Charlie Hebdo, Understanding, and Forgiveness

Today we found out that the first cover of Charlie Hebdo appearing after the violent decimation of its staff features a caricature of the prophet Muhammed, a tear down his cheek, holding up a "Je Suis Charlie" sign. Above the caricature appear the words "tout est pardonné" (Everything is forgiven.) 

I feel tremendously moved by this cover choice, as I think it so poignantly addresses both of the serious issues staring us in the face in the aftermath of these killings. First, the issue of free speech (which just about everyone, even hypocrites, seem to acknowledge and claim to defend at the moment.) And second, the connection between racial and ethnic disadvantage of non-Westerners in the Western world and Islamic radicalization (a highly complicated and sensitive topic that most people seem to either horribly oversimplify or avoid entirely.)  

Guilaine Kinourani thoughtfully addresses this second issue through her personal experiences as a French woman of African descent in her article "Hatred breeds hatred": Charlie Hebdo, marginalization, and terrorism. She writes: 

"Is it not possible to hold both the position that the Charlie Hebdo killings were absolutely abhorrent and unjustifiable acts, whilst also calling for increased attention to be paid to the marginalisation of entire generations of citizens and its complex link to Islamic radicalisation and fundamentalism in France and elsewhere?"

Racism and ethnic bias are pervasive and breed resentment (or at least defensiveness) from many who suffer (and watch their loved-ones suffer) the consequences. Mass shootings are frequently perpetrated by white shooters, but those are regarded as lone nutjobs, not representatives of an entire religious or ethnic group. We don't see attacks on white men and white-owned businesses after such events, but anti-Arabism is real, and it becomes worse after events such as the Charlie Hebdo shooting, just as Muslim Americans (as well as Sikhs and anyone else who might of been perceived as Muslim) suffered increased discrimination and attacks after 9-11. Even in the small, suburban Quaker school I worked at in 2008, I heard a child in 7th grade casually declare that the United States should "Bomb Iraq and Iran until they are all dead" to solve the problem of Islamist terrorism. 

Howard Dean caught flack for insisting that we stop referring to violent Islamists as "Muslim terrorists", saying: 

"I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am. I mean, they have no respect for anybody else's life, that's not what the Koran says." 

I agree with the general sentiment and applaud Dean for speaking out in defense of the vast majority of Muslims who are just as peace-loving as anyone else. 

Finding the most appropriate language, that is accurate yet not racially-charged is difficult. Dean is using "radicals", which I don't like because it's so vague it sounds euphemistic, and also not all people with "radical" views are violent. I try to stick to using the term "Islamist" which has been designated to specifically refer to those who use or support the use of violence to establish their own interpretation of Islam and sharia law.  

In 2011, Charlie Hebdo's editor Stephane Charbonnier or Charb (who was killed in this month's shooting) expressed a similar sentiment to Dean. He responded to a  fire-bombing of Charlie Hebdo by Islamists in retribution over another cover depicting Muhammad, calling the perpetrators "stupid people who don't know what Islam is"  and "idiots who betray their own religion". These statements defend Islam the religion by asserting that a truer adherence to that faith would not result in a violent attack on an anti-racist, left-wing satirical newspaper. 

I see many parallels between Islamist and Christian fundamentalists (and I'm not the only one), including the targeting of liberal secularists, who might superficially look like the enemy because our worldview and values seem so counter to a socially conservative religious perspective. But liberal secularists are not the enemy, because as much as our ilk might mock and satirize conservative religiosity, all mockery and criticism is done with the assumption that pluralism and freedom will always remain part of the equation. 

Meanwhile, the real causes of suffering-that-breeds-extremism goes unacknowledged. For example, divorce rates are highest in the Bible belt. This is most likely the result of growing economic instability, especially in more rural communities, leaving so many would-be-bread-winning men under-employed and demoralized, and so many women with children dependent on welfare and charity. And yet frequently feminism and marriage equality activism is blamed for the "decline of marriage." These are serious socio-economic problems and real human suffering. Alas, the blame is misplaced. 

It is so appropriate that this week's cover of Charlie Hebdo will depict a Muhammed who weeps for and stands with the slain journalists, under a statement of forgiveness. The editors offer a hand in the spirit of brotherly and sisterly love, but in a way they know will be taken as offensive by some, because it is the only way to do so in a manner that is also true to themselves. 

There is a French proverb that I have accepted as truth since the first time I heard it, years ago. It says, Tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner (If all were understood, all would be forgiven.) 

Or in the words of the Dresden Dolls:  

Andrew W.K. Insults Us (Who Don't Pray)

Last week a person of secular worldview wrote to advice columnist for the Village Voice Andrew W.K. From here on out I'll refer to him or her by their signature NGP (Not Gonna Pray.) NGP's brother had been diagnosed with cancer, causing a great deal of anxiety and confusion among family members over how to deal with the situation. NGP's grandmother suggested: 

...we should all just "pray for my brother," like prayer would actually save his life. Just thinking about it now makes my fists clench with frustration. 

NGP's vocal opposition to grandma's call for prayer caused more upset within the family, and NGP concludes the letter to Andrew W.K. with: 

I need to get them to see that praying and religious mumbo jumbo doesn't help. How do I explain this to them?

Andrew W.K. started off by defining prayer as "a type of thought" that involves concentrating one's thoughts and feelings on a particular person or object. He tells NGP: 

I'll bet you're already praying all the time and just don't realize it.

Nevermind that no common definition of prayer resembles Andrew W.K.'s. It is none of the 7 found at dictionary.com. The dictionary defines prayer as either the attempt to communicate with God, a "religious observance", or as NGP interprets grandma's suggestion as: "a petition, entreaty." Wikipedia's opening sentence on prayer would probably sound about right to most people: 

Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication.

Admittedly, Encyclopedia Britannica's opening definition is vague enough to include Andrew W.K.'s definition. 

Found in all religions in all times, prayer may be a corporate or personal act utilizing various forms and techniques. 

But that hardly gives credence to W.K.'s indication that his definition is the definition, or that it is the definition being used by NGP's family. 

Nevermind, also, that people are constantly crediting supernatural intervention for all manner of good fortune, from hitting a home run to preventing a suicide, and regardless of how often misfortune occurs. 

Having established that NGP apparently doesn't even know what prayer really is, W.K. goes on to call those who refuse to pray stubborn and arrogant. According to W.K., the "X factor" in prayer is "humility." 

If there are any other out-atheists reading this, you've no doubt encountered this awful stereotype of us before. And people wonder why so many of us are frequently angry and frustrated. But I digress. 

As if these personal assaults on the character of NGP (who, remember, is a person suffering not only from recent news that his or her brother has cancer, but from family tensions) weren't enough, after going on and on in flowery descriptions about the correct way to pray (which, again, fits no commonly accepted definition of prayer) Andrew W.K. finishes off by chiding NGP for his or her disrespect toward grandma. NGP is instructed to make amends: 

I want you to pray for your brother right now. As a gesture to your grandmother — who, if she didn't exist, neither would you. I want you to pray right now, just for the sake of challenging yourself. I want you to find a place alone, and kneel down — against all your stubborn tendencies telling you not to — and close your eyes and think of one concentrated thought: your brother.
... 

Then get up and go be with him and your family. And you can tell your grandmother that you prayed for your brother.

Andrew W.K.'s solution to NGP's problem is basically for him to redefine prayer so broadly and vaguely that he can appear to share his family's worldview, thus rendering his secular worldview invisible. In other words, back into the closet with you, naughty atheist! 

There are those, such as Amanda Shea at Mad World who found Andrew W.K,'s response to NGP "EPIC." I found it to be a condescending screed that failed to understand NGP's point of view, and worse, re-enforced damning stereotypes that have plagued us secular folk for too long. 

Of course I can't know how NGP felt after reading such a personally insulting response from someone he or she trusted enough to seek advice from, but I imagine pretty damn bad. In my involvement with organized secular humanism, atheism, and skepticism, I have met so many people tormented by feelings of isolation as their families condemn them for their lack of faith under the pretense of love.   

It is hard, if not impossible, to empathize with a totally different worldview. It upsets me when my fellow atheists lack the curiosity to learn about the various theistic perspectives, and instead project false assumptions about all religious and spiritual mindsets, and then go on to belittle religious and spiritual people based on those assumptions. Likewise, it upsets me when people like Andrew W.K do the same damn thing to one of us. 

I don't know if NGP will ever read this blog post. But for NGP and anyone else out there who might be suffering from a similar problem, here's what I would have advised: 

Dear Not Gonna Pray, 

I'm sorry that your brother, you, and all your family have to deal with this situation. 

Keep in mind that at times such as these, emotions run high, and family tensions tend to flare up. You might need to step away to work through some of this matter on your own or with friends who share your perspective before engaging with your family again. 

When you say: "We need to actively help my brother and do actual things to save him", I take that to mean that you want to gather as much pertinent information as is available that might help your family understand your brother's illness, so that you can be most effective in your support of him and hopefully his recovery. If so, I completely agree with you. 

That said, the first thing you need to accept is the uncertainty of the situation. Even with the best doctors working on his case, any course of treatment will carry certain risks and only rate a percentage of possible success. Like predicting the weather, even though science is involved that helps us make more accurate predictions, prognosis comes down to the chances of this or that happening. That might sound a bit cold and clinical, but it is hard truth. 

That hard truth is exactly why people with religious faith turn to prayer. When your grandmother suggests that everyone "just pray", that might be her way of finding acceptance of the uncertainty of your brother's health. Granted, plenty of people (if not most) pray in the hopes that God or some other Higher Power will actually intervene and fix the problem. And maybe your grandmother or other family members mean it that way. But whatever prayer is for them, you can't change their minds about the importance of it, and you shouldn't try. It will only cause strife and family division, and that will hurt everyone, including your brother. 

Years ago my grandmother was staying at my house on Christmas Eve. My mother had gone to midnight mass, and I, as a young woman who had lost any faith in religion or gods, refused to go with her. My grandmother was too ill at the time to physically go to church, so she watched the Pope give service on television. I was a pretty out-atheist and assumed my family had accepted my atheism, so I was shocked when my grandmother tried to get me to watch mass with her and seemed to shame me for not going to church with my mom. We ended up getting into a rather nasty argument about whether God exists and actually intervenes in the lives of humans in response to prayers and faith. At some point I stormed off, angry and frustrated. Almost immediately, my grandmother called me back to sit with her on the couch. She didn't say anything that would re-ignite the argument. Instead she just took my hand and told me that she loved me. I told her I loved her, too. 

She passed away soon after that evening, and in my grief I felt so much gratitude toward her for making that peace with me. Even if we didn't share a worldview, we shared the same priorities when it came to family. 

You and your family can have your different perspectives on prayer and still love and support each other fully. Once you agree to disagree, you can move on to more practical matters, such as who is going to bring your brother meals on what days while he's recovering from his cancer treatments. 

Peace.  

Sin in the Secular Age: Smoking and Obesity

The Judeo-Christian concept of sin is an offence against capital-G God. It is going against His will or plan for us human beings. Some sins are considered minor (venial sins), others are major (mortal sins), but any type of sin carries with it not only consequences in this life, but in the life hereafter. Unless, of course, the sinner is sufficiently repentant, and in the cases of some religious sects, adhering to the correct faith.

We who hold a secular worldview today scoff at the concept of sin, and for a few good reasons.

First, while many behaviors traditionally regarded as sinful do harm (such as lying and stealing) others are not necessarily harmful and might even be beneficial to a person's well-being (such as having healthy sexual relationships outside of marriage.)

Second, inherent in the concept of sin is an additional punishment for supposed misdeeds. It is not enough that lying carries the risk of being caught and not trusted in the future, or that those who steal risk trial and punishment by law enforcement. There must also be the threat of either extra time in purgatory, or eternal torment in hell.

Third, the concept of sin tends to glaze over the reasons behind peoples' misdeeds and focus on punishment. Sin easily goes from being a verb (something a person capable of good or evil has done) to the noun sinner (a person whose fundamental nature is wicked.) When this happens, anger, righteousness and condescension trump humility and compassion. Punishment is emphasized over prevention or more constructive ways to modify harmful behaviors.

The thing is, these problems with sin are not exclusive to those of Judeo-Christian faith. Just as many people of faith emphasize compassion and forgiveness over self-righteous judgement, many secular people have adopted a sort of secular concept of sin.

One example of this is rising premiums on health insurance for smokers. The trend began a few years ago, and the Affordable Care Act does nothing to stop it.

All the problems with sin are present: These measures punish all smokers, even those who smoke in moderation and/or who suffer from no health problems directly connected to their smoking. It adds punishments in addition to the possible ill-effects of smoking (which disproportionately impacts those with lower income, who I might add are those more likely to smoke and have more difficulty quitting.) And instead of addressing the root causes of tobacco addiction and finding non-punitive ways of helping addicts who want to quit do so, it simply punishes them, hoping that these additional punishments will be the deterrent that finally works.

Let's look at a second, similar example: The rising cost of health insurance is driving many companies to pressure obese employees to meet arbitrary weight-loss goals and into participating in often humiliating weight-loss programs. Again, the Affordable Care Act does nothing to stop this discrimination against the obesity in the workplace.  

And again, all the problems with sin are present: These measures punish all (and only) obese people, regardless of any individualized assessment of their health and lifestyle, and while ignoring those who are thin but unhealthy for other reasons. It adds punishments in addition to the possible health problems that disproportionately impact many obese people (not to mention the social discrimination obese people face because they are outside mainstream measures of attractiveness.) Instead of addressing root causes of diseases correlated with obesity (such as diabetes and heart disease), it burdens and shames an entire class of people, hoping that will change their behavior and that those hypothetical changes will yield desirable outcomes.

Smokers and the obese do not need more arbitrary consequences from employers and health insurance companies. Either they are perfectly happy with their behavior choices, or they are not and already have enough motivation and challenges for modifying their behavior. In the case of the former, bug-off because we all have our personal indulgences which are nobody's damn business. In the case of the latter, people need encouragement when and from whom they request it.

While all of our day to day choices will never be 100% in line with our personal goals and values, we can always strive toward personal improvement. The benchmarks are different for different people based on circumstances. Not everyone's values are identical nor should they be. Knowing how much a person smokes or drinks or how much he or she weighs does not give a measure of how hard he or she is working toward personal improvement.

Perhaps some of you reading this post think smokers and obese people should be further punished for their behavior, either because their transgressions deserve it, or you are convinced (despite evidence to the contrary) that shaming people actually works. If that is the case, I implore you, go hang out with the Religious Right where you belong.

Tribute to Robin Williams and Response to Rush Limbaugh's BS About the Liberal "Attitude"

 As one of millions of Robin Williams fans, I am deeply saddened by the entertainer's death. Even moreso because it was by his own hand, and especially because his suicide has sparked a stream of not only tributes, but ugly and wrong-headed sentiments in the media. One such sentiment comes from blowhard Rush Limbaugh, who said of Williams: 

He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t. Now, what’s the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist’s worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy are they? They’re always angry about something. Not matter what they get, they’re always angry. 

Okay, like most of what Rush Limbaugh says, that's pretty infuriating, so I'm taking a moment to calm down and ponder.

Nevermind that speculating about the death of someone only known to Rush through his celebrity is crass and hurtful to those who personally knew Williams (Note Lewis Black's response below. As a side note, Black wrote a thoughtful tribute for Williams for Time.)

Nevermind that depression has been well-established as a health issue, and one that is difficult to treat, opposed to a mere matter of toxic attitude.

What about this business about the Left (presumably Limbaugh means politically-engaged secular humanist liberals) having such a bleak attitude about life? We're pessimistic, dark, and sad compared to what? The theological concept that most people are destined to spend eternity in Hell? Has he never noticed that the main symbol of Christianity is an instrument of torture and execution? Never heard of valle lacrimarum, otherwise known as the Vale of Tears?

For anyone who hasn't noticed, there is a great deal of suffering in the world. Here's just one example: Over one billion people on earth live in "extreme poverty," which is defined by the UN as earning less than $1.25 a day. Extreme poverty can mean insufficient food and drinking water, poor sanitation, inadequate shelter from the elements, little to no access to proper health care, education, and opportunities to escape from the conditions of extreme poverty. Over a billion people suffering from that in the world right now. But according to Rush Limbaugh, Robin Williams was supposed to be happy because "He had everything." I guess in the world according to Rush Limbaugh, if you've got yours, there's no good reason to give a damn about anyone else.

It is clear that Robin Williams, in addition to being an talented comedian and actor, stayed informed and engaged in current issues, devoting a great deal of his time and efforts to charity work. He cared about people. It isn't hard to imagine that his concern for the homeless, soldiers on the battlefield, and victims of natural disasters might have put a damper on his enjoyment of personal fortune.

The playwright Jean Racine famously said, “Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.” Of course all people do both, and so at times we can laugh at the pain and absurdity in life, but not always. 

Sometimes those who laugh the most also cry the most, because that which allows them to so cleverly tap into what is humorous also forces them to more intensely face the darkest aspects of the human condition. Today I read a joke on this theme:  

Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says his life is harsh and cruel. Say he feels all alone in a threatening world.

Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. The great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go see him. That should pick you up.

Man bursts into tears. "But doctor.....I am Pagliacci"

When interviewed on Inside the Actor's Studio, James Lipton asked Robin Williams if heaven exists, what would he like to hear when he gets there (watch the video below.) Williams concluded his witty response by saying that it would just be nice to know there's laughter in heaven.

I don't know about heaven (or hell for that matter), but there's certainly a lot of laughter to be found in this life, not least because of the gifts of one comedic genius.

Thank you, Robin Williams, for all the light you brought to the world with your spark of madness.

Exclusive Scouting and the Defamation of Atheists

A year ago the Boy Scouts of America adopted a resolution to end the ban on openly gay scouts. Many cheered, despite the fact that the BSA - the scouting group with the greatest resources and prominence in American society - still won't allow openly gay leaders and continues its ban on atheist leaders and scouts.

In response, Herb Silverman, founder of the Secular Coalition for America, lamented:

There is no similar step forward for atheists. This modified policy would still require local groups to discriminate against atheists, apparently because the Boy Scout Oath implies that an atheist can’t be “morally straight” unless he can do his “duty to God.” 

Using this twisted logic, a number of courageous and honest atheists have been kicked out of the Scouts for rejecting all supernatural beliefs. Among them was my friend Darrell Lambert, an Eagle Scout, who had been supported by his entire troop.

Dan Kennedy was optimistic (well, sort of, I'll explain below) in his response: 

Though Thursday's vote can be seen as a modest step forward, another possible compromise floated earlier this year would have been far more workable. You may remember that one: groups that charter troops, such as churches and civic organizations, would have been free to set their own policies. 

Such a compromise would have accurately reflected how the BSA actually operates, as troops are considered part of their chartering organizations. To concoct a hypothetical, it would have opened the way for a Unitarian Universalist church to sponsor a troop that allowed gay scouts and adult leaders as well as atheists, another group banned under current BSA policy.

I write "sort of " optimistic because policies varying so much from troop to troop remind me of the event that inspired Margaret Downey to devote herself so passionately to defending the rights of atheists: she saw her son in tears because of discrimination. Downey's son had been a Boy Scout at a troop where his atheism was tolerated. But when the family moved, he was denied membership because of his lack of belief. 

My daughter will be old enough for scouting in a year, and as a parent I'm interested for many typical reasons. Scouting instills a sense of responsibility through community service, encourages positive relationships with peers, and offers kids opportunities and the motivation to learn new and useful skills. Scouts are generally thought of as eager to lend a hand, adept, and principled.

I am therefore deeply grateful for Lance Finney's of Grounded Parents article Ethical and Inclusive Scouting, which gives a rundown of scouting alternatives for secular parents. I live in a major metropolitan city outside of the Bible Belt, so my kids have several good scouting options to choose from. Not every American atheist family is so lucky.

As an atheist parent, simply acknowledging the history of scouting can be painful. All scouting has its origins not only Christianity, but an exclusionary mindset that falsely asserts that people must believe in and worship the Christian God in order to be good.

I can't think of a more clear example of the moral defamation of atheists than this previous wording (changed less than a year ago) in the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle:

The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law."

Consider if such a thing were said of any other faith group: Jews can't be the best kind of citizens. Buddhists can't be the best kind of citizens. Mormons can't be the best kind of citizens. And so on. Pretty awful, isn't it? 

Many of these attitudes persist today, especially in America, where atheists are the most distrusted minority. Not because of anything we real flesh-and-blood atheists do (we tend to be pretty model citizens, actually), but because groups such as BSA maintain an association of God-belief with character, integrity, and high moral standards, thus associating atheism with bad behavior.

Austine Cline suggests:

...atheists are being saddled with the "sins" of American society generally. They are "a symbolic figure" that represent religious theists' "fears about ... trends in American life." Some of those fears involve "lower class" crimes like drug use; other fears involve "upper class" crimes like greed and elitism. Atheists are thus a "symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether."

Prejudice against atheists, particularly when instilled in children and youth and under the guise of moral superiority, contribute to discrimination. 

Over the years the views among many scouting organizations around the world have broadened to include all or most sects of Christianity, Jews, and even people of non monotheistic faiths and atheists. The Girl Scouts of America is an example of a scouting organization that discriminates against none based on worldview, which personally pleases me, as I have daughters.

But what continues to disappoint is that so many scouting organizations persist in discriminating (most often against atheists and homosexuals, but sometimes other non-Christian faiths and certain sects of Christianity) even as they give lip service to the value of inclusiveness and brag about how inclusive they are in other respects. 

The BSA Scout Oath includes:

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

What meaning does "respect" hold if the organization is formally excluding certain people based on their beliefs regarding the meaning of life, gods, and afterlife? Or maybe they just meant that they respect the religious beliefs of others, but screw all the secularists. 

Trail Life USA is an alternative to BSA that launched in 2013 specifically in response to BSA's allowing openly gay scouts (but remember, not leaders.) In their statement on Membership Standards, Trail Life USA writes: 

While the program is undergirded by Biblical values and unapologetically reflects a Christian worldview, there is also a clearly defined inclusion policy for youth. Accordingly, all boys are welcome irrespective of religion, race, national origin or socio-economic status. 

But all boys are not welcome since individual Charter Organizations are permitted to exclude boys of certain faiths. 

American Heritage Girls, a sort of sister organization to Trail Life USA, contradicts themselves even more blatantly in their own Inclusion Policy: 

All girls of any color, creed, race, national origin and socioeconomic status who agree to live according to the standards of the AHG Oath and the AHG Creed are invited to be a member of the American Heritage Girls. 

So AHG accepts those of "any creed" so long as they agree with their "Creed"?

Seriously, how do the leaders of these organizations not recognize their own hypocrisy? Their organizations are either inclusive (which means being inclusive to the nonreligious) or they discriminate based on religion.

Camp Quest is an excellent example of an organization that is genuinely inclusive. Though Camp Quest is explicitly set up to promote the values of humanism and is generally run by and attracts secular humanists, there are no oaths or creeds. There is nothing in their mission statement that is exclusive to any people of faith because humanist values are pretty similar to Christian values, minus the religious exclusion, sexist gender roles, sexual repression, and bigotry against homosexuals.  From Camp Quest's FAQ: 

Are campers at Camp Quest required to be atheists?   

Answer

No. Campers at Camp Quest are encouraged to think for themselves and are not required to hold any particular view. We firmly believe that children should not be labeled with worldview labels by adults, and instead should be encouraged to ask questions and explore different worldviews as they grow.
We do present atheism and humanism as valid and reasonable options for an ethical and fulfilling life, and most counselors at camp consider themselves to be atheists.

Would a child who believes in God be comfortable at Camp Quest?

Answer

Yes. Campers at Camp Quest explore different worldviews, and many children aren't decided yet on their beliefs on the God question. Campers who believe in God may get a lot of interested questions from their fellow campers, but the camp environment fosters asking these questions in a spirit of dialogue and mutual respect. As far as we know, campers who believe in God have all had fun, made friends, and had a great Camp Quest experience.

This isn't just lip service. I volunteered as a camp counselor for Camp Quest in Ohio (relocated from Kentucky because a group of Baptists got a law passed just so they could legally refuse to rent their camp grounds to us dirty atheists.) One year we had a Catholic boy who was there because his atheist grandfather had suggested it and his Catholic parents were open minded. This boy was immensely popular with the other campers who were eager to show him the tolerance and respect that they who live in very religiously intolerant communities longed for. (Sadly, I've met several kids who lost Christian friends because their friends' parents found out about their atheism.)

One of the purposes of Camp Quest is to let kids from secular homes know that it's okay to choose no religion and to be skeptical of the existence of god/s, because our kids are constantly bombarded with the opposite message. 

Photo from Camp Quest South Carolina's blog

It's bad enough when peers tease and bully. But it is much worse when in addition, parents, adult mentors, and whole institutions tell a child You don't belong here. Go away. At that point the exclusion can feel like a hopeless situation because it seems the whole world insists they change who they are, or simply disappear.

Exclusion based on personal worldview is wrong, just as exclusion based on race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, disability, or sexual orientation is wrong. It's wrong because it results in needless suffering. It encourages feelings of fear and shame in the people being excluded. It also encourages self-righteous bullying among members of the in-group.

Scouting groups that exclude atheists (or gays, or other religious sects, etc.) can tell themselves that they have high moral standards all they want. In reality, they are just bullies teaching intolerance.

Beyond the Birth Wars

The Grieving Parents by Kathe Kollwitz

Since writing two essays which address the natural childbirth movement (first in 2011, then again last week) I feel a bit as if I've been sucked into the tunnel vision of the Birth Wars. 

Taking a step back, I see it all as a paltry debate among those of us who are lucky enough to have quality and choices when it comes to our health care.

Don't read me wrong; it's clear that there is a whole lot of natural childbirth woo out there that is distinctly anti-science, anti-medical establishment, and anti-feminist. It is clear that lay midwives attending high-risk births in homes instead of hospitals has resulted in the preventable deaths of babies and women. 

It's just that in reading about the broader picture of birth in both America and across the world, I see a much greater concentration of death and harm among the economically disadvantaged, and especially women of color. I feel compelled to check my priorities. It's not that every woman and baby doesn't matter. It's that every woman and baby does matter.    

The Widow II by Kathe Kollwitz

For many pregnant women and their newborn babies, the difference between rich and poor is the difference between life and death. For instance, according to Save the Children's State of the World's Mothers 2013, in Cambodia, babies born to the poorest 20% of parents have a 144% elevated risk of death compared to babies born to the richest 20%. More than a quarter million women die every year because of complications from childbirth.The dead babies (and consequentially the grieving mothers, many of whom must endure their grief without sufficient social or mental health support) number over a million every year. Without question, most of these deaths are preventable, connected to, and exacerbated by the conditions of poverty.   

America's GDP doesn't make Americans immune to the deadly disadvantages of poverty. In 2011 the World Health Organization reported that the USA had a higher newborn mortality rate than 40 other nations. And a 2010 publication by Amnesty International reported about the high rates of maternal deaths and complications associated with pregnancy and birth for American women. 

In addressing these issues, natural childbirth advocates cry out about overused medical interventions and unnecessary c-sections. But it seems apparent to me that the problems for women and babies at higher risk begin long before a woman becomes pregnant. Food insecurity, poor nutrition, unsafe and/or highly stressful living conditions, and inconsistent access to preventative health care set women up with issues such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity, all of which can easily lead to complications in pregnancy, which then may very well require all those interventions and c-sections. 

Then there's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, and often if anyone does, they are shut down: racism. Race is the strongest predictor of outcomes for birth in America (with black women and babies suffering the worst outcomes), and yet when these huge disparities are reported and discussed, the focus tends to stick exclusively to economic disadvantages and ignore the *gasp* possibility that black women are treated differently by doctors, nurses, and other health care workers (not to mention employers, teachers, social workers, or anyone else they encounter and who might impact their lives.) But is it so hard to imagine that pervasive and damning stereotypes of pregnant black women, especially poor, young, pregnant black women, could have at least a subtle impact on the way they are handled and advised by medical professionals during prenatal care, birth, and postpardum care? 

Authors of the 2010 article Closing the Black-White Gap in Birth Outcomes: A Life-Course Approach, outline a 12 point plan which includes suggestions which seem indirectly connected to pregnancy and birth, such as "Invest in community building and urban renewal", and "Reduce poverty among African American families." People who enjoy strong communities and financial security often take their huge benefits for granted and fail to see how they dramatically impact a person's overall health, behavior, and choices. 

Of course the broad suggestions in this 12 point plan need to be refined into specific programs, many uniquely tailored for particular communities, but the overall point is sound. 

The issues that result in dead or injured women and babies at birth can't be solved by either warm and fuzzy homebirth midwives or even a well-trained OB with a scalpel. The physical, emotional, and social needs of impoverished women not being met are far too great. 

What Does Secularism Have to Do With Women's Rights?

For a long time I've sort of taken my reproductive rights for granted. While I've never been faced with an unintended pregnancy, I've faced that possibility since puberty, and will continue to face it until menopause. I've always felt assured that I'd be able to get a safe, legal, early-term abortion, if that's what I so choose. Based on the privileges of where I live, my age, and my income, that presumption is sound. 

For now. 

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, Americans remain conflicted about abortion. Anti-abortion activists continue to harass women at clinics, commit horrific acts of violence, and passionately lobby for countless laws that restrict women's access to abortion, regardless of the real life financial, healthcare, and even criminal consequences. If we value reproductive choices and the most sound public health care policies, this is not an issue where we can afford to back down. 

There's another thing I've always taken for granted: that the secular movement, which I've been involved with since I was 19, politically stands for women's reproductive rights. 

When I say I've "been involved" with the movement for 16 years, this is no casual interest. After being VP and President of the campus freethought club at the third largest university in the USA, I became one of the founding board members of the Secular Student Alliance, and editor of the first publication of the SSA's Group Running Guide. I've been VP of HCCO, one of the largest local chapters of the AHA, and when I moved to Philadelphia I became heavily involved with HAGP, one of the AHA's oldest local chapters. I was twice a camp counselor for Camp Quest. I was a celebrant certified by the Humanist Society, and for 6 years I officiated secular weddings, baby namings, and one memorial service. I have given talks on secular humanism for a class at Penn State. I was the coordinator for the launch of PhillyCoR (the precursor to UnitedCoR). I'm even mentioned by name in Greg Epstein's book Good Without God. At this point the number of volunteer hours that I have put into this movement are incalculable.   

I list all this to make clear just how much of a personal stake I have in the secular movement. These are "my people." This is my "comfort zone." Of course I don't agree with everything I hear anyone at a meeting or conference say. I enjoy a spirited and intellectually challenging debate with a Libertarian atheist over, say, school funding or gun control. 

On the issues where critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and compassion heavily weigh on one side (vaccination, science education in public schools, government funds for faith-based initiatives, and embryonic stem cell research, for example) our leadership and the most visible representatives of our community take a firm stance. 

Right? 

Maybe not. 

Three days ago I wrote about David Silverman's statement at CPAC about "secular argument against abortion" and Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta's giving a platform to two different secular, anti-choice organizations. 

Massimo Pigliucci of the long-running and popular blog Rationally Speaking weighed in with David Silverman and the Scope of Atheism. 

Pigliucci puts a lot of effort into defending philosophical debates over the morality of abortion. And he repeatedly makes it clear that he thinks this is okay because supposedly we're not talking about anti-choice laws and political activism. He writes (my emphasis in bold):  

Of course there are logical, science-based, and rational arguments against abortion. They may turn out to be ultimately unconvincing, or countered by better arguments — as I believe they are — but they certainly exist.

...

Are these arguments sufficient to justify forceful state interventions on women’s bodily integrity, under any circumstances? Very likely not. But plenty of countries (including the US) do already regulate, for instance, late term abortion, noting the ethical complexity of the issue and of course making room for a number of special circumstances, usually having to do with the health of the mother. 

... 

Now, does that mean that we should therefore advocate a restriction of women’s rights as they are currently defined in the US? Of course not, nor do I see any evidence that that’s what Dave meant to suggest.

Regardless of what Dave Silverman meant to suggest, while at a convention of parties which officially advocate severely restricting if not outright banning abortion, Silverman made a statement which implied that there are reasonable, secular arguments that favor such anti-choice political activism. It is worth noting, too, that American Atheists allowed Secular Pro-Life, an extremely anti-choice activist organization, to table at their 2012 conference. 

Regardless of his own pro-choice stance and pro-choice writings, Hemant Mehta gave a platform to two anti-choice organization leaders, both of who, through their anti-choice activism, apply the same sort of irrational and dishonest arguments and tactics used by religious anti-choice activists. 

I was heartened to learn that the AHA's Humanist magazine not only published criticism of this rise of secular "pro-life" activists, but also refused to publish this response by anti-choice activist Kristine Kruszelnicki. 

At least the humanist wing of the movement maintains integrity on this issue. 

Massimo Pigliucci's article evoked such a critical response that he added a Postscript defense. In it he writes: 

Look at it from the point of view of a parallel between atheism and gay rights. The gay rights movement has rightly focused on the issues that are closest and most specific to it: the legal rights of gay people.

So women's rights are not one of the "closest and most specific" issues to the secular cause? Even though the scientific evidence tells us that women are equal to men in terms of sentience and intellect, but a non-viable embryo/fetus has no more sentience than a tree? Even though evidence also tells us that early-term abortions (which account for almost all abortions) are safer than pregnancy? Even though critical inquiry tells us that late-term abortions are rare and sought for reasons which are tragic? Even though compassion should compel us to defer to the women's personal moral judgement and the ethical standards of the medical establishment?


The importance of quality science education public schools is close and specific enough to our cause, but women's rights are not?

The importance of preventing school authorities from leading students in prayer is close and specific enough to our cause, but women's rights are not?

The Secular Coalition for America unites 13 of the largest and most active organizations in our movement, including American Atheists. On the issues page Health and Safety they indeed state they have an interest in defending women's rights with regard to abortion:

Religiously Based Health Care Policy- Government officials should rely on high quality research, not religious beliefs, when making health care policy decisions. (stem cells, women’s health care, substance abuse treatment)

Image by artist Barbara Kruger

So maybe this is why Massimo Pigliucci focused on a philosophical debate over the morality of personally choosing to have an abortion. Maybe he's taking Roe v. Wade and its support for granted.  

I might not mind people sitting around discussing the morality of abortion (as a personal decision, not something up for legal banning) so long as my right to a safe, legal, abortion for any reason during the pre-viability stages of pregnancy AND my access to health care which promotes my health over that of a fetus is fully supported by all present company. 

If not, I'm not having that conversation. I refuse to have a calm, philosophical discussion about the morality of abortion with anyone who doesn't respect and defend equal rights for me and all other women. To expect me or any other feminist to do so is belittling and offensive. 

The secular movement is better than that. At least I hope it is. Otherwise I've seriously wasted much of the last 16 years of my life.