Blasphemy Battles Continue at the United Nations

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Jan. 6, 2010

By MATT CHERRY

"Blasphemy!" It's a cry as old as freethought, perhaps as old as religion. It's also a crime wherever religion can get enough control of government to impose it. And now anti-blasphemy laws are making a comeback-at the United Nations of all places.

If the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has its way, the U.N. will impose a global blasphemy law under the guise of combating "defamation of religions." The OIC, which represents 56 countries with significant Muslim populations, has been sponsoring U.N. resolutions against "defamation of religions" since 1999. These have been passed every year by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its successor in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Committee. Since 2005, the U.N. General Assembly itself has adopted resolutions against "defamation of religions." So far, these resolutions have not had the force of international law, but the OIC is working to change that.

Defined as disrespecting God, blasphemy may seem to be the ultimate victimless crime. But all too often the real victims of blasphemy laws are humanists who dare to speak out. Just ask Dr. Younus Shaikh, the humanist leader in Pakistan who spent more than three years on death row after being charged with blasphemy in 2000. Or Dr. Taslima Nasrin, the humanist writer from Bangladesh who listened to a mob of 300,000 people demand that she be hanged for blasphemy. In response, her government issued an arrest warrant against her for "hurting religious feelings."

In both cases, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) successfully campaigned to save the lives of these courageous humanists. Yet both must still live in hiding, fearing for their lives, even in the West.

Speaking of the phrase "Even in the West," I find myself using it a lot these days to puncture a certain complacency among Humanists confident that secular progress will take care of itself. Progress never happens unless we work for it. Reactionary religion always fights back.

If you don't believe me, check out the new blasphemy law that Ireland introduced this year. Or consider the Danish cartoonists, editors and publishers living in fear of their lives because they dared to poke fun at the Prophet Mohammed. Now a Jordanian court has summoned these Danes on charges of blasphemy. Jordanian prosecutors say that they hope the case "will help establish an international law against slandering religion."

IHEU has been leading the campaign against the blasphemy push at the U.N.. Our teams in New York and Geneva have pushed back with policy papers, briefings and lobbying within the U.N. In a 15-page report titled, Speaking Freely About Religion: Religious Freedom, Defamation and Blasphemy,

IHEU rebutted the claims that freedom of expression must be restricted to protect freedom of religion and detailed how outlawing "defamation of religions" would violate many long-established principles of international law. Furthermore, the IHEU report suggests that the concept of outlawing "defamation of religions" is derived from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's own laws against blasphemy.

All this work is producing results. For example, attempts to include language against "religious defamation" in this year's "Durban II" U.N. anti-racism agreement were a complete and unexpected failure.

Yet we still have a long way to go to win this battle. On December 18, the UN General Assembly again adopted a resolution against "defamation of religions." After intensive lobbying by a diverse collection of civil society groups, including the IHEU and American Humanist Association, the majority for the resolution shrank to just 19 U.N. member states this year (80 in favor, 61 against, and 42 abstentions). Last year the majority was 33 and in 2006 it was 57. So despite another loss, the tide appears to have turned, and the resolutions remain legally non-binding.

Unfortunately, the OIC has opened a second front at the U.N. in Geneva. The obscure Ad-Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards is debating whether to add an amendment about "defamation of religions" to the International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Since ICERD has the force of international law, the amendment would outlaw "defamation of religion" in all countries that ratify it.

The fight for freedom of conscience goes on.

(Matt Cherry is International Representative for the International Humanist and Ethical Union. IHEU is the global union for humanist, Ethical Culture, atheist and other freethinking groups. With more than 100 member organizations in 40 countries, IHEU has Special Consultative Status with the United Nations.)

‘Faith-Based' Prisons: Another Threat to Church-State Separation

GUEST COLUMN By ROB BOSTON

More than seven million Americans are currently under some type of supervision from correctional systems - either incarcerated in a prison or jail or under probation or parole.

Experts in criminal justice express great frustration with this figure; proportionally, it's much higher than other Western nations. One reason it's so high is recidivism. Nearly 70 percent of prison inmates who are released are re-arrested within three years; more than half end up back in prison. If we could break the cycle of recidivism, that alone would greatly reduce the prison population.

But recidivism has proved to be a tough nut to crack. Many factors contribute to a former inmate's decision to return to a life of crime - lack of family support, inability to get a job and so on.

A few years ago, some conservative Christians decided they had found the answer-- "Christian" prisons. If inmates were converted to strict biblical fundamentalism, they would surely reform and live straight on the outside.

It should be made clear that by "Christian" these advocates mean "fundamentalist." The type of Christianity espoused in these programs is grounded in biblical literalism. These are not generically religious or non-sectarian programs; they are anchored in a certain type of theologically conservative Christianity - the kind espoused by right-wing evangelicals and fundamentalists.

It's difficult to say how many programs like this operate in U.S. jails and prisons. Jails especially are often run at the county level. Because of this decentralization, it's often hard to keep tabs on every religious program operating in institutions. Many may not garner national attention.

State prisons are a different matter. Attempts to establish "faith-based" programs in state institutions usually capture media attention and quickly come to light. This gives defenders of church-state separation time to examine the programs and determine their constitutionality.

Some of these programs are definitely problematic. In 2003, Americans United for Separation of Church and State sued to block a program at Newton State Prison in Iowa. The so-called "InnerChange Freedom Initiative" (IFI), run by Charles Colson's Prison Fellowship, was a clear example of the dangers of mixing fundamentalist dogma with public funds.

In court, Americans United proved that IFI is saturated with fundamentalist religion and that inmates taking part in it were given special perks not available to others.

A federal judge ruled tax-funded support of the program unconstitutional in June of 2006, and a year later a federal appeals court affirmed that ruling. IFI is no longer operating in Iowa prisons.

During the litigation, Americans United argued that the IFI program revolves around an inmate's willingness to embrace a narrow version of faith--we pointed out that this religious perspective saturated the program. Public funds, we argued, could not support such a sectarian approach.

In the IFI program, we found evidence that other denominations and religions were disparaged, and even noted that inmates were taught fundamentalist doctrines related to social policy. One IFI speaker attacked evolution. Participants were told that being gay is a sin. Men serving hard time behind bars were assured that, upon their release, they could go home confident that the Bible ordains them to run their households.

Worse yet, the men taking part in the program were given desirable perks that other inmates did not got - cells with private bathrooms, keys to their cells, generous access to computers and musical instruments and, perhaps most importantly, the ability to take part in an accelerated program that often led to parole.

IFI had claimed great success in rehabilitating inmates; staffers claimed they had greatly lowered the recidivism rate. This turned out to be illusionary. A study commissioned by Prison Fellowship seemed to show IFI graduates returning to prison at a lower rate than other inmates. It was soon revealed that the data had been cooked. In fact, when an independent researcher examined the data, he found that IFI participants ended up back in prison at a slightly higher rate than those who had not been through the program.

IFI is no longer operating at Newton, but that does not mean we've seen the end of "faith-based" prisons. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush oversaw the creation of such a facility in that state. Two others have since opened. Bush insisted that the prison would offer programs from many different faiths, and many of the programs and supplies are run by volunteers and paid for with donations. So far, no litigation has been filed against these prisons, but advocates of church-state separation continue to monitor the situation.

Most recently, a Religious Right activist proposed opening a "Christian" prison in Wakita, Oklahoma. The facility, to be run by a private Texas-based ministry called Corrections Concepts, would hire only Christians, and inmates would be required to take part in sectarian activities.

Americans United protested, and in response, state corrections officials said they had no intention of giving state money or support to such a facility. Oklahoma officials were wise to step away. The plan presented a host of problems. A publicly funded institution, for example, may not discriminate on religious grounds when hiring staff or subject employees to a religious litmus test.

There isn't a lot of sympathy for prison inmates in this country. Many of the men and women behind bars are incarcerated for serious crimes. Few would want them as neighbors. Yet we must accept the fact that most of these people will at some point be released into the general population. It's in our interest that they give up criminal activities. Shuttling them off to religious programs and hoping they'll become devout Christians who lead crime-free lives is naïve.

Faith-based prisons raise serious constitutional issue because they direct tax money into religious activities. But when we go deeper, we can see the real problem: These proposals are yet another example of the Religious Right's insistence - one sadly often supported by many government leaders - that an embrace of fundamentalist Christianity can solve any social ill. This approach has failed in just about every other context ("abstinence only" sex education, anyone?) and it will fail here.

Prison inmates, and indeed the larger culture, deserve a real solution to the problems presented by crime and recidivism. Faith-based prisons aren't it.

(Rob Boston is senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State and is on the board of directiors of the American Humanist Association.)

Ask Richard: Should an Atheist Attend a Catholic University?

You may send your questions for Richard to AskRichard@ca.rr.com. All questions will eventually be answered, but not all can be published. There is a large number of request; please be patient.

Dear Richard,   

(Note: When letter writers sign with their first names instead of a pseudonym or nickname, I randomly change their name for added anonymity.)

Dear Richard,

I'm thirty-three and going back to college. Right now, I'm working on an associate's degree, and I intend to transfer to a university to get my bachelor's.

There's a university here with a good reputation, and I can easily meet the entrance requirements. There are a lot of good reasons to go there - everything from small class sizes to a lack of parking problems on campus. It seems perfect for me - except it's a Roman Catholic school, and I'm an atheist.

From what I can tell there's no religious component or requirement for a degree. Graduates of the university, including one Wiccan, have told me it's no different than a secular school in terms of the education provided. But I'm not sure I want to support a school linked to the Catholic church. Can you give me any advice?

Thanks,

Allison

Dear Allison,

It seems to me your only hesitation is because you sense an ethical conflict about supporting the Catholic church both financially and in adding to its status by attending and graduating from this university.

That's the common feature of ethical dilemmas: There's always something very tempting on the "go ahead and do it" side. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a dilemma. We'd just listen to the "this is wrong" side, and walk away.

The school is convenient, it is apparently academically satisfactory, and I'll assume that you've made certain that it has enough credibility or prestige in the field you're pursuing to be an asset to your career. Like you said, it seems perfect for you.

Except that you have a sense of ethics.

I'll also have to assume that the other half of the ethical dilemma for you, the "this is wrong" side, is your awareness of the long and far-reaching record of corruption, greed, bigotry, abuse, hypocrisy, social injustice, political meddling, promotion of superstition and general self-serving ruthlessness that has been, is now, and will continue to be perpetrated worldwide by the Roman Catholic Church. I'm guessing that even if you were not an atheist, your ethical sense would be troubled because of the malevolence that is associated with this particular vast, rich, and powerful institution.

So I guess it comes down to how much wiggle room is there in your ethical principles. Does the university get "off the hook" if you can reassure yourself that the faculty and administrators don't personally participate in any of that wickedness?

Do you get "off the hook" if you disapprove of the Church's iniquity, even though you know that some of your tuition money will end up in their coffers? Will the good that you do with your education somehow cancel out the evil you help to support?

Will you wonder the rest of your life if you got a bachelor's in your major with a minor in hypocrisy?

Allison, I don't know what you plan to do with it, but a bachelor's degree is the first level of being a professional. People put their trust into both the competence and the honor of professionals. A professional who is able to rationalize his or her questionable actions can be a dangerous menace. They get there by taking tiny steps, making tiny compromises, accepting tiny increases in their duplicity, in their willingness to be expedient, and in their abandonment of principles. Tiny steps add up.

Your ethical sense is a precious and rare trait. It's far more valuable than your intellectual intelligence. The ability to sense that there is a conflict of your principles is sadly rare among people. Many are smart or talented or hard-working, but what you stopped to deliberate about doesn't even occur to them.

Preserve the strength of that instinct. It will make your life challenging at times, but over the long run you will be very satisfied that you have lived an exemplary life of principles lived up to instead of just given lip service, and you have not betrayed the trust that your education brought to you.

Look around. Perhaps there are other colleges with not quite as convenient parking, with slightly larger class sizes and with a bit longer commute, but without that built-in conflict that may pester you the whole time you're there, or even longer.

Richard

(Richard Wade identifies as both a humanist and an atheist. He has worked as an artist and as a Marriage and Family Therapist with many years in the specialization of addiction. Now retired, he has counseld more than ten thousand patients. Questions to this advice column are welcome from any perspective or belief, not just that of humanism or atheism. Richard Wade's column can also be read on a regular basis at The Friendly Atheist blog.)

The Misguided Mission of "Mission: America"

A weekly commentary by Hemant Mehta, adapted from his blog "The Friendly Atheist."

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Jan. 6, 2010

Linda Harvey is the founder of Mission: America, an organization whose objective is "to equip Christians with current, accurate information about cultural issues such as feminism, homosexuality, education and New Age influences."

When someone like her says she's spreading "current, accurate information," that's just code for "I'm going to tell you lies and say it's in the name of Jesus so you won't call me out on it."

Harvey has a list of The Top 10 Ways to Make Kids Truly Safe in 2010. Here are a couple of particularly offensive samples from it:

1. Allow-no, welcome-Christianity back into the American public square... in schools, in community groups, in city council meetings, in the Senate, on city streets, in the courthouse square, in the media, in college lectures. Laugh at the ACLU. Elect judges who agree. Don't elect presidents who think we are no longer a Christian nation.

2. Get all pro-homosexual and pro-promiscuity programs, literature, teachers, and counselors out of every school now. Remove "gay" clubs, Planned Parenthood at health fairs, and GLSEN-PFLAG-SIECUS activists. Cease all condom demonstrations, abortion referrals, on-site birth control dispensing, sexual orientation affirmation, and messing with children's hearts, minds and bodies. Demand that schools uphold the traditional value of heterosexual identities, teach abstinence-until-marriage, and celebrate male/female gender differences.

This goes way beyond anti-gay religious beliefs. Harvey wants any teacher who believes in equal rights for gay people fired.

Remove "gay" clubs? What does that mean (with the quotation marks)? Get rid of the Drama Club? Presumably, she means groups like the Gay-Straight Alliance... how dare students voluntarily support other students regardless of sexual orientation! They should be killing them like the Bible says.

And I think she wants to remove the birth control vending machine from our schools (?!)...

Number One is just a bad idea and no Christian should be supporting it, either. It's the type of idea that only comes from people who have no regard for the rights of other people and minds small enough to think they know what's best for every other human being on the planet.

Separation of church and state is as good for Christians as it is for the rest of us.

The rest of her list is just a collection of GOP talking points and anti-Islamic sentiment.

You know what I'd like to see in 2010?

I want to see Christians openly, vocally, and frequently going after people like Harvey who bastardize their faith. Do it in church, do it on your blogs, talk about it with your family. Don't just sit back and let your friends, family, and congregations get swayed by these ideas.

About Hemant Mehta, The Friendly Atheist

(Hemant Mehta is the Chair of the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) Board of Directors. He has worked with the Center for Inquiry and is also an SSA representative to the Secular Coalition for America. Hemant received national attention, including being featured on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, for his work as the "eBay Atheist." Hemant's blog can be read at FriendlyAtheist.com and his book "I Sold My Soul on eBay" (WaterBrook Press) is now in bookstores everywhere. He currently works as a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago.)

Humanism on the Move

STAFF REPORT

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Jan. 6, 2010

The Reason Project is hosting a film competition with a very sizable pot of money. To enter submit the code for the embedded video of a film explaining the importance of critical thinking.  Films must be eight minutes or less and submitted by February 28.

First place prize is $10,000; second place is $4,000; third place is $1,000.

The contest is fairly open in subject matter and style: videos can be serious or funny, animated or live action. Even if you can't enter, you can still vote for your favorite video in March.

Atheist Ireland has begun a campaign to challenge Ireland's new blasphemy law. On January 2 they published 25 blasphemous quotes, which have previously been published by or uttered by or attributed to Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mark Twain, Tom Lehrer, Randy Newman, among others.

According to Irish law, blasphemy is a crime punishable by a €25,000 fine. The new law defines blasphemy as publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion.

According to the Atheist Ireland website, "this new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it  incentivizes religious outrage, and because Islamic States led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level."

The St. Joseph Skeptics had their holiday display stolen.  The sign read "Be Good For Goodness Sake", and included the name of the organization and its web site address.  It survived for three days until someone took it--posts and all.

According to the organization, "for nearly 30 years the City of St. Joseph, Missouri, has turned its Krug Park into "Holiday Park" with nearly a mile of lighted tunnels, snowmen, Santas and a crèche complete with the requisite shepherds and wise men.  After several months delay processing a request, the city parks department consented to the Skeptics display and the group had the sign in place for the park opening the day after Thanksgiving.  Two days later the sign, three supporting posts and even the light provided by the city had disappeared.

Undeterred, and aided by a $150 donation from the American Atheists sign fund, the St. Joseph Skeptic Society erected a duplicate in the same park.  Although the light bulb was again taken, the sign was still in place after New Years.  The Skeptics plan to store the sign and try again next year."

Letters to the Editor

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Jan. 6, 2010

HNN Readers React

Send a Letter to HNN, Call HNN

To send a letter to HNN, look for "Letter to the Editor" link in the small box in the upper right-hand corner of every article in HNN.

Remembering Roy Torcaso

(Re: Can an Atheist Serve in Public Office? Humanist Network News, Dec. 16, 2009.)

HNN's story about the Bothwell matter in North Carolina mentioned that the Supreme Court in 1961 ruled against religious tests for public office, but the story omitted mentioning that the plaintiff in the case, Torcaso v. Watkins, was an American Humanist Association member and served at least one term on the AHA board. Torcaso, a lifelong freethinker, died a couple of years ago. His memorial service was held at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Rockville (Md.).  I gave a eulogy.

--Edd Doerr,  Silver Spring, Md.

(Re: Surrounded by Evangelists at Work, Humanist Network News, Dec. 9, 2009.)

At work, I'm surrounded by religious people--some very religious. They all know I'm a humanist (I even wear the humanist symbol on my lapel), and I never feel uncomfortable, much less pestered by them. They are not the "evangelizing" kind, I must admit; rather, I am the promoter of humanism all the time.

I really love it when I'm bored by a Jehovah's Witness or any other evangelist in the street and can spend ten or fifteen minutes with them. Of course, I haven't had any instant conversions, but I always leave with the impression that I taught something of value to them.  Real, complete humanism is simply indisputable.

--Richard E. Trelles, Florida

(Re: Can an Atheist Serve in Public Office?, Humanist Network News, Dec. 16, 2009.)

Let me first of all congratulate the atheist who was elected in California. It is quite astonishing to hear about this. But in India we do not have a bar for atheists.

One such example is my mother--Chennupati Vidya, who was born in a social revolutionary family. She was nominated as a member of the local self government in 1962 when she was 21 and continued to serve until 1979. Twice elected as a member of the Indian Parliament (Lower House titled as Lok Sabha), she served from 1980 to 1984 and again from 1989 to 1991. During her tenure in public office she actively participated in discussions and introduced bills on secularism, health and other social issues.

 In addition, she was also given the freedom to take the oath of office in the name of the "constitution" instead of "God."  An atheist woman in a country like India where women are treated like second-class citizens, Vidya was applauded by her fellow Parliamentarians for her humanistic contributions in the Parliamentary sessions.  Now in her seventies, she is still active in humanitarian work as an atheist and keeps in contact with those holding public office.

--Keerthi Bollinen, Vilayawade, India

(Re: A Humanist Hanukkah, Humanist Network News, Dec. 9, 2009.)

In Israel, one is Jewish by nationality. If one also wants to be Jewish by religious faith that is an option. But one can also be a secular-humanist-Israeli-Jew when Jewishness  means one's national identity, one's language(Hebrew), and one's patriotism as an Israeli.

Hanukkah is celebrated by religious Jews as a commemoration of a presumed miracle. But non-religious Israelis see in it a paradigm of their nationalism and fierce defense of independence. The problem is that the original Maccabees were fundamentalists (in modern parlance) who rejected enforced conversion to pagan Greek culture and religion. They also rejected art, beauty, theatre, architecture, philosophy and sports, which makes the naming of Israeli's leading basketball team "Maccabee" something of an oddity.
So I can empathize with my ancestors who fought for freedom but cannot accept their rejection of modernization.

--David Zohar, Jerusalem, Israel

(Re: "No God...? No Problem!" --Humanist Network News,  Dec. 2, 2009.)

Humanism has a greater chance of spreading its enlightened perspectives to a greater number of people if it replaces the word "God" with "traditional religions."  Thus, I would rather have you say, "No Traditional Religions, Fewer Bitter Problems in Mixed-up Humanity" than "No God ...? No Problem!"

--V. V. Raman,  Rochester, N.Y.

Cathartic Comics

 ... an assortment of cartoons and comic strips about humanism, atheism, religion, science and freethought.

For HumanistNetworkNews.org
Jan. 6, 2010