This was the third in a series of debates in which Hitchens squared off against Wilson. All three debates had as a theme the question, “Is Christianity Good for the World?” A documentary film of their encounters is scheduled to be released in March.

A clip of the film is available on YouTube.

The debate at Martin’s Tavern focused on morality, with Wilson repeating the tired argument that the nonreligious have no moral standards by which to judge good and evil. Between drinks, Hitchens easily brushed aside this complaint, noting that morality has whatever grounding it needs in human interests and behavior. Invoking the commands of some imagined deity is neither necessary nor sufficient to provide a “foundation” for morality.

CFI notes that Hitchens will be providing the keynote address at CFI’s World Congress, which takes place from April 9 through April 12, 2009.

—Jim Underdown

CFI/Los Angeles
January 7-11, 2009

What is the naturalistic alternative to religion? How is scientific inquiry relevant to day-to-day life? How can secularism be protected and expanded? These questions, representing issues central to CFI’s mission and message, will be thoroughly explored, especially as they relate to today’s culture wars, when the Center for Inquiry brings its Institute to Los Angeles for a special winter January 2009 session.

The courses offered January 7-11, 2009 are organized around the theme “Positively Secular,” and will explain skepticism, scientific naturalism, constitutional secularism, and the replacement of religion by humanist ethics.

The sessions include Day, Evening, and Weekend modules. Attend all three modules for an integrated and in-depth understanding of the worldview of secular humanism. The Center for Inquiry will award a Certificate of Proficiency in Humanist Studies for attendance of all three modules.

Featured classes and instructors:

• “Why There Really Is No God” — Eddie Tabash
• “Defending Science Against Its Cultured Despisers” — John Shook
• “Why Be Rational? Applied Critical Thinking in Everyday Life” — James Underdown
• “Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking: What Skeptics Need to Know” — Carol Tavris
• “Being Good without God: The Ethical Life in a Natural World” — John Shook
• “Skepticism and Extraordinary Claims: A Paranormal Investigator Looks at Miracles” — James Underdown
• “It’s Only Natural: What Is Philosophical Naturalism?” — John Shook
• “Taking Secularism to the General Public” — Eddie Tabash
• “Separation of Church and State” — Eddie Tabash
• “Secular and Planetary Ethics: How Humanism Can Save the World” — John Shook
• “An Unusual Look at the Ten Commandments” — James Underdown
• “The Monkey and the Milky Way: Hope in the Midst of Battle” — Lauren Becker

About the Instructors

Eddie Tabash, JD, is a practicing lawyer and a political and social activist. Tabash has debated several Christian apologists, including Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Greg Bahnsen. He is also the Chair of the First Amendment Task Force for the Council for Secular Humanism.

John Shook, Ph D., is Vice President, Director of CFI’s Institute, and Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Inquiry/Transnational, and also Research Professor in Philosophy at the University at Buffalo. A forthcoming book is The Future of Naturalism, co-edited with Paul Kurtz.

Jim Underdown, has been the Executive Director of the Center for Inquiry/Los Angeles since 1999. He is a Founder and Chairman of the Independent Investigations Group in Hollywood, and has appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show, Hannity and Colmes, and Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

Lauren Becker, field organizer for the Center for Inquiry, has also taught at museums, parks, and planetariums. Appearing on Point of Inquiry, the radio show and podcast of CFI, she is an experienced environmental activist and advocate for science literacy and education.

Carol Tavris, Ph.D., is a social psychologist, writer, and lecturer. Among her recent books are Psychobabble and Biobunk, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts, and three introductory psychology textbooks.

To register, or for more information, please visit www.centerforinquiry.net/winter

or contact:

Michele McNerney
mmcnerney [at] centerforinquiry.net
(716) 636-4869 ext. 408

or

Aek Eisenhauer
aeisenhauer [at] centerforinquiry.net
(716) 636-4869 ext. 229

In September 2008, the Center for Inquiry went to Geneva for the ninth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Although a staunchly secularist organization, it was there to fight for the right to talk about religion.

For several years, a coalition of Islamic states--aided by Russia, China, Cuba, and a group of developing countries--has placed the "defamation of religions" high on the U.N. human rights agenda.

In March of this year, the coalition went further to institute what amounts to a blasphemy prohibition at the Human Rights Council itself. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression was changed so that it now includes policing the world for "abuses" of expression that offend religion (this in the context of the release of the Dutch film, Fitna). These events can be seen in the context of a larger movement to promulgate a system of Islamically correct human rights that subordinates rights to a particular political interpretation of Sharia'h, or Islamic law.

In a final irony, when nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at the Council (or HRC, formerly the Human Rights Commission) tried to ask whether such a system was compatible with universal human rights, the Pakistani delegation objected that the mere discussion of the matter was an insult to the faith. Astonishingly, the president of the Council ruled that henceforth NGOs would not be permitted to make statements containing “judgments” about religion at all.

Alerted to the gravity of the situation by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU)--represented ably by veteran U.N. activist Roy Brown--CFI sent representatives to the HRC for the first time since gaining U.N. affiliation. At the ninth session, the Center for Inquiry

• co-sponsored a mini-conference on freedom of expression and religion;
• released two CFI research papers on Islam, human rights, and the “clash of civilizations” to the international press;
• established contact with NGOs and governments concerned with freedom of expression and religion;
• publicly participated in the Council deliberations on women’s rights, “Islamophobia,” the “defamation of religions,” and the universality of human rights; and
• contributed to the international debate on the defamation of religions, which now appears to be turning in a favorable direction. A number of democratic countries are pushing to stop the resolution at the current General Assembly.

Contributing to the Debate

CFI issued five official statements to the HRC, jointly with the IHEU and the Association for World Education. Hugo Estrella, co-director of CFI’s international programs, drafted and read a statement (in Spanish) highlighting religious threats to women’s reproductive freedom, and Austin Dacey drafted and read a statement urging the Council to abandon the dangerous notion of the defamation of religions, asserting: “Rights belong to individuals, not ideas. . . . Belief depends on the freedom to doubt, to dissent, to discover.”

On September 17, CFI co-sponsored, with IHEU, a panel discussion on recent restrictions to free inquiry into religious matters within the Council chambers themselves. The speakers, in addition to Dacey, were Naser Khader, member of the Danish Parliament and leader of the Liberal Alliance party; Walid Phares, the U.S.-based expert on terrorism and the Middle East; and Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Holy See and the European Union, among others.

At the meeting, and at an international press briefing that followed, CFI released two research papers: “Islam and Human Rights: Defending Universality at the United Nations, ” available   at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/unitednations/articles_and_books/islam_and_human_rights/ and “Is There a Clash of Civilizations? The Failure of the United Nations Response,” available at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/unitednations/articles_and_books/is_there_a_clash_of_civilizationsv2/.

Coalition Building

In Geneva, and at a preceding U.N. conference in Paris, CFI forged high-level contacts with government delegations, most notably the French and American, which are very concerned about the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) push to criminalize religiously offensive speech in international law. Additionally, CFI networked with a large number of NGOs with kindred concerns. They included the Cairo Center for Human Rights Studies, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, European Centre for Law and Justice, Freedom House, International Federation for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, UN Watch, Bahà’i International Community, Lutheran World Federation, and many others.

In connection with its activities in Geneva, the Center for Inquiry was asked to join the NGO Committee on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which meets in Geneva and New York.

The importance of CFI’s Voice at the Human Rights Council

It now looks likely that even the OIC will relinquish the notion of the defamation of religions and seek instead to work within the existing legal notion of hate speech that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence. Such notion falls within the limitations on freedom of expression provided for in Article 20 of the legally binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Such an outcome represents progress but signals difficulties ahead. For in seeking guidance in interpreting the proper balance between protection of freedom of expression and protection of individuals against incitement, the discussion may now look to the existing jurisprudence of European human rights courts. These courts by and large have been much more eager than, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court to limit speech that they consider anti-Jewish or anti-Christian. This legal tradition invites the charge of hypocrisy from the Islamic states, which will demand equal protection for Islamic belief. On the other hand, some cultural conservatives may maintain that the heritage of Europe warrants a privileged place for the Jewish and Christian faiths.

Therefore, it will be critically important in the coming debates that there be a thoroughly secular, nonpolitical entity (one that is not compromised by being regarded as a partisan in the highly polarizing issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) to advocate the principled solution to this dilemma: no protection for any belief from criticism, ridicule, and even contempt, except when the speech presents a clear and present danger to some person. As a U.S.-based secular organization, CFI is the ideal representative of this position.

CFI has laid the groundwork for participation in the tenth session of Council, which will focus on issues of freedom of religion. This is to say nothing of the other pressing issues on which CFI’s perspective is needed, such as the restriction on women’s freedoms by religion, particularly in Latin America and Africa.

This December marks the sixtieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much remains to be done to fully realize its ideals. The Center for Inquiry has established itself as a major stakeholder in these ongoing struggles at the Human Rights Council and beyond.

On Oct. 17, the New York Times reported that the newly disclosed legal memorandum claims that taxpayer money can be diverted directly to sectarian faith groups that actively discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring practices, bypassing laws that distinctly forbid that very practice.

Section 3789 of U.S. Code Title 42 Chapter 46 states, (emphasis added):

No person in any State shall on the ground of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under or denied employment in connection with any programs or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this chapter.

But World Vision, claiming that hiring non-Christians would somehow impede its goal of helping youths escape gang culture, has received an exemption to the law. Citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the O.L.C. memorandum claims that requiring the exclusionary Christian group to adhere to the antidiscrimination law would “substantially burden” the free exercise of religion, and that “…exempt(ing) World Vision from the religious nondiscrimination requirement…” would be “…the least restrictive means of furthering (a) compelling governmental interest.”

Ronald A. Lindsay, CFI’s President and CEO, objected strongly to the memorandum’s contents.

“By distorting the concept of religious freedom, the Department of Justice has enabled the Administration to deny true religious freedom. As a result of its aggressive, flawed, and harmful reading of the law, individuals will be denied employment based on their religious beliefs.  Nothing in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act negates the applicability of federal civil rights statutes.  Every recipient of government funding must obey the law, including recipients that happen to be religious,” commented Lindsay.  “Freedom of religion does not include the freedom to break the law.”

Derek C. Araujo, an attorney for CFI, lamented that this issue is yet another part of a larger pattern of the government giving special legal exemptions to religions, and that this a clear illustration of how the rule of law is getting sacrificed, yet again, in the name of piety.

“This provides one more example of how infusing politics with religion distorts our thinking about important public policy issues—in this case, protecting long-cherished civil rights,” Araujo said. “It is stunning that this Administration thinks that enforcing civil rights laws is not a ‘compelling interest.’”

In defense of the religion-based initiative movement, its architect, University of Missouri law professor Carl H. Esbeck, was quoted in the Times asking why World Vision should “be denied the opportunity that everyone else has to compete for funding simply because of their religion.” But the spin he gives this narrow interpretation of civil rights legality ignores the question of why other citizens who want to help dispel gang violence should be denied the opportunity to be hired simply because of their religious convictions, as well as the larger question of why religious recipients of government funds should be privileged by exemptions to federal antidiscrimination laws that apply to non-religious recipients.

The 58-year-old World Vision, which boasts action in more than 100 countries, also goes far beyond the basic spiritual alignments required of such religious exclusionists as the Boy Scouts of America—who simply ask for a vague affirmation of belief in God—and has very stringent rules regarding the specific mandated beliefs of employees.

From World Vision’s Web site, (emphasis original):

The status of World Vision U.S. as an equal opportunity employer does not prevent the organization from hiring staff based on their religious beliefs, so that all staff share the same religious commitment. Pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 702 (42 U.S.C. 2000e 1(a) World Vision U.S. has the right to, and does, hire only candidates who agree with World Vision’s Statement of Faith and/or the Apostles’ Creed.

The Apostles’ Creed is the unbending backbone of Catholic dogma, and the cited Statement of Faith mirrors its tenets with the addition of passages maintaining that the Bible is the only infallible, authoritative word of God; that the “lost” will be inevitably resurrected and sent to eternal damnation; and insinuations that the “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit is necessary for a person to live a decent and respectable life.

On Oct. 19, the Washington Post reported that Richard E. Stearns, president of World Vision’s U.S. operations, brushed off complaints of special treatment for Christians—who dominate the U.S. political landscape—citing “that a waiver from the anti-discrimination provisions in grants could apply to Jewish, Hindu and Muslim groups, as well.”

The Center for Inquiry/Transnational, a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York, is also home to the Council for Secular Humanism, founded in 1980; the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), founded in 1976; and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. The Center for Inquiry’s research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-science claims; and medicine and health. The Center’s Web site is www.centerforinquiry.net .

###

I have just returned from a whirlwind tour of India—my seventh trip to that country—where I delivered eight talks. Despite the much-reported impressive growth of India’s middle class, poverty remains a massive phenomenon.

CFI has established four Centers for Inquiry in India. The headquarters of CFI/India is in Hyderabad, under the chairmanship of Dr. Innaiah Narisetti, with branches at the University of Pune (near Mumbai); the Moulana Azad Medical College at the University of New Delhi; and at Periyar Maniammai University in Thanjavur (near Chennai), under the direction of Dr. K. Veeramani. The Indian Rationalist Association has also become an affiliate of the Center for Inquiry/Transnational.

India is one of the few countries in the world to include a provision encouraging in its constitution “the scientific temper” and “humanism.” Interestingly, the constitution was drafted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (chairman of the drafting committee), a colleague of Jawahartal Nehru, first head of India. It was adopted in 1949, though many amendments were later added. Ambedkar studied with John Dewey at Columbia University.

May I offer a brief report of my trip to India, which was most gratifying? I am very fond of India and its people. I have many friends and colleagues in India. Several of my books have been translated into Hindi and other Indian dialects.

I spent the first week meeting with the key officials associated with Periyar Maniammai University, including Dr. Veeramani, chancellor of the university and head of the Dravidar Kazhagam movement. I am told that they have about one million supporters throughout India. I delivered the commencement address at the university, and was awarded an Honorary Degree. I was asked to bestow the Veeramani award for Social Justice to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M. Karunanidhi, in Chennai, where about 6,000 people attended in an overflow audience. I also spoke at their beautiful campus in Trichy, where some 4,000 students from secondary schools and colleges greeted me with cheers—much to my embarrassment and surprise. They also put on a special program about humanism. All told, they have four campuses (including a new one at New Delhi). I was overwhelmed by the reception that I received and by the dedication of the people in the movement, founded by Periyar about 70 years ago and now carried on by Dr. Veerimani. They are committed to social justice, especially the need to develop self-respect, their criticism of the caste system and religion, including Hinduism and all gods. Dr. Veeramani commented that the agenda of the Center for Inquiry and the Dravidar Kazhagam movement are compatible, and I concur wholeheartedly.

They have asked to establish a branch of the Center for Inquiry/India in Chennai. Dr. Innaiah Narisetti, head of the Indian Center, has agreed to proceed with this.

Dr. Narisetti’s son is Editor of Mint, a new business newspaper published throughout India in cooperation with the Wall Street Journal. Allow me to express my sincere appreciation to him for planning of my trip to India. My hosts in Chennai were Drs. Sam and Sara Ilangovan, both of whom practiced medicine in Chicago for many years. Sam is head of Periyar International (which has tens of thousands of members in the United States). Both are supporters of Free Inquiry and the Center for Inquiry.

My next visit was to the University of Pune just south of Mumbai, one of the top five universities of India. A new Center for Inquiry has been established in Pune under the leadership of Dr. Santishree Pandit, of the Department of Politics and Public Administration. I gave a talk to members of the faculty and graduate students. Professor Santishree is a dynamic woman dedicated to the ideals of secular humanism and scientific rationalism.

From there, I went on to New Delhi, where a Delhi branch of CFI was established at the Maulana Azad Medical College, one of the top medical schools in India, under the directorship of Dr. J Kishore, a vigorous critic of superstition in the medical field. The college is affiliated with the University of New Delhi. They wish to establish a databank comprised of the 30-year index of Skeptical Inquirer, so that many critiques of folk and paranormal medicine could be made available to the public. We are also sending them the 10-year file of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. I read a paper at a conference on the topic, “Evidence Based Medicine.” Faculty from three medical schools attended.

My last talk was sponsored by the Indian Rationalist Association, under the leadership of its President Sanal Edamaruku. There I delivered a talk on Planetary Humanism. The Rationalists recently purchased their own building. The meeting room was packed with rationalists and humanists. We had a vigorous discussion with much give and take.

We discussed with Dr. Innaiah Narisetti a new program of action in India. They are establishing a Hinduism Criticism Committee, which will assemble critiques of the Hindu religion. Dr. Santishree Pandit, Sanal Edamaruku, and others will assemble the extensive literature critical of Hinduism and will sponsor continued research.

There was good coverage of many of these meetings in the Indian press. Many of the key heads of the Centers have been invited to take part in Center for Inquiry’s 12th World Congress, “Science, Public Policy, and the Planetary Community,” to be held April 9 through April 12, 2009 in Washington, D.C.

—Paul Kurtz

Toni Van Pelt, director of the Center for Inquiry's Office of Public Policy, will undertake a speaking tour of Florida during the next two weeks, presenting two separate talks in 10 venues, and interviewing for two live radio shows.

Van Pelt will present "The Danger of Freethinking Women," with emphasis on the struggle for women's suffrage in the United States to the call for Equal Rights in the U.S. Constitution in our current era. Focus will be on the brave women of the times- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Emma Goldman, Ernestine Rose, Jessie Ackermann, Matilda Joslyn Gage, to name a few-who struggled fiercely against religious oppression to ultimately secure political and civil rights for all women. The title of her talk was inspired by an Inquisition-era church publication, "Malleus Maleficarum," or "The Witches' Hammer," which indoctrinated the world to "the dangers of freethinking women," including female scholars, priestesses, nature lovers, and midwives who eased the childbirth suffering believed to be God's rightful punishment of the female descendants of Eve, and instructed the clergy how to locate, torture, and destroy them.

• "The Dangers of Freethinking Women" tour will begin at 7 p.m. Friday, Oct. 10 at the Jim Ward Community Center, 301 NW 46^{th Ave., in Plantation, Ft. Lauderdale. Subsequent dates include:}
• Miami, 8 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 11 at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 7701 SW 76th Ave.
• Daytona Beach, noon Thursday, Oct. 16 at the Red Lobster, 2735 N. Atlantic Ave.
• Orlando, 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 16 in Reeves Lodge, Rollins College, 1000 Holt Ave, Winter Park.
• Tallahassee, 5 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 21 at Leroy Collins Public Library 200 West Park Ave.
• Gainesville, 7 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 22 at the University of Florida.
• Tampa, 5 p.m. Friday, Oct. 24 at the Marshal Center, 4202 E Fowler Ave., Univ. of South Florida.

Ms. Van Pelt will also give a second series of talks while in the Sunshine State, titled "CFI's Office of Public Policy: Promoting Science & Reason in Law and Policy," focusing on the national work the D.C. branch of CFI has accomplished in its first two years in the nation's capital. Despite the success of science and technology in providing us with unparalleled benefits, religious fundamentalists and some postmodernists seek to inhibit free inquiry. This is a highly charged political issue, because both science and secularism are under attack.  While a number of organizations lobby and work to defend science politically, Van Pelt will show why so far no organization has worked to defend science and free inquiry more than the Center for Inquiry.

• "Promoting Science & Reason in Law and Policy" will open at 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 9 at Mythos Taverna, 2864 N. University Drive in Coral Springs, Pompano Beach. Subsequent dates include:
• Naples, 7 p.m. Monday, Oct. 13 at Empire China restaurant, 2085 9th Street North.
• Tampa, 11 a.m., Saturday, Oct. 18 at CFI-Tampa, in the Bridgeport Center, 5201 West Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 124.

Toni Van Pelt is the director of the Center for Inquiry-Office of Public Policy, centered in Washington, D.C. Prior to her reassignment to Washington, she was the first executive director for the Center for Inquiry-Florida. In her former role as the president of Florida National Organization for Women, she lobbied the Federal and Florida Legislature, helping to write and establish new law in the state. She is a veteran of Congressional and state political campaigns working for candidates as well as on issues.

While on the road, she will accept invitations to interview for several live radio broadcasts, including:

• WELE-AM 1380, Orlando and Daytona Beach, from 4:15-5:45 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 15.
• WMNF-FM 88.5 (NPR Station), Tampa/St. Petersburg, from 10-11 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 18.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, please e-mail Toni Van Pelt at tvanpelt [at] centerforinquiry.net

The Center for Inquiry/Transnational, a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York, is also home to the Council for Secular Humanism, founded in 1980; the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), founded in 1976; and the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. The Center for Inquiry's research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-science claims; and medicine and health. The Center's Web site is ^{www.centerforinquiry.net}

Under existing federal law, the federal government may refuse to fund health care institutions that “discriminate” against individuals or entities that decline to provide abortion or sterilization services.  To date, these laws have had minimal impact on provision of services because they have been interpreted reasonably.

The proposed regulation, however, effectively gives health care workers an absolute and broad right to refuse to provide or participate in a service to which they object.  The regulation states that it will apply to “any activity with a reasonable connection to a procedure” to which the health care worker objects. The regulation itself indicates it could cover a worker who refuses to clean surgical instruments because they may be used in an operation that offends his “conscience.” Moreover, the regulation makes no effort to balance the needs of the patient with the objections of the nurse, pharmacist, or technician. This places the regulation in stark contrast to other laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion, which do not permit workers to refuse to provide services if that refusal has significant adverse consequences for others. The regulation also would impose onerous reporting and certification requirements on health care institutions—resulting in tens of millions of dollars in extra expenditures.

The proposed regulation would affect all those with health care needs, but would have an especially severe impact on women and their reproductive rights, especially in light of the recent trend by pharmacists and others to refuse provide emergency contraception based on the erroneous and scientifically unsupported belief that this means of preventing pregnancy results in an abortion. Because the regulation provides no definition of “abortion,” the “conscience” of the objecting health care worker can define it as he or she sees fit.

The comments submitted by the Office of Public Policy registered strong objections to the proposed regulation and urged the Secretary of HHS not to implement the regulation. The comments were prepared by Ruth Mitchell, Ph.D., of the Office of Public Policy, and Ronald A. Lindsay, J.D., Ph.D., President and CEO of CFI, with contributions by Derek Araujo, J.D., the Executive Director of CFI’s New York City Center, and Toni Van Pelt, Vice President and Director of Government Affairs.

To view a .pdf of the submitted comments in their entirety, click here.

The Telugu translation is available here as a pdf.