The weekly report on the SPI Fellows
by Julie Esris

Taslima Nasreen

Writer, feminist, religious critic, and SPI Fellow Taslima Nasreen fled Bangladesh more than twenty years ago to escape the extremists who threatened to kill her for criticizing Islam. Today she lives in New Delhi. In a recent interview, she laments about the dangers that freethinkers face in Bangladesh and what can be done about it.

The debate rages on: Is┬áISIS Islamic? Yes, insists┬áAymenn┬áJawad Al-Tamimi, SPI Fellow and expert on the Islamic State. In a recent interview, Al-Tamimi discusses why this issue shouldn’t be up for debate.

Recently, world famous evolutionary biologist and SPI Fellow Richard Dawkins┬áwas interviewed by the Society of Biology. Watching the video, you’ll learn how he became interested in biology and what it means that biology is “digital”.

What does science have to do with politics? Quite a bit, says historian of science and SPI Fellow Michael Shermer. In a recent interview, Shermer gives a convincing argument as to why politicians should be scientifically literate.

Is the Afghan Taliban still relevant today? Michael Semple, expert on the Taliban and an SPI Fellow thinks so. Come listen to his recent podcast on why the Taliban still matters and how we can make sense of it.

Michael Semple

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

This week Kansas governor Sam Brownback signed a bill into law that would severely restrict second trimester abortions. More specifically, the law prohibits the dilation and evacuation (D and E) method of abortion, usually performed after 12-14 weeks of pregnancy. In the D and E method, the fetus is removed from the womb, often in parts. Many doctors say that this as the safest and most convenient technique for second-trimester abortions. The new law, however, is called The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act. There are other second-trimester abortion procedures in which this method is not used. The law specifically outlaws dilation and evacuation, not second-trimester abortion. That is, its wording graphically describes the procedure, possibly in order to appeal to peopleÔÇÖs emotions in order to influence them change their minds about abortion, an already very contentious issue in America.

According to a 2013 Pew poll that surveyed 4,006 adults, abortion is as divisive an issue as ever. 49% of adults surveyed believe that abortion is morally wrong. As one would expect, religion strongly factors in peopleÔÇÖs stances on abortion. White evangelical Protestants are the most opposed to abortion (75%), followed by Hispanic Catholics (64%). Black Protestants oppose abortion at 58%, white Catholics at 53%, and white mainline Protestants at 38%. Not surprisingly, those unaffiliated with any religion are the least likely to be opposed to abortion (25%). Followers of non-Christian religions were not surveyed in this poll.

Stance on Abortion by Religious Affiliation

Although religious affiliation is a good predictor of oneÔÇÖs stance on abortion, according to the same poll, religious service attendance is an even better one. 70% of people surveyed who attend religious services once a week are opposed to abortion vs. 32% who rarely or never attend. This pattern of church attendance predicting opposition to abortion remains consistent for most religious groups surveyed: 50% vs. 33% of white mainline Protestants and 74% vs. 40% of white Catholics. However, attendance of services by Hispanic Catholics are an exception to this rule.

While religion clearly factors strongly into oneÔÇÖs stance on abortion, the fact that religious attendance factors even more strongly is interesting and is worth considering. Does it mean that religious attendance is a reflection on a personÔÇÖs religiosity, or is there another factor at work? Perhaps group pressure is involved. That is, when one is part of a community, religious or otherwise, that person could be more likely to adopt the beliefs of others in the community. Or they could be more likely to at least profess to believe them. Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker has discussed his phenomenon, in which people in groups are afraid to dissent from what they think others in the group believe. The naming of The Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act could be part of this dynamic. It is likely an appeal to emotion, and it is worth considering whether this would have an even more profound effect on people in groups, such as those who regularly go to church.

In any case, we as secularists must examine the issue of abortionÔÇöor any other issueÔÇö from as logical a standpoint as possible. Although secularists are starting to form groups, it is important to emphasize that oneÔÇÖs position on an issue should come from evaluating statistics and looking at evidence with as little group influence as possible. Only a small minority of secularists is opposed to abortion, and one would hope that those who are not opposed to it have arrived at that stance on their own rather than from group pressure or clever word choices that appeal to emotions. We call ourselves freethinkers, but we are also human and are as susceptible to peer pressure as anybody else.

Attend the Protest

Contact us for details of the protests next week on Wednesday April 15 and Friday April 17, 2015, and our meetings with local politicians.

Sign the Petition

Please take 60 seconds to sign this important petition opposing discrimination against atheists and skeptics!

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Secular Policy Institute Takes Lead Role at Wells Fargo Protest

Washington, DC
April 8, 2015

The nation’s largest secular think tank and largest coalition of secular groups takes a lead role next week to protest discrimination by Wells Fargo against those who do not believe in God.

The bank, which is the 4th largest in America, lost a discrimination battle in 2012, paying $175 million to settle a federal case that they had violated the Fair Housing Act by pushing bad loans onto women, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Then in 2014 they were sued by Cook County, Illinois for the same practices in the Chicago area.

Next week the Secular Policy Institute is gathering in Las Vegas with leaders of six other national secular groups to protest Wells Fargo’s discrimination against secular people and nonbelievers, known as atheophobia and secularphobia. The gathering will take place next week in Las Vegas with American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, the Secular Student Alliance, the Secular Coalition for America, the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers, and the victim of Wells Fargo’s actions, a “skeptics’ church” with a funny name, a real, legal church named the United Church of Bacon.

John Whiteside founded the church in 2010 with friends of magician Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller, partly to have fun and partly to draw attention to the unfair legal privileges that religions get for having supernatural beliefs. His organization now boasts 4,000 members and dozens of weddings performed. They accept no donations, instead raising money for other groups, such as nearly $100,000 for leukemia research, assisted living for autistic people, and secular groups promoting separation of church and state.

Whiteside became the victim of discrimination last year when he walked into a Wells Fargo branch in Las Vegas with a church document to be notarized. His identification was accepted but he was refused service and stonewalled, even by corporate Wells Fargo when Whiteside asked for an investigation. “A notary’s job is very simple,” said Shelagh Talbot, a Whiteside supporter and notary herself. “All we do is verify a signature. We really don’t care about the content of the document. We aren’t lawyers or government watchdogs. There’s no reason for a notary to refuse someone whose ID has been accepted.”

Whiteside’s requests to Wells Fargo and the Nevada Equal Rights Commission have gone nowhere, so now the Secular Policy Institute and others are helping him protest the bank in person on Wednesday April 15. Together, the seven secular groups will recommend to their five million members and social media followers that they join a nationwide walkout and closing of Wells Fargo accounts. Press is invited to attend.

“Bigotry is ugly,” said Johnny Monsarrat, Alliance Director of the Secular Policy Institute. “We don’t tolerate racism, homophobia, or anti-Semitism, and secular people number too many to be ignored. As many as 20% of Americans have no active role in a religious organization. It’s time that hatred of atheists and secular people becomes no longer acceptable at any level of society.”

About the Organizations

The Secular Policy Institute is the world’s largest secular think tank and world’s largest coalition of secular groups, led by Edwina Rogers, the former two-time White House and four-time Senate staffer. Based in Washington DC, they partner with religious groups and secular organizations to lobby governments and businesses worldwide towards a secular society. They advocate for separation of church and state, more science and reason in government decision-making, and an end to discrimination based on faith or no faith.

American Atheist is the premier organization fighting for the civil liberties of atheists and the total, absolute separation of government and religion. The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers educates and trains both military and civilian communities about issues relating to nonbelievers in the US Armed Forces. The Secular Student Alliance empowers secular students to proudly express their identity, build welcoming communities, promote secular values, and set a course for lifelong activism. The Secular Coalition for America lobbies the U.S. Congress on issues of special concern to secular people.

The United Church of Bacon is a real, legal church that was founded in 2010 to protest the privileges that religious organizations get in the law.

See http://secularpolicyinstitute.net and http://unitedchurchofbacon.com/.

Supporters are asked to attend in person or sign the United Church of Bacon petition.

Media Contact

Johnny Monsarrat
johnny@secularpolicyinstitute.net
617-510-4477

###
END

from Cross Examined, by Bob Seidensticker
reprinted with permission

ItÔÇÖs easy to believe passionately in the rightness of our moral position. WhatÔÇÖs often ignored is the importance of being in the right side of history.

Same-sex marriage is one example of a contentious moral issue being fought over in America today, and passions run strong on both sides. The National Black Church Initiative, a coalition of 34,000 churches, recently cut ties with the Presbyterian Church USA after they liberalized their definition of marriage to ÔÇ£two people, traditionally a man and a woman.ÔÇØ

Growing acceptance of same-sex marriage has pushed many conservatives to fear the sky is falling. Rick Santorum, Republican presidential candidate in 2012, thinks he sees in American culture the gradual erosion of rights that Jews and Christians experienced in Nazi Germany. The title of SantorumÔÇÖs new documentary film reveals how soon he imagines that his religious rights could be lost: ÔÇ£One Generation Away.ÔÇØ
Worries about the upcoming Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage had a conclave of Christian leaders clutching their pearls. One proclaimed,

Once you elevate same-sex marriage to the level of protected status, whether on the federal or the state level, you begin to change and
transform the face of society. In my view it will result in the beginning of the end of Western Civilization.

These Christian leaders see themselves as fighting the good fight, but how will this fit with the judgment of history?

HereÔÇÖs one answer. Jennifer Morse, president and founder of the Ruth Institute (ÔÇ£Helping the Victims of the Sexual RevolutionÔÇØ), was asked if she feared being embarrassed by the seeming inevitability of same-sex marriage. She replied:

I am not the slightest bit worried about the judgment of history on me. This march-of-history argument bothers me a lot. What theyre really saying is, Stop thinking, stop using your judgment, just shut up and follow the crowd because the crowd is moving towards Nirvana and you need to just follow along.

YouÔÇÖve got to admire that. SheÔÇÖs standing up for what she feels is right, unconcerned about whether itÔÇÖs popular or how history will judge that position.

But letÔÇÖs not pretend that the judgment of history is irrelevant. Remember George WallaceÔÇÖs infamous 1963 declaration, ÔÇ£I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.ÔÇØ Was Wallace fighting the good fight with his stand for racial segregation? He wouldÔÇÖve said yes. History says no.

Those opposed to freedom for Southern slaves, womenÔÇÖs suffrage, and minoritiesÔÇÖ civil rights were all fighting the good fight, like those
opposed to same-sex marriage today. Just remember that history wins in the end.

Indeed, Jennifer Morse does think about the evaluation of history, itÔÇÖs just that she thinks that sheÔÇÖll be on the right side of it:

[Same-sex marriage proponents] are the ones who are going to be embarrassed. They are the ones who are going to be looking around, looking for the exits, trying to pretend that it had nothing to do with them, that it wasnÔÇÖt really their fault.

No one fighting the good fight thinks that they wonÔÇÖt eventually be judged on the right side of history. IÔÇÖll propose that as the definition of fighting the good fight: taking a minority position now that you think will eventually, if only decades in the future, be seen as the morally correct one.

And thereÔÇÖs the problemÔÇöreading the tea leaves to see where society is moving. There is no reliable route to objective moral truth (I argue that what we imagine as objective moral truth is actually just widely shared or strongly felt moral beliefs). There is no celestial library where the answers to all moral questions are in a big book. The judgment of history is the best weÔÇÖve got, and we fool ourselves when we think that moral rightness is determined by anything more lofty.

It might seem shallow to base oneÔÇÖs moral convictions on what society will conclude fifty years in the future rather than on oneÔÇÖs conscience today. But make no mistake: the strength or sincerity of your convictionsÔÇöabout same-sex marriage or any moral issueÔÇöare irrelevant. Your stand today will be judged by the conclusions of that future society, and being on the right side of history is all that ultimately matters. Lose that, and youÔÇÖre just another George Wallace.