Last October, a federal trial judge in San Juan upheld Puerto RicoÔÇÖs constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

But all that changed when US Supreme Court judges legalised gay marriage this summer, and Puerto Rico ÔÇô an American territory ÔÇô was compelled to scrap the ban.

And on July 17 authors Yolanda Arroyo-Pizarro and Zulma Olivera-Vega, above, made Puerto Rican history when they were joined in matrimony at a secular ceremony conducted by Luis R Ramos. It was attended by 150 family members and guests.

Read more on the website of SPI Coalition member, The Freethinker!

The Weekly SPI Fellows Update
by Julie Esris

Why has Europe and, more recently, America, been the dominant world power? The answer is not immediately obvious, and only a good understanding of history will provide us with the answer, argues historian, archeologist, author, and SPI Fellow Ian Morris. All this and more in the most recent episode of the podcast, Rationally Speaking. 

Our new SPI Fellow, evolutionary biologist┬áDavid Sloan Wilson, joined journalist Robert Wright in a fascinating podcast about a number of interesting topics: How understanding evolution can improve the real world, why we believe silly things, and the role of religion and other “meaning systems”. ┬á

When Muslim women wear a veil, it is just a question of religious freedom, right? Not necessarily, argues political scientist, writer, and SPI Fellow Elham Manea. Learn more about why Manea argues for regulation of the veil in this insightful article, originally published in French.

Americans take pride in their right to freedom of speech. But where does freedom of speech end and empathy and responsibility begin? Is publicly smearing a someone by spreading sexual rumors an acceptable form of freedom of speech? Philosopher, author, and SPI Fellow Russell Blackford weighs in.

Sex therapist and SPI Fellow Marty Klein┬áis more than acutely aware about America’s odd hangup about sex. In America,┬áthere are a lot of pervasive misconceptions about sex, including misconceptions about pornography. In fact, says Klein, there are no fewer than nine major myths about pornography!

WASHINGTON, D.C.ÔÇöToday, the Boy Scouts of America announced that the National ┬áExecutive Committee unanimously approved a resolution allowing gay adults to serve as employees and volunteers. ┬áA vote by the National Executive Board, the Boy ScoutsÔÇÖ governing body, is set for July 27th.

Based on the BSAÔÇÖs documents, the change would:

1. Eliminate the BSAÔÇÖs across the board ban on openly gay or bisexual adults in scouting.
2. Allow each individual troop or unit to determine its own policy regarding the eligibility of openly gay or bisexual scoutmasters or other adult leaders.
3. Prohibit regional governing councils or non-Troop entities such as boy scouts camps from discriminating against employees and volunteers based on their sexual orientation.
4. Allow previously removed leaders to reapply for their positions.

If ratified on Monday, July 27, the change will be effective immediately.

Read more at scoutsforequality.org

The weekly report on the SPI Coalition
by Julie Esris

SPI Coalition Member Conway Hall hosts another exciting discussion in its London Thinks event. This time, they talk about artificial intelligence. Is it achievable? Is it ethical? What role does humanism have in artificial intelligence? 

Have you listened to the most recent episode of SPI Coalition member, Imaginary Friends Podcast? If not, you can check it out here. This week, the podcast tackles interesting and important issues such as the harm psychics can do to their unsuspecting prey, cults, and even continued slavery in America!

£23 million pounds could hire 1,000 new nurses, but instead it goes towards chaplaincy services in British hospitals. SPI Coalition member, The Freethinker, reports on the controversy surrounding this issue.

SPI Coalition Member Atheist Foundation of Australia is proud to support the Jode Matthews Cancer and Family Appeal. Learn about it as well as what you can do to help battle cancer.

It is common for people with a religious agenda to try to outlaw abortion by promoting the idea that most people who get abortions experience terrible trauma. That, says Jon Lindgren of SPI Coalition member Red River Freethinkers, is a lie. Check out this very honest and interesting blog post on the matter.

Have you registered yet for the Heartland Humanist Conference? If not, please do! Organized by SPI Coalition member Omaha Metro Area Humanist Association (OMAHA), this conference will unite and educate humanists of all stripes. There will be guest speakers and even a picnic at the end of the conference. But hurry! The conference will be held soon, on August 14th-16th! Learn more about the conference and about how to register.

There has been extensive debate and discussion as to whether the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to allow same-sex marriage nationwide infringes on the┬áfreedom of those who oppose it on religious grounds. Of course not, says Jason Banell of SPI Coalition Member┬áIowa Atheists and Freethinkers.┬áHere are his thoughts on the matter, as stated in a letter published in┬áDes Moines Register.

SPI Coalition Member,┬áAncestor’s Trail Hike, runs, well, the Ancestor’s Trail Hike every year. This 12.5 kilometer hike teaches the participant about biological evolution and also gives them time to appreciate the wilderness through which they hike. If you live in or near Mississauga, Ontario, Canada and┬álove evolution and the great outdoors, then this hike is for you. But hurry up and register. The hike is this coming Sunday, July 26th!

Recently, SPI Coalition Member Humanist Society (Singapore) went on a fun-filled and educational trip to the Lee Kong Chain Natural History Museum! Check out their photos from the trip on Facebook.

Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers┬áwants┬áyou— to donate, that is. This SPI Coalition member provides a community for non-theistic military members, and your donation helps them keep running.

The weekly report on research and demographics of the secular movement
by Julie Esris

In late May 2015, the conservative state of Nebraska unexpectedly made the news when it abolished the death penalty after a bill pushed by Nebraskan atheist senator Ernie Chambers became law. Defying the wishes of Republican governor Pete Ricketts, the legislature voted 30-19 to abolish capital punishment, making Nebraska the first conservative state in over forty years to do so. However, the death penalty is as a divisive issue as ever. Proponents have varying reasons for supporting the death penalty, such as believing that it deters would-be murderers or giving murder victimsÔÇÖ families peace of mind. OpponentsÔÇÖ reasons for being against the death penalty may include believing that it is not a deterrent and that it does not make the world safer.

Although support for the death penalty has dropped, a majority of Americans still favor it (56%). A 2015 pew poll reveals that religion factors somewhat as to whether or not one supports the death penalty, but there is a disparity between official beliefs of a particular denomination and individual beliefs of its adherents. This disparity is primarily among mainline Protestants. A majority (66%) of white Protestants support the death penalty. However, the official position of many Protestant churchesÔÇöUnited Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, American Baptist Churches, the Presbyterian Church, and several othersÔÇöis that the death penalty is immoral. There is also a disparity between individual Catholics and the official position of the Catholic Church in terms of capital punishment. 53% of individual Catholics support it, but the Church officially opposes it.

On the other hand, 71% of evangelical Protestants support capital punishment, in accordance with their churches, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. There are also churches that do not take an official stance on the death penalty, including the Mormon Church, the Assemblies of God, and the Northern Baptist Convention.

Reform and Conservative Jewish denominations are largely against the death penalty, and the Orthodox Union has called for a moratorium. Buddhism has no official stance, but most Buddhists are against the death penalty. The Islamic world widely supports capital punishment, although many American Muslim groups are speaking out against it. Hinduism does not have a clear stance on the death penalty. Religiously unaffiliated AmericansÔÇöagnostics, atheists, and those who say their religion is ÔÇ£nothing in particularÔÇØÔÇöare almost equally split, with 48% in favor and 45% opposed.

The question arises as to how religion is relevant to oneÔÇÖs stance on the death penalty. It is obvious that religion does have some influence on individualsÔÇÖ support or condemnation of it, but clearly not a heavy one, as many people do not agree with the position that their religious denomination officially takes. It is unsurprising that of the Christian religions surveyed, Catholics are less likely to support capital punishment. Other polls analyzed for Secular Policy Institute have consistently shown that Catholics tend to take a more liberal stance on social issues than their Protestant counterparts. Equally unsurprising is that Jews are less likely to be in favor of the death penalty (although this poll, unfortunately, did not provide any numbers for this statistic), as they tend to hold more liberal positions on a variety of issues. Many Muslims support the death penalty (again, no numbers), unsurprising since many Islamic countries hand it down quite liberally, but it is also important to realize that many Muslim groups in America actively oppose it.

The unaffiliated are less likely than their religious counterparts to support the death penalty. This is possibly due to the fact that the unaffiliatedÔÇöespecially those who explicitly identify as atheist or agnosticÔÇöare generally more liberal. Additionally, not belonging to a religion means that there is no holy book to influence their position. For some individual atheists and agnostics, their stance could simply be borne out of distaste for religion in general, with holy books such as the Bible and the Koran specifically supporting the death penalty, often for trivial ÔÇ£crimesÔÇØ (adultery), and carried out in gruesome ways (stoning).

Capital punishment is and will continue to be a contentious, divisive topic in the United States, but NebraskaÔÇÖs abolishment of the practice as well as an overall decline in support for it among Americans strongly suggests that America is heading in a more liberal and secular direction. However, it is also important to realize that this Pew study does not provide enough information to address this issue more thoroughly. It focuses on the positions of Christian denominations and their adherents while only making passing referencesÔÇöwithout numbersÔÇöto those of other religious groups. A more thorough study by the Pew Research Center or some other research organization is needed.

The weekly report on research and demographics of the secular movement
by Julie Esris

The online publication The FINANCIAL has recently published an article that reports AmericansÔÇÖ willingness to vote for a non-traditional candidate. The article, which cites a Gallup poll, notes that Americans have greatly evolved in their thinking over the decades. For example, 74% of Americans today would vote for a qualified gay candidate, up from only 55% in 2007. In 1960, barely half of Americans said that they would vote for a qualified black candidate or a woman candidate. Today, more than 90% of Americans would vote for these people. The article also notes that AmericansÔÇÖ willingness to vote for a non-traditional candidate is largely correlated with his or her religious beliefs.

Predictably, the poll reveals that 92% of those who do not adhere to a religion would vote for a gay candidate. This number drops somewhat among Catholics (82%) and Protestants (62%). The pollÔÇÖs results for willingness to vote for an atheist candidate are even more predictable, with 91% of those who follow no religion, 58% of Catholics, and 47% of Protestants. ConverselyÔÇöand just as predictably, these numbers are roughly flipped when it comes to voting for an evangelical Christian candidate: 57% of those with no religion, 72% of Catholics, and 82% of Protestants. Few Protestants (44%) and Catholics (69%) would vote for a Muslim, whereas 82% of the non-religious would do so.

Socialist presidential-hopefuls are the most divisiveÔÇöand the least popularÔÇöcandidates, displacing atheists for this dubious honor, with only 74% of the non-religious, 46% of Catholics, and 28% of Protestants willing to vote for a socialist candidate. As a whole, only 47% of Americans would vote for a socialist.

It is also worth focusing more on how secular people vote, as they are largely overlooked in the political sphere. The Secular Policy Institute has recently released a report about secular demographics, which includes the voting habits of secularists. Atheists are more likely to describe themselves as independent voters, rather than Democrat or Republican. They are twice as likely to describe themselves as liberal, politically and socially (72% support legal abortion, 73% support same-sex marriage). Some seculars have socially liberal values alongside fiscally conservative ones, usually making them libertarian. Nonetheless, most secular people vote Democratic: in the most recent Presidential election, 75% of secular people voted for Barack Obama.

It is interesting to note that only 67% of religiously unaffiliated Americans are registered to vote, compared to 72% of the general public. However, 73% of those who explicitly identify as atheist or agnostic say that they are certain to vote compared with 53% of those who merely identify as religiously unaffiliated.

Some of these aforementioned statistics have obvious implications, while others are more nebulous. It makes perfect sense that the religiously unaffiliated are far more likely than their religious counterparts to vote for a gay candidate or an atheist candidate, and far less likely to vote for an evangelical Christian candidate. However, why are they more likely to vote for a Muslim candidate than the general population? After all, many secularists are against organized religion as a whole, not simply in terms of Christianity. The answer could simply be that a Muslim candidate seems to be less of a threat to church-state separation. Muslims are not a majority in America and generally do not demand special privileges that some evangelical Christian groups do. It would also be political suicide for a Muslim politician to try to instill Islam in law the way some Christian politicians do with Christianity.

It is also strange that socialists have finally unseated atheists as the least popular nontraditional presidential candidate. Or maybe it is actually not so strange. Being an atheist and being a socialist are somewhat taboo in America, in both cases largely because of the McCarthy ÔÇ£witch trialsÔÇØ of the 1950s. However, being an atheist simply means that one does not believe in God. Being a socialist inherently comes with a set of fiscal and political beliefs. People who become atheists after being religious are only required relinquish their belief in God; people who become socialists after being hard-core capitalists have to undergo much more dramatic changes in belief. In short, it is easier to become an atheist than to become a socialist. It is possible that because of this, the perception of who an atheist is is changing much more quickly than the perception of who a socialist is: There are still a lot of people who equate socialism with the totalitarian government in communist Russia.

And finally, why do atheists tend to describe themselves as independent voters? Why do atheists and agnostics tend to vote Democrat, even when they support libertarian or other independent candidates? And why are atheists and agnostics more likely to vote than secular people as a whole? The short answer to all of these questions could simply be eight years of George W. Bush. Among atheists, the Bush era is a bitter aftertaste of religion getting in bed more than ever with politics. Perhaps atheists identify as independent because in America both major political parties have to at least pretend to be somewhat religious. And if atheists do feel this way, then why do they still largely vote Democrat?

Although libertarians, for example, might ideally vote for a libertarian candidate, maybe they are worried that their vote for this candidate could facilitate a religious RepublicanÔÇÖs winning of the election. Perhaps in their minds they are voting for ÔÇ£the lesser of the two evils.ÔÇØ As for why atheists are more likely to vote than secular people as a whole, it could be that many of these secular people simply donÔÇÖt think about religion one way or another. They werenÔÇÖt raised in religion, they donÔÇÖt follow it, and they also really donÔÇÖt care about. It is possible that people who identify explicitly as atheist or agnostic feel more threatened by religion and want to make sure that they are increasing the chances that a less-conservative, less-religious candidate will get elected.

All of these speculations are, of course, speculations. It would be worth conducting another poll in which respondents are asked for explanations about their attitudes when votingÔÇöif they are voting.

Doğaçhan Dağı

Bilkent University

 

Do the depictions of Mohammad deserve protection within the realm of freedom of expression or does it count as hate speech that asks for limitations? The terrorist attack to Charlie Hebdo ignited the controversy regarding the limits to free speech in Western countries. Yet, this issue has only been debated with contemporary perspectives. John Stuart Mill and his Utilitarian ideals, which was the first and most orthodox discourse in defense of free speech, have been neglected. By using a Millian rhetoric based on the Harm Principle, this essay aims to demonstrate that the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo are not beyond the domain of free speech.

The concept of freedom of expression developed gradually during the era of Enlightenment, as greater political communities based on the separation of spiritual and temporal authorities replaced the customs of pre-medieval despotism. Nevertheless, this unprecedented progress in basic human rights demanded rules of conduct that would prevent or at least minimize the misuse of free speech. The unanimous commitment to set limits to freedom of expression unfolded arguably one of the most indistinct and persistent debates in liberal societies in which where and how to place the limits made the core of the intricacy. John Stuart Mill, as a proponent of Utilitarianism made a significant contribution to this debate, manifesting the most famous liberal apology ever made for freedom of expression throughout his book, On Liberty. Mill advocates that the only rightful limitation to the actions of individuals can be on the moral basis of preventing physical harm to others, which is now mostly cited as the Harm Principle.

The publication of series of controversial cartoons depicting Mohammad in a Danish newspaper in 2006 provoked Muslim mobs all around the world and where to put the limits to freedom of expression was again a matter of intense discussion in the Western countries. These discussions escalated again after Islamic terrorists targeted Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine, in 2015. Certainly, the Mohammad cartoons are a perfect case to evaluate and interpret in light of MillÔÇÖs Harm Principle. This essay strongly argues that this incident does not satisfy the conditions of harm as understood by Mill, since abstract artificial structures (i.e. religions, ideologies) constructed by men, without exception, are neither subjected to physical harm nor do they enjoy any sense of inviolability. Even though the opinions expressed in Charlie Hebdo might have shocked others, Mill insists that ÔÇ£There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.ÔÇØ

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) ÔÇô A federal judge says the Rankin County school district is in contempt of court for continuing to promote Christianity during school hours after it agreed to stop.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves, in an order filed Friday, fined the district $7,500 and again ordered it to stop sponsoring prayers at graduations, assemblies, athletic competitions and other school events.

Read more at wjtv.com

The first memorial day for victims of so-called honour killings is taking place on Tuesday.

It would have been the 29th birthday of Shafilea Ahmed, who was killed by her parents when she was 17 after suffering years of “honour-based” violence.

UK police forces recorded more than 11,000 cases of “honour” crime between 2010 and 2014.

They are acts committed to defend the supposed honour or reputation of a family and community.

The crimes, usually aimed at women, can include emotional abuse, abduction, beatings and murder.

‘Most honourable human beings’

According to a report by The Henry Jackson Society, 18 cases of honour killings were committed in the UK between 2010 – 2014.

However, campaigners believe the figure may be higher.

The National Day of Memory for Victims of Honour Killings, intended to be an annual event, has come about after a campaign by Karma Nirvana, a charity originally set up in Derby that supports victims of honour crimes and forced marriages, and Cosmopolitan magazine.

Read more on BBC’s website