American society. Foremost among these findings are:

• Numerous Gallup studies show that firm disbelief in God or a universal spirit has risen fourfold since the 1940s. Baylor researchers misinterpreted data from just two early Gallup polls, then combined them with data from a handful of other studies, creating an inaccurate impression that unbelief has held steady for more than 60 years.
• Respected studies from Gallup, Pew, CBS, the BBC, and others find that between 10 and 13 percent of Americans either reject or doubt God's existence. Two recent Harris Poll studies that used special methods to help unbelievers identify themselves found an unprecedented 21 percent of Americans at least doubting God's existence. The Baylor team makes no mention of this data and relies on significantly lower figures.
• Data from the Pew Center, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), and the Harris Poll now show that America is entering into the same process of secularization that previously occurred in other Western countries. Baylor researchers disregard this data and continue to maintain -- inaccurately -- that "faith American style" is holding its own.

“The irony is that Stark and his cohorts at Baylor conveniently sidestep two major trends central to the secularization thesis, namely, the increasing level of persons who actively define as secular and, more importantly, the corresponding decline in church attendance and religious faith. The faithful are losing the very ground the unbelievers seize, as our report points out,” Paul said.

“The United States is still the most religious country in the First World, but the Baylor thesis that ‘faith American style’ is holding its own is clearly false,” states the report. “Religious belief and activity in America are trending downward in so many ways that it is simply untenable to pretend that the nation is growing more religious.”

Why does all of this matter? Paul suggests that the Baylor team defended a false contention that religious belief is on the rise. “Baylor has presented itself as an objective source of information about societal trends to the media,” Paul said. “Our independent investigation of their study raises serious questions about the supposed ‘objectivity’ of that research. The evidence for increasing secularization across the West, including America, has long been acknowledged by most survey organizations. Stark and his team at Baylor stand alone in bucking this consensus…. perhaps in service to Baylor University’s roots as a conservative Baptist institution.”

The CSH report concludes with a set of recommendations for Baylor and the media:

• If Baylor University wishes to be perceived in future as a credible source of advanced, objective research and information, the institution needs to require that its Institute for Studies of Religion reform its program to meet modern mainstream standards of scientific rigor.
• Because of the above-cited problems in Baylor’s religion-study project, until reforms are undertaken it is suggested that reporters and commentators adopt a more skeptical stance toward its reports. Media professionals should recognize that other major survey and analytical organizations such as Harris, NORC, Pew, and ISSP have displayed greater objectivity than Baylor/Gallup and their products should be considered more reliable.

A downloadable PDF copy of the full report is available below.

The Council for Secular Humanism—housed at the Center for Inquiry—is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization promoting rational inquiry, secular values and positive human development through the advancement of secular humanism. The Council, publisher of the bimonthly journal Free Inquiry, has a Web site at  www.secularhumanism.org .

####