Humanist Network News

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR: Humanist Bravery

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:02:41 -0400

I live in Washington DC, a city that’s so liberal, 92% of residents voted for President Obama in the last election. It’s a city where, amidst a myriad of political opinions, atheist advertisements hardly bat an eye (the major press comes from the rest of America). That’s why it’s sometimes hard for me to imagine what it’s like living in a small town where coming out as an atheist, or simply standing up for church-state separation, can lead to bullying, losing of a job, or even being kicked out of your own home. Seems silly to think that simply not believing in God can lead to real-life consequences, but it’s worth reminding ourselves of how far we, as members of the freethought movement, still need to go in order to achieve equality for nonbelievers.

That’s why I applaud Gracie Bedi, one of the plaintiffs in the AHA’s lawsuit against a high school in Mississippi that held an unconstitutional Christian assembly and the lead story in this week’s HNN, for coming out publicly on behalf of humanists, atheists and religious minorities at her school. We need more religious allies like Gracie, and humanists like her friend Alexis, who are willing to be brave and stand up for the First Amendment. It’s never easy, but it’s worth it.

Maggie Ardiente
HNN Editor

Why I Sued Northwest Rankin High School: A Student Speaks Out

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:02:37 -0400

Most everyone in the central Mississippi sphere, and many nationwide, have heard of the lawsuit filed by two young women against Northwest Rankin High School over the recent Christian assemblies held and sponsored by Pinelake Baptist Church. Oftentimes in controversial cases such as this, public opinion interferes with the proper spread of information, and I am quite afraid that is what has happened here.

In order to eradicate any mystery and pretense, I would like to first formally announce that I am M.B., the plaintiff in this case. Moreover, my full name is Magdalene Bedi, although I am better known as Gracie Bedi by classmates and friends.

I abandon anonymity not to call attention to myself, but rather to call attention to the case and better validate its purpose. As a student at the high school, I have been privy to the thoughts and analysis of my peers, and what I’ve heard has been incredibly disheartening. Rather than reviewing the case as one of constitutional rights, I have been written off as an angry atheist, a scorned student, and even as a greedy child looking only for profit. Allow me to defend myself against such harsh conclusions.

I am not an angry atheist. As a matter of fact, I am not an atheist at all. I hold many Christian beliefs and values, and I do not mean to attack the religion or its message. Instead, this is a case about our constitutional right to be free from the government promoting these religious beliefs. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist. In fact, my friend Alexis, who is bringing this lawsuit with me, is a humanist. But this case is not about our religious beliefs.

I take issue with the fact that my peers and I were forced to attend a preferential religious sermon by a public school administration. The government, and Northwest is indeed a government for all intents and purposes, has no place in dictating the religion of the governed. May I remind the public of the first right listed in our Bill of Rights, established in order to protect the people from overbearing regimes: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Not only does this forbid the forced attendance of religious meetings and state promotion of religion generally, it also allows for the governed to present their grievances to their government, which is precisely what Alexis and I have done. Public schools are not to violate these most cherished constitutional rights, granted to all citizens of America (even high school students).

I am not a scorned student. Northwest has been nothing but kind to me throughout my several years of public education, and I may attribute my depth of awareness to the very thorough and efficient curriculum. The faculty is perhaps the best in the state and may be among the best at the national level. It is not my intention to rebel against or insult the high school itself. My grievances are only with the inappropriate and unconstitutional actions by the administration and staff.

Finally, I’m not getting rich out of this. The most the school will pay for are the funds to cover legal fees. You may all be rest assured that I will not be driving a state funded car anytime soon!

What I hope for readers to have gained from this statement is a deeper awareness of my and Alexis’s intentions. Our sole motive for bringing this case is to uphold the values instilled by our nation’s Constitution, not to tread on the beliefs and values of others.

Gracie Bedi is a student at Northwest Rankin High School in Flowood, Mississippi. Please direct all media inquiries to Appignani Humanist Legal Center Attorney William Burgess at 202-238-9088 ext. 102 or bburgess@americanhumanist.org.

Brainstormin’: Faith is a False Friend

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:02:33 -0400

A few weeks ago, I found myself at the front of a sizeable auditorium, facing an audience full of faithful Christians. The organizers of the event—the Christian Veritas Forum—had flown in a charismatic MIT chemistry professor to offer a Christian point of view. A second panelist—a smart statistics professor and fellow member of Carnegie Mellon’s faculty—was there to share his Unitarian perspective. I was the panel’s token humanist, and as our charge was framed by the provocative title “Faith: Friend or Foe?” the task of provocation fell, it seemed, to me. After acknowledging faith’s considerable allure, I argued—forcefully, I think—that faith is in fact a false friend. Ever since, I have been fielding requests for copies of my remarks. I recount them here (in abridged form).

Faith: Friend or Foe?

I have been asked to take a stand on the question of faith. More specifically, on whether it is more properly regarded as friend or foe. I am not a person of faith, but I will not cast faith in the role of foe. For one thing, I do not consider religious people my enemies. For another, there is an antagonism inherent in a relationship between foes that I find unconstructive. So I will set aside the “foe” option. In fact, let me stipulate, in a spirit of reconciliation, that faith is a friend. By this, I mean to recognize that a certain set of mental habits affords hope, strength and comfort to millions, perhaps billions of people. I understand that these habits play an important role in people’s emotional and social lives—a role not unlike that of a friend.

But is faith a true friend to humanity? Does it repay our friendship in kind? Or is it rather a false friend: something that appears to benefit us while in fact harming us? This is a question we can explore together. Indeed, it is a question in urgent need of open and honest examination.

[I here omit several segments of my actual presentation, among them a definition of humanism, some observations about fair-minded assessment, and an analysis of the way faith-talk functions. I noted that faith-talk is used to promote certain beneficial attitudes, but also that it is used to exempt religious claims from basic standards of rational accountability.]

Consider the fact that faith has spawned many hundreds of incompatible belief systems, each claiming a monopoly on religious truth. At most, one of these belief systems is true. This means that, as a method of determining belief, faith is appallingly unreliable. If one of (say) two hundred faith-based systems is correct, then faith gets it right about .5% of the time. Even if, against all odds, faith has guided you to the truth, you must concede that its overall batting average is embarrassingly low. Now ask yourself a simple question: What kind of friend is demonstrably unreliable?

Consider next the kinds of things that the world’s faithful claim to know: that we must sacrifice two goats before dawn, that Jesus rose from the dead, that Allah wants us to wage holy war against the infidels, etc. Take, in particular, the claim that believing in God pleases him, causing him to stamp one’s ticket to heaven. This is a claim about the causal structure of the world—about how certain (mental) acts affect the way things play out. How might one establish such a causal regularity? (Or take, if you prefer, “Jesus was born of a virgin”—How exactly are we supposed to know that?) Is it not utterly astonishing that, in this day and age, people can get away with claiming to know such things? The presumption inherent in such claims is breathtaking—the very antithesis of scientific humility. What kind of friend pretends to know things it can’t possibly know?

A few weeks ago, I arrived at the office and found three anguished pleas for help in voicemail. A complete stranger had left them: a middle-aged woman struggling with a kind of identity crisis. She concluded that she needed philosophical counseling, and somehow, her web search led to me. I called her back, and over the course of an hour, her story came out. She had been raised Christian, and taught that, if she didn’t have faith, she would be denied entrance to heaven. Her marriage had collapsed, she had a child to support, and her deadbeat ex-husband had disappeared. With minimal earning prospects, she went back to college where, for the first time in her life, she was encouraged to think for herself. She found it liberating to ask her own questions, but when she tried to think about her religion, she was seized by fear. She realized, she said, that God, heaven and hell were all fictions, but it didn’t matter—questioning her faith could still bring on a minor panic attack. She’d approached her minister for help, but he had pointed out (correctly) that, according to the New Testament, doubting the existence of the Holy Spirit was an unforgiveable sin. She must stop thinking about it, he said, or she would surely spend eternity writhing in hell. She felt trapped, and began questioning her sanity.

Think about this for a moment. Religion had carved a set of neural pathways in this poor woman’s brain that effectively short-circuited her capacity to think critically. Questions about her faith literally made her nauseous. What kind of friend does that to a person? What kind of friend employs emotional abuse to prevent you from breaking off the relationship?

Consider also the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac. In it, God commands Abraham to prove his devotion by sacrificing his son Isaac. Thoroughly addled by faith, Abraham prepares to slit Isaac’s throat, no doubt traumatizing him in the process. God shows a glimmer of moral decency when he sends an angel to stay Abraham’s hand, but set this aside. Focus on the simple fact that the story is meant to celebrate Abraham’s faith. The clear message is: Obedience above all. What kind of friend demands such obedience?

It is worth noting that all three of the world’s great monotheisms—Judaism, Christianity and Islam—are referred to as “Abrahamic” because they derive historically from this selfsame Abraham, and continue to worship texts that celebrate Abrahamic obedience—a blind, faith-based obedience that is supposed to override basic moral decency. Indeed, that is the whole point of the Abraham-and-Isaac story. What kind of friend deranges human values so completely for the sake of obedient followers?

Catholics and Protestants, Muslims and Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, Sunnis and Shiites: What kind of friend divides humanity into irreconcilable tribes, then inspires them to war upon one another for thousands of years?

Articles of faith are widely held to be exempt from basic standards of rational accountability. A doctor must have a good reason to prescribe a medication, an engineer must have grounds for thinking his bridge will provide safe passage, and a scientist must have evidence before positing a new particle. Heck, if I cancel a picnic that you are looking forward to, I owe you a good reason. But the concept of faith functions to protect religious beliefs from the standards of rational accountability that prevail in other domains. It whispers that, in at least this domain, we are not accountable. What kind of friend consistently excuses gross evasions of rational accountability?

Consider the social norm that says, in effect: If you can provide the better reason, I will yield. This is in many ways the founding contract of a civil society, for it affords an excellent, nonviolent way of resolving disputes. I would argue that this is the most important, civilizing norm ever—a kind of basis for civil society. Now if you look closely at how professions of faith function, you will see that, in effect, they amount to a defiant refusal to observe this norm. In essence, a profession of faith indicates to anyone who might disagree: ‘You might have the better reason, but I am too attached to this belief to rethink it.’ And so we must ask: What kind of friend flaunts the norm that has always allowed people of good will to resolve their differences amicably? What kind of friend willfully defies the understanding at the heart of civilized existence?

Consider the fact that slavery, torture, war, the persecution of gays, and the oppression of women have all sought, and all received, shelter under the rubric of faith. (“How do I know that homosexual marriage is an abomination? I suppose that’s an article of faith.”) Study history: you will find that, time and again, it is the doubters, the humanists and freethinkers that lead the charge for moral progress. Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, tend to oppose such change. What kind of friend protects morally backwards teachings from humane revision? What kind of friend provides cover for hateful, inhumane ideologies?

Consider the fact that religious people are less likely to educate themselves, not just on scientific matters, but also about their own religions. (A recent study found that, on average, adherents of the main religions know less about their religions than atheists do!) Religious people are more superstitious, more intolerant, more homophobic, and more likely to treat women as second-class citizens. What kind of friend breeds ignorance, superstition, intolerance, homophobia, and the oppression of women?

Faith has long claimed to provide a foundation for morals. It is assumed, for example, that fear of punishment in the next life tends to promote better behavior in this one. But this assumption has been tested, and it just isn’t true. For if it were, religious societies would have lower levels of societal dysfunction: lower crime and murder rates, less poverty, lower rates of teen pregnancy, less homelessness, abortion, divorce, etc. Studies, though, have shown that religiosity correlates with higher levels of societal dysfunction. If you live in a more religious country (or a more religious US state), in other words, you are more likely, not less, to experience high rates of crime, murder, poverty, infant mortality, homelessness, teen pregnancy and divorce. What kind of friend leaves societal dysfunction in its wake?

(To be fair, we don’t know that religiosity causes the societal dysfunction—it could be the other way around—but evidence like this should dispose forever of the pretense that the faithful are more likely to live moral lives.)

Consider the evidence from history. For more than a thousand years, faith-based ideologies ruled Europe, wielding intimidation, torture and violence, leaving Europe it in a state of ignorance, poverty and disease. (This period is called the Dark Ages for a reason.) The era culminated in a period of sectarian violence and religious warfare that soured Europeans on faith for an entire century. In the eighteenth century, a kind of “faith fatigue” set in, and what happened? Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature documents precisely what happened: Murder rates plunged. Dramatically. So did crime rates, incidents of violence, state execution, superstitious killing, slavery and torture. The notion of human rights gained currency, despots lost power, and the institution of slavery was dealt a mortal blow. In the ensuing years, this “humanitarian revolution” has led to abolition movements, civil rights movements, women’s suffrage, and now gay rights. Faith waned, and human decency improved both rapidly and dramatically. What kind of friend postpones moral progress for a thousand years?

The answer to my question should by now be plain: faith is a false friend. At best, it is a two-faced friend. I implore all people of good will—my religious friends no less than my irreligious ones—to confront this “friend” and hold him accountable. Only so can you responsibly believe that you stand on the side of our “better angels.”

Andy Norman teaches philosophy at Carnegie Melon University and received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University. His work has appeared in Free Inquiry, Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, and dozens of journals. He lives in Pittsburgh with his wife of 20 years, two fascinating kids, and a dog that couldn’t care less about Frisbees.

Secular Humanism and Religious Humanism: HNN Readers Weigh In

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:02:25 -0400

Last month, HNN ran a two-part interview with a practitioner of humanistic Mormonism. (Revisit part one and part two.)

This set off an at times heated discussion on whether or not humanism is inherently secular and can be religious at all. HNN editor Maggie Ardiente asked readers to submit their thoughts on the subject, “Can humanism be both religious and secular?” There were many excellent responses, and we regret that we were not able to publish them all. Here’s a selection:

Yes, Religious Humanism Can Exist

Rob Friedman: “As a Jewish Unitarian, I've tried to balance the logical (the concept of God is illogical) versus the unknowable (maybe science cannot tell us all). If one defines religion as a series of structured tenets, then I am an atheist. If the term religion can be broadened to include a connection to more than one precept, I am a religious humanist … Whether it makes sense or not doesn't matter. Religious belief makes no sense, but does seem to fill a very human need. And people fed up with traditional religion find a very welcome home with Unitarians, and not much else. Religions don't evolve; they mutate, just like us. And as such I predict religions will evolve away from the supernatural and embrace the natural.”

Erdman Palmore: “Yes, it can be both. It is secular in the sense that that most humanists are atheists, or at least agnostic. But it also can be religious in the sense that humanists can enjoy rituals, hymns, worship of nature, spiritual exercises such as meditation, devotion to making the world a better place, and the community support of belonging to a congregation. In that sense, I am a religious humanist.”

Dr. Jim McCollum: “Albeit I was born and raised an atheist and still remain one, that term does not define a religion, only an aspect of one. I try to guide my life by humanist principles and, therefore, I define my religion as humanism. I will add that, one does not have to be an atheist to be a humanist, but it helps!”

Greg Miller: “I see a transition in our future from god fearing churches to churches like the Unitarian Universalist church where like-minded congregants who are mostly nonbelievers gather. Religion is also defined as a gathering of people with similar beliefs. People need like-minded communities. Believers will be the minority one day but church communities will survive. This is good. I have been moved many times in the UU church so I understand the power of churches where god is in the past.”

No, There’s No Such Thing as Religious Humanism

Michael Scott: “I have very deep feelings that humanists should be secular and not faith based within the fantastic humanist umbrella of thought, expression and motivation. Someone faith based in identity cannot, for me, be a fully open and imaginative humanist because I feel those ideals of a faith understanding or self-identification are limiting to the greater scope that Humanism brings to life. You can be from a Mormon perspective, a Baptist perspective or any perspective which your intellectual identity has experienced, but to be Humanist to me is to be without faith, without supernatural longings with the expectation to be present in our world and our planet, today and every day.”

Joël Lecoeur: “Religion requires belief. It is a false explanation of the universe. Humanism is not a belief; it is a necessity of life. The humanist is rational. The humanist looks at the humans and the world around them; he does not add a divine element to which he gives priority against the humans and the planet. The gods are elements of disturbances on Earth; they do not lead to serenity in the opposite of what they claim to seek.”

Catherine Monnet: “The problem with religious humanism is that it generally evokes a ‘theistic’ connotation, rather than an ‘ideologically communal, mutually inspiring’ humanism. The term, ‘religious humanism’ is not only confusing and misleading, but undesirable for many humanists in any sense of the term. I do not believe that humanism should be qualified as a religion, nor do I think secular humanists should have to distinguish themselves from religious humanists. I personally believe that humanism is secular and should remain an alternative to religion, not another form of it.”

What Difference Does It Make? Let’s Just Get Along!

Ann Tattersall: “Just as an individual's ideas evolve (not necessarily in a particular direction) over time, there are many ideas held by many different people. We should relax and try to be more tolerant. Unitarians, generally, have always considered themselves religious humanists. Get used to it.”

JoLynn Gates: “I am an atheist with a deeply spiritual life, and a strong sense of right and wrong. Among the things I hold sacred are truth, compassion, the Earth, and human tights. I have what I consider spiritual experiences in nature, listening to music, dancing, and creating art. As for an afterlife, it does not matter what anyone believes, the only rule is a matter of universal agreement: be good. The only thing that matters, for atheist and believer alike, is how we behave while we are alive. No need to involve a deity.”

Joseth Moore: “In the end, it depends on the individual. Me? I'm an old-fashioned theist. I'm also a humanist in that I think we humans need to grow beyond the need/desire for religion or even ‘spirituality.’ That we need to say--without apology--that humans created the Great Pyramids, the Parthenon, Stonehenge, and our modern skyscrapers and space stations...not some supernatural being or aliens.”

Joseph Cain: “Clearly to me the answer is ‘no.’ However, if it makes those comfortable to consider themselves with some hybrid title I have no opposition. [For example], there may be traditional activities in which they wish to continue to participate which are more cultural than religious based. I would think that after a few years or so [of] participating the connections would wear thin. Of course the light shining on the future of religion is the statistic that at least a third of young people do not ascribe to be of any sect. Changes in our society have a time scale of the order of an average lifetime. Fast by the geological time scale!”

Thank you again to everyone who submitted their opinion! Discuss this topic further in our comments section.

Sarah Anne Hughes is the former communications assistant for the American Humanist Association.

A Report on the Secular Coalition for America Lobby Day and Secular Summit

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:02:19 -0400

This past April the Secular Coalition for America put on a great Lobby Day and Secular Summit, at which nonreligious Americans from across the country came to DC to find out more about the issues confronting the nonreligious community while getting the opportunity to express their beliefs directly to those in Congress.

The Secular Coalition for America is advocacy coalition of several freethought organizations, including the American Humanist Association, whose purpose it is to “amplify the diverse and growing voice of the nontheistic community in the United States” through lobbying. The SCA also works with the legislative staff at the AHA and other nonreligious organizations to lobby Congress on bills that deal with church-state separation and other threats to secularism.

For the secular summit, which took place from April 24-25, the SCA hosted several panels on issues that are important to the nonreligious community in addition to the keynote speeches that were made by Representative Jerrold Nadler and Senator Tom Harkin. The panels were as diverse as they were interesting, with titles like “Science Education Under Assault: Stopping Anti-Science Legislation in its Tracks,” “Religious Liberty Versus Health And Safety,” “Politics & Religion: How Tax Policy Privileges Religion and How to Level the Playing Field” and “Legal Discrimination in the Name of the Lord.” While it would have been great to also have a Republican public official giving a keynote address to show the bipartisan nature of the nonreligious community, the sad reality of the political climate in DC makes it hard for conservative politicians to openly support or empathize with nontheist Americans.

I had the pleasure of personally participating in the Lobby Day event which was held on Friday April 26^th. The day started off with an intensive lobbying training for the attendees who were going to lobby their home-state or chosen representative, and participants spent the rest of the day in meetings with representatives and staff to discuss concerns from the secular community.

Meetings were scheduled with many different government officials from both political parties, and as I helped lead the participants to the Hill and their meetings I noticed just how excited and confident they were. After years of being excluded from the public policy process, I found it inspiring to see so many nonreligious Americans standing up for church state separation in the face of a political system that is dominated by the Religious Right and their allies. When I sat in on an afternoon meeting in Rep. Capuano’s office with two other Lobby Day participants, I expected to lead the meeting as I already knew the staffer and I had a feeling that the newly minted lobbyists might need a guiding hand. I couldn’t have been more wrong, as they were both very well prepared and fearless in their advocacy on behalf of secularism and nonreligious Americans.

Going forward, I expect to see even more humanists, atheists, and freethinkers of all sorts at these types of events in the future. Nonreligious Americans are tired of being ignored, and they showed me and many on Capitol Hill just how ready they are to stand up for the values that are important to them.

Matthew Bulger is the legislative associate for the American Humanist Association.

New Additions to the AHA Conference Schedule

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:02:13 -0400

Coming to the AHA Conference? Learn more about new additions to our schedule!

	Name-Badge Design: Be creative! The AHA will provide supplies (stickers, shells, and more) to decorate your conference name badge, creating a unique souvenir for you!

	Custom Humanist T-Shirts: Bring your own blank t-shirt/long-sleeve/sweatshirt and EvolveFISH will create a custom t-shirt with the Happy Humanist, EvolveFISH, or other freethought logo for free!

	Late Night Karaoke: Join other conference attendees after the Saturday Night Humanist Awards Banquet for karaoke from 10:00pm to midnight!

PLUS two conference sessions (already included in your registration) are now FREE if you have friends and family in the local San Diego area that would like to join part of our conference (individuals must still register online using the code FREECON):

Friday, May 30, 3:15pm-4:15pm: "The Humanism of Dancing Badly on YouTube" with "Dancing Matt" Harding
Sunday, June 2, 10:30am-12:00pm: "Purpose and the Universe" with Sean M. Carroll

And don't forget to:

Connect with humanists going to the conference on our Facebook Event Page!
Use hashtags #ahacon13 and #humanism on Twitter to tweet during the conference!

Visit conference.americanhumanist.org to see the latest schedule.

See you in San Diego!

The Ethical Dilemma: Should I Serve As Godmother, Even Though I’m an Atheist?

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:01:39 -0400

Experiencing an ethical dilemma? Need advice from a humanist perspective? Humanist Network News is proud to introduce “The Ethical Dilemma,” an advice column by Joan Reisman-Brill.

Send your questions to The Ethical Dilemma at hnn@americanhumanist.org (subject line: Ethical Dilemma). All inquiries are kept confidential.

God(less)mother: My sister (and only sibling) recently gave birth to her first child, a girl. While she has continued to practice the Roman Catholic faith of our childhood, I have long since considered myself an open and resolute atheist. My sister plans to baptize her child in her faith and has indirectly implied that she'd like me to serve as godmother for her daughter. While I am touched by the gesture, I cannot bring myself to support and promise to guide a child in the rites of the Catholic Church in light of the horror of recent scandals and the organization's history of hostility towards women. I have not set foot in a Catholic church in years and feel uncomfortable doing so even to attend my niece's baptism, let alone serve as godmother. May I decline my sister's request on moral grounds without condemning her choice? Is there an alternative (and secular) way I can make my care and support of her daughter known? Should I just attend the event to pacify the rest of my practicing Catholic family?

---Everything But The God Part

Dear Everything But,

You need to tell your sister the same things you’ve said in your letter: You would love to be a significant figure in your niece’s life, and you can in every respect—except guiding her in Catholicism. Tell your sister you could make a point of sharing with your niece your own principles of morality and how to live a good life, or you could downplay (but not banish) that topic, whichever you sister would prefer. As your niece grows up, however, everyone should accept that the relationship will develop in its own way, and if your niece takes an interest in your worldview, you should be free to explain it to her.

Unless it would make you or your sister uncomfortable, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t attend the baptism as the atheist family member that you are. But whether you opt out or not, be sure to participate in or even host secular celebrations with your niece, such as her birthdays and holidays like Thanksgiving, Independence Day and New Year’s. Before you know it, you can be the aunt who always shows up for school events, sports play-offs and recitals, or who takes her niece to movies, museums and parks. As for a secular role in lieu of godmother, the designation “aunt”—maybe preceded by “special”—serves just fine. It’s not really about any title but rather the caring relationship you cultivate with your niece, starting now and hopefully flourishing and deepening over the years to come.

When is the Right to Refuse Wrong? Lately many businesses have refused to provide service to atheists (Freedom From Religion Foundation was refused by several florists when leaders tried to send flowers to the student activist Jessica Ahlquist) and gay couples (such as this one when they tried to buy a wedding cake).

Where does the line fall between personal rights and legal obligation? Lately there seem to be lots of disputes arising out of religious convictions. Do religious people have more clout than other grounds for refusing service? Are atheists protected under religious discrimination laws?

---Free to Just Say No?

Dear Free,

According to Daniel Mach, Director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, the ACLU has increasingly been addressing cases about refusal, particularly religious refusal, from many angles. “This is an issue that has arisen with alarming frequency lately, and there are several layers to the analysis,” he says.

The first question in any of these scenarios is whether service is being refused to someone because of their status in a protected class (race, sex, national origin, religion, etc.), or for some non-protected reason. “As a private business, you’re generally allowed to refuse service to any non-protected class—e.g., all lefties (political or -handed), or redheads, or Nazis, or Red Sox fans. It doesn’t matter whether your reason is religiously motivated, you can do it regardless.”

Mach illustrates with this scenario: Assume in a state that protects against LGBT discrimination in public accommodations, a restaurant owner refuses to serve someone who happens to be a gay left-handed person. If the owner does so because he hates lefties, no violation of the law; in his defense, the owner can demonstrate that he serves the LGBT community all other times--just not when they're left-handed. But if it can be shown that he never serve gays and lesbians, he has broken the law.

That typically should end the story, but occasionally some owners or employers will argue, "Sure, I've broken the law. But I have a religious right to an exemption from that law." In general, courts have been reluctant to recognize such a right--especially where the owner/employer is a for-profit corporation (as opposed to, say, a religious organization engaged in a religious enterprise). But such claims are being asserted with greater frequency these days: Religiously-affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married; business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees; graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people; pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions; bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

So when it’s a question of both sides invoking their rights, who wins? “In general, courts historically have rejected efforts by businesses seeking religiously motivated exemptions from civil rights laws,” says Mach. The protected person must be served, even if the server believes god, and religious freedom, is on his side.

Getting back to the florist dispute, Mach says the florists can't win under prevailing law, even if they can demonstrate religious grounds for refusing service. “Refusing service to someone because she is an atheist is plainly religious discrimination,” Mach explains. “And even if the underlying motivation were religious, a for-profit florist wouldn't qualify for any exemption from the governing anti-discrimination rules.” Isn’t it nice that in this country, laws protecting religious beliefs also protect those who don’t believe in religions?

Joan Reisman-Brill is a writer based in New York City and certified Humanist Celebrant. She received her BA in English literature from the University of Chicago, an MA also in English lit from the University of Michigan, and an MBA in management and marketing from New York University. She has worked in public relations, marketing and myriad facets of writing and editing for nearly four decades. She has been steadily increasingly her humanist identification and activism at an accelerating rate, and while she doesn't pretend to have all the answers, she welcomes this opportunity to tackle the questions.

Humanist Crossword Puzzle: America’s Pastime

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:01:35 -0400

Our humanist crossword puzzles are back! Download the latest one below. Created by Dan Mason.

Humanist Voices in Verse: “God” by Daniel Thomas Moran

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:01:06 -0400

This week’s poem is by HNN’s Poetry Editor Daniel Thomas Moran.

Daniel Thomas Moran served as Poet Laureate of Suffolk County, New York from 2005 to 2007. His work has appeared in The New York Times, National Forum, and the Poetry Salzburg Review. He is a Clinical Assistant Professor at Boston University’s School of Dental Medicine. His website is www.danielthomasmoran.net.

If you’d like to contribute original poetry to Humanist Voices in Verse, write to hnn@americanhumanist.org with “Poetry” in the subject line.

Please send no more than three poems for consideration per week.

God

He is the beginning,
and the end.
The bearer of all forevers.
His finger tips
swirl galaxies.
His eye sees
the very codes of life.
With his mercy
He brought forth
purgatory, and
men with two cheeks.
In His wisdom,
He wished a deluge
upon the Earth,
and fashioned Darwin
from the muck.
He is more
than we dare know,
and yet less,
than we can imagine.
He made tinmen and popes.
Black holes and the aurora borealis.
He is love and
love is blind.
He loves a good fight.
He enjoys His fame.
He had me fail geometry and
made trees which became
the masts of ships and
the bunks in the death camps.
He conceived of
hummingbirds and nuclear physics.
He is indeed most righteous.
In His firmament
evil never triumphs.
He makes
plaster madonnas weep and
causes deserts and cancer and
snowflakes and stillbirths and
fireflies and widows and
shadows and the apocalypse.
He knows
everyone by name.
He listens to prayers.
He is the landlord
the taxman and the concierge.
He is surely one
of us.

---Daniel Thomas Moran

The Comics Section: In the Afterlife, Atheist Clubs, Taking Action

Peter Bjork — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:00:55 -0400

Your favorites are back! New comics from Jesus and Mo, Ape Not Monkey, and The Bad Chemicals!