As Judge Stephen Reinhardt rightly stated in the court’s 2-1 decision, “Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same sex-couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage.’ Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gay men and lesbians in California.”

You can read the court’s full ruling here.

CFI has been a leader in the fight for marriage equality for years, and supports the court’s decision as fair and just. It is a pivotal step forward in the national marriage equality movement.

“LGBT individuals are entitled to the same rights as anyone else,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. “Marriage is an important institution in our society. Denying same-sex couples the right to express their love through marriage is to deny them equal protection under the law as well as a fundamental human right.”

CFI would also like to applaud the appeals court for rejecting the argument that the federal district court’s decision was invalid on the grounds that Judge Vaughn Walker should have removed himself from the case because, as he subsequently disclosed, he was in a same-sex relationship. The appeals court ruled that being gay did not disqualify Judge Walker from ruling on the case any more than being heterosexual would have disqualified him. 

Ads began appearing January 30 and January 31 in New York City; Washington, DC; Los Angeles; Chicago; Atlanta; and Durham, North Carolina. On February 6, the campaign will be launched in Dallas. Advertisements will be placed on roadside billboards and in public transit sites. The Stiefel Freethought Foundation provided substantial creative and financial support for the campaign.

African Americans may be the most religious minority in the United States, but many feel that the churches don’t speak for them. AAH hopes that the campaign will bring attention to the presence of and increase in religious skepticism within the black community, encourage those who have doubts about religion to share their concerns and join other freethinkers in their local communities, and educate many about the history of black freethought.

All of the ads display the same message: “Doubts about religion? You’re one of many.” On the ads, images of writer-anthropologist Zora Neale Hurston, poet-activist Langston Hughes, and social reformer-publisher Frederick Douglass are paired with contemporary freethinkers. Representing their respective hometowns are activists leading the way for African American nonbelievers, including Mark D. Hatcher of the Secular Students at Howard University, Mandisa L. Thomas of Black Nonbelievers, Inc. (Atlanta), Kimberly Veal of Black Nonbelievers of Chicago, Jamila Bey of African Americans for Humanism-Washington, DC, Veronique Matthews of the Triangle Freethought Society, Leighann Lord of the Center for Inquiry-Harlem, Alix Jules of the Dallas-Ft. Worth Coalition of Reason, and Sikivu Hutchinson of Black Skeptics Los Angeles.

“African Americans who question religion often feel rejected by religious family and friends, and by the greater black community,” said Debbie Goddard, director of AAH. “But there is a rich heritage of religious skepticism and humanism in black history. By featuring the historical faces as well as the modern in our ad campaign, we show people that questioning religion is not new and that there are many of us here.”

Between 1990 and 2008, the number of Americans without any religious affiliation nearly doubled, from 8 percent to 15 percent, according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). Among African Americans the increase was also nearly double, from 6 percent to 11 percent.

For more information, including ad images, information about historical African American freethinkers, photos, and videos, please visit AAH.

African Americans for Humanism (AAH), a program of the Council for Secular Humanism, is dedicated to fostering humanism in the African American community.

The Council for Secular Humanism, an affiliate of the Center for Inquiry, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization that promotes and defends a nonreligious lifestance. The Council, publisher of the bimonthly journal Free Inquiry, has a website at www.secularhumanism.org.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a nonprofit educational, advocacy, and research organization based in Amherst, New York; it is also home to both the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and the Council for Secular Humanism. The mission of CFI is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. CFI‘s web address is www.centerforinquiry.net.

The Stiefel Freethought Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit private foundation that provides financial support and volunteer strategy consulting to the Freethought Movement. Visit the website at www.stiefelfreethoughtfoundation.org/. 

# # #

For years, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of fifty-seven Islamic states promoting Muslim values, has pushed successfully for UN Human Rights Council resolutions urging states to combat so-called “defamation of religions.” The non-binding “defamation of religion” resolution-which effectively provided cover for blasphemy laws that persecuted religious dissidents, religious minorities, and nonbelievers-was passed annually by the 193-nation General Assembly for more than ten years.

However, earlier this year, the Human Rights Council voted unanimously to approve a new resolution that makes no mention of “defamation of religions.” This came to fruition on Monday when the UN 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.” The resolution acknowledges the language of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which states that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” It calls on states to take measures “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.”

The new resolution marks a major victory for supporters of the open, secular society, 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 worked with other NGOs at the UN to uphold freedom of belief and expression and equality of rights as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The abandonment of the “defamation of religions” concept is a welcome development, and CFI celebrates this significant turn of events and step forward.

However, CFI also recognizes that the new resolution is flawed.

Mainly, it does not include a provision that CFI has urged for: one explicitly barring states from restricting proselytizing, discussion, or criticism of beliefs, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, or insult of beliefs—whether secular or religious.

While CFI denounces the advocacy and incitement of violence, discrimination, hatred, and hostility, we remain concerned that the resolution’s broad language could allow room for laws that persecute religious dissidents, religious minorities, and nonbelievers. The resolution can 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.

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

“Christopher Hitchens was a gifted writer and polemicist, with razor-sharp wit and an acute intellect, who was also a steadfast champion for secularism,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, president and CEO of the Center for Inquiry (CFI). “We are deeply saddened by his death.”

Hitchens was prolific, writing on a number of topics through his varied career as an author and journalist. His works covered topics as diverse as the Elgin marbles, Mother Teresa, and the equivocations of Bill Clinton.

Fortunately for those concerned about the influence of religion, Hitchens also turned his wide-ranging intellect to religion. His 2007 book, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, became a best seller, and Hitchens became a well-known debater on the topic of religion. In the last several years, he was a fixture as a speaker for many secular organizations, including CFI and the Council for Secular Humanism.

Hitchens was a long-time columnist for Free Inquiry.

Hitchens left us many words of wisdom. But perhaps one quote stands out. In God Is Not Great, Hitchens wrote, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” In this concise, insightful observation, Hitchens captures all that needs to be said about the independence of morality from religion.

Hitchens has left humanists and atheists a rich legacy of logic, fearless advocacy, and wit. It’s up to us to make good use of it.

Yet nearly twenty years of study have shown that most alternative medicine “cures” work no better than placebos, and that NCCAM should be defunded or abolished, according to the authors of an upcoming report in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer. In Culling Non-Science From Scarce Medical Resources, Eugenie V. Mielczarek and Brian Engler examine all NCCAM research between 2000 and 2011, and find no discoveries that justify spending taxpayer dollars to maintain its existence.

A downloadable preview version of Culling Non-Science From Scarce Medical Resources is available here.

The full report will appear in the January/February issue of Skeptical Inquirer, which is published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, an affiliate of the Center for Inquiry.

Culling Non-Science From Scarce Medical Resources was authored by Eugenie V. Mielczarek, emeritus professor of physics at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. Her 40 years of research is in the area of materials science and biological physics. Mielczarek was assisted by Brian Engler, a retired U. S. Navy Commander. His fields of study include operations research and business administration.

The report builds on a 2009 paper that Mielczarek lead authored for the Center for Inquiry, A Fracture in our Health Care: Paying for Non-Evidence Based Medicine. You can read more about that report here.

The Center for Inquiry (CFI) strongly condemns this resolution as a hollow, divisive, and unnecessary gesture toward monotheistic faith.  It is irresponsible and shameful for lawmakers to use faith as a political tool to divide the nation along religious lines, especially at a time when America is confronted with multiple pressing national issues.

Congress only adopted “In God We Trust” as the national motto in 1956, when American leaders sought to distinguish the United States from the communist Soviet Union.  Yet the motto ignores and reinforces the outsider status of the nation’s many nonbelievers, as well as members of minority religions that do not recognize a monotheistic god (including, for example, Buddhists and Hindus).  Polls show that 16 percent of Americans have no religious identity, while over 40 million Americans do not identify with a monotheistic God.

A far better motto for the nation is the Latin motto adopted in 1782 as part of the national seal: “E Pluribus Unum,” or “Out of many, one.”  America’s original motto accurately describes the nation as a unity comprising people from many religious and nonreligious perspectives.

H. Con. Res. 13 now moves to the U.S. Senate. CFI will track its progress and lobby against its passage.

... REVISION 10/14/11-2:02PM: O’Reilly response now scheduled for Monday, October 17 ...

As reported on Monday, October 10, a CFI–Michigan event featuring Richard Dawkins was abruptly cancelled after the owner of the venue saw an interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

Since that message was released, dozens of news outlets have reported the story and CFI has received numerous letters of support and shared outrage.  (Thank you!)  We have also received many inquiries essentially asking, “What are you going to do about this?” Our reply: CFI will be pursuing legal action against The Wyndgate Country Club.

CFI is experienced in legal advocacy and is well-equipped to challenge this act of discrimination by The Wyndgate.  As more and more people publicly identify as atheists (as Richard Dawkins has bravely done), we anticipate even more discriminatory acts to arise, so it is important for everyone to understand how civil rights laws may apply to nonbelievers. 

NOTE: We say “laws” because there are not only various federal laws but also state laws, some of which are broader in scope than federal law.  In the present situation, the relevant statutes are the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Generally—and specifically in this instance—the following rules apply:

• Privately-owned companies are not exempt from laws against discrimination.  If a privately-owned Michigan business offers services to the public (the legal term is “public accommodation,”) they must abide by both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and cannot discriminate against people based on religion.
  
• Prohibitions of discrimination based on religion protect atheists.  Some people think that because atheism is not a religion, atheists do not belong in the “religion class” protected by civil rights laws.  Legal precedent demonstrates, however, that rights based on “freedom of religion” are also granted to those who are not religious.
  
• The protections of the civil rights laws only apply to specific “classes” of people.  For example, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations) prohibits discrimination against people based on their race, color, religion, or national origin.  It does not protect people based on, for example, their political opinions, economic ideologies, or their taste in art.  In other words, the owner of a private company could refuse to host a Nazi-sympathizer or a member of the Tea Party, an Al Gore, a Robert Reich, or a Christo.
  
• Whether a discriminatory act occurred is a question that is determined through the legal process.  Rare is the company that admits to discrimination.  Companies often will offer explanations, arguing they based their decision on something other than a person’s protected group status.  For example, they may claim a person was turned away not because of religious beliefs, but because the company was concerned about “disruption.”  The relevant court or agency will determine whether the company’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination.

What is indisputable is that discrimination based on religion is both intolerable and illegal.  In other words, as CFI–Michigan executive director, Jeff Seaver, has pointed out, “discrimination based on a person’s religion—or lack thereof—is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race.”

“This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time.  It’s exactly why organizations like CFI and the Richard Dawkins Foundation are needed: to help end the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever.”

Stay tuned for further developments, and tune in to watch
The O’Reilly Factor Friday night.

Prejudice against atheists manifested itself again when The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, Michigan (outside of Detroit), cancelled an event with scientist and author Richard Dawkins after learning of Dawkins’s views on religion. The event had been arranged by the Center for Inquiry–Michigan (CFI), an advocacy group for secularism and science, and the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

The Wyndgate terminated the agreement after the owner saw an October 5th interview with Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor in which Dawkins discussed his new book, The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True.

In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.

Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

After learning of the owner’s last-minute refusal to allow Dawkins to speak, CFI–Michigan asked the owner to reconsider his position, but this attempt to resolve the issue amicably was met with silence. The event, scheduled for Wednesday, October 12, will now be held at a different venue.

“It’s important to understand that discrimination based on a person’s religion—or lack thereof—is legally equivalent to discriminating against a person because of his or her race,” said Jeff Seaver, executive director of CFI–Michigan. “This action by The Wyndgate illustrates the kind of bias and bigotry that nonbelievers encounter all the time. It’s exactly why organizations like CFI and the Richard Dawkins Foundation are needed: to help end the stigma attached to being a nonbeliever.”

For more information, contact Jeff Seaver,
Executive Director, CFI-Michigan:
616-262-0345 or jseaver@centerforinquiry.net

In its industry-wide petition, CFI and CSI request the FDA to initiate rulemaking that would require all over-the-counter homeopathic drugs to meet the same standards of effectiveness as non-homeopathic drugs. Although the FDA has the authority to require homeopathic drugs to undergo testing for effectiveness, it has to date declined to do so.

It’s not clear this hands-off attitude was ever justified, but given the FDA’s many responsibilities, its free pass to homeopathic drugs would at least be understandable were use of homeopathic products rare. But that is no longer true. Homeopathic drugs used to be marketed on a relatively small scale, but their sales have been burgeoning in the last couple of decades. In 2009, consumer sales of homeopathic treatments in the United States reached $870 million.

Homeopathic remedies were first developed in the late 1700’s, before the advent of modern medicine. Homeopathic drugs are produced by taking a substance that is believed to cause disease symptoms and then diluting the substance repeatedly until, according to accepted laws of chemistry, there are no molecules left of the original substance. But homeopaths insist that-by virtue of some scientifically inexplicable process-their drugs possess therapeutic value. Essentially, homeopathy is magic posing as science.

The fact that those consuming homeopathic drugs are effectively ingesting a sugar pill or its equivalent has, undoubtedly, also influenced the FDA’s policy of non-enforcement. Some might characterize the drugs as “safe” since they usually do nothing. But the FDA has an obligation to protect the health of Americans by requiring that all drugs that are marketed be shown to be safe and effective. For sick Americans who need treatment, a useless drug is a harmful drug

The CFI/CSI petition also asks the FDA to place warning labels on homeopathic drugs until such time as they are shown to be effective. Undoubtedly, most consumers think the FDA regulates homeopathic drugs the same as real medicine. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

In separate petitions, CFI and CSI have specifically targeted homeopathic industry giant Boiron. These petitions ask the FDA to issue warning letters to Boiron regarding its marketing of Oscillococcinum, an alleged flu treatment. One petition complains that Boiron’s packaging for Oscillococcinum lists the alleged active ingredient-duck liver and heart-in Latin only. As Ronald A. Lindsay, president & CEO for CFI/CSI has observed, “If Boiron is going to sell snake oil, the least they can do is use English on their labels.”

The other Boiron-directed petition complains that Boiron’s web ad for Oscillococcinum misleadingly implies the drug has received FDA approval.

The Human Rights Committee consists of eighteen experts and is charged with interpreting and tracking the application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)-a fundamental UN accord that serves to outline and protect human rights globally. The new fifteen-page document, entitled General Comment, is the committee’s first on this issue since 1983, and elaborates on existing measures found within the ICCPR.

The committee’s new commentary marks a major victory for supporters of the open, secular society, and especially CFI. CFI holds special consultative status as a non-governmental organization (NGO) under the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and has for years worked with other NGOs at the UN to uphold freedom of belief and expression and equality of rights.

Unfortunately, while the committee’s new commentary is certainly a step in the right direction, it does not go as far as needed. Mainly, the commentary does not explicitly reject language in the ICCPR that still leaves room for laws restricting religious criticism. Among other things, that language provides that advocacy of religious “hatred” that constitutes “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” CFI denounces the incitement of violence and discrimination, but is concerned that broad language prohibiting “hatred” and “hostility” can be interpreted expansively to provide citizens with a “right” not to 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 without shielding religious belief systems from criticism, and without threatening the rights of religious dissidents, religious minorities, and nonbelievers to express opinions that are unpopular with the majority. 

Michael De Dora, CFI’s representative to the UN, recently blogged about CFI’s commitment to continue working at the UN to ensure everyone has the right to freedom of belief and expression. To read his entire post along with excerpts from the Covenant, and CFI’s previous statements at the UN, log onto Democratic Discourse on Free Thinking.