Washington, DC – The Secular Coalition for America today named the Daily Caller “the most unethical news publication." The Daily Caller earned the "award" after numerous discriminatory and unethical emails were sent by Christopher Bedford, Associate Editor at the Daily Caller, to the Secular Coalition. The most recent email read, “Take a day off from hating God, kids and babies.” Bedford's actions were supported by Daily Caller Editor in Chief, Tucker Carlson.

The Secular Coalition said the journalism code of ethics—which includes principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality and fairness—must be extended to all groups equally regardless of religious belief or nonbelief. The Coalition decided to issue the award as a lighthearted way of drawing attention to media bias against nontheists.

The issue of media bias impacts the nontheistic community, but it is one area that is often ignored in discussions of discrimination against nontheists. The Freethought Society keeps a list of instances of media-related discrimination against nontheists, including stereotyping by the media.

Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, said the Coalition routinely receives comments from reporters that indicate bias against nontheists, “but the Daily Caller takes the cake.”

The most recent example of poor journalistic ethics on the part of the Daily Caller came on May 3, in response to a press release the Secular Coalition sent on the so-called morning after pill, or “Plan B.” After his initial email, Bedford followed up with:

“I'm not sure what y'all believe in beyond annoying America, but if it's what most atheists believe, I hope it comes true: I hope you live a long, happy life surrounded by friends and family, and when, in many years time, it is your turn to rejoin your earth mommy, you become one with her, growing into a majestic and beautiful tree that some hardworking American fells, turns into paper and prints a Bible on.”

Bedford has responded to at least five SCA press releases with escalating rhetoric over the course of the last year. The majority of responses espoused negative sentiments toward the nontheistic viewpoint, but one, sent to the Secular Coalition’s female communications manager, read “Here's a Dick pic.” Only after scrolling to the bottom of the email was a picture of Dick Cheney visible. 

When Executive Director, Edwina Rogers contacted The Daily Caller’s Editor in Chief, Tucker Carlson, to discuss religiously-based media bias at the Daily Caller, Carlson supported Bedford’s actions and statements saying, “That's not ‘hate.’ It's disagreement. I'm confused by what strikes me as your disproportionate outrage.”

The Daily Caller claims that it is a legitimate news publication offering unbiased reporting. In an interview with Politico, Carlson described the publication's work as "hard-nosed reporting" on politics and government and said The Daily Caller will not be tied to ideology but rather will be "breaking stories of importance."  In a Washington Post article, Carlson said "We're not enforcing any kind of ideological orthodoxy on anyone."

Rogers points out that impartiality is the foundation that allows journalists to cover news without imposing any ideological orthodoxy on the reader.

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics urges reporters to, “Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others; Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status;  Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant; Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility” among other tenets.

“The basic tenets of journalism ethics are clear—are we to understand that those basic ethics apply to other groups, but not atheists?” Rogers said. “We’ve seen overt discrimination in areas of media such as advertising, and the amount of news coverage given to religion vs. atheism, but discrimination coming directly from reporters—who are supposed to be impartial—is an area that is rarely discussed.”

Over the last year, the Secular Coalition has received nearly 20 biased responses from reporters who have received press releases. Other responses include comments like, “I feel sorry for you…I believe strongly in Jesus Christ and God the Father," "You should be ashamed,” and “Move to Iraq. Then you won't have to worry about it." 

 

CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

WASHINGTON, DC—The Secular Coalition for America today sent a letter to the White House, pointing out additional Internal Revenue Service failings, including neglecting to investigate churches and religious charities that engage in “politicking from the pulpit.”

In its letter, the Secular Coalition said “religious charities have been flaunting their flagrant disregard for [IRS] laws for years. Over 1600 pastors participated in last year’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday, where pastors not only violated the law by lobbying and endorsing candidates, but filmed their illegal actions and mailed them to the IRS.”

The Secular Coalition’s letter comes on the heel of another letter sent to the White House by Franklin Graham earlier this week, asserting that the IRS is improperly targeting religious charities for investigation, including the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Graham’s complaint is one in a series of allegations this week that the IRS is unfairly targeting churches for scrutiny.

“Churches and religious organizations are being singled out—for special treatment,” said Edwina Rogers, executive director for the Secular Coalition for America. “Churches and other religious organizations have been using their tax exempt statuses for years to politick from the pulpit are rarely even investigated for their flagrant disregard of IRS law.”

In fact, churches are heavily insulated against general procedures and investigations that other secular non-profits are subject to. The Church Audit Procedures Act, §7611 of the Internal Revenue Code, stipulates that only “an appropriate high-level Treasury official” can initiate an investigation, if there is suspicion that the church is incompliant with 501(c)(3) requirements. The Act defines “appropriate high-level Treasury official” as “the Secretary of the Treasury or any delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury whose rank is no lower than that of a principal Internal Revenue officer for an internal revenue region.”

In October 2012, despite an influx of complaints to the IRS regarding churches that had become too political, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officially halted tax audits of churches until it can adopt rules that clarify which high-level employee has the authority to initiate them, resulting in outright non-enforcement of electioneering restrictions.

Under current 501(c)(3) law, churches are barred from electioneering and limited in other political activity. Specifically, the anti-electioneering provision prohibits any section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization from endorsing or opposing any candidate for public office. Churches are allowed to engage only in “insubstantial” lobbying, spending no more than 20 percent of the church’s budget on lobbying—a restriction nearly impossible to uphold since churches are not required to submit 990 forms indicating their income or expenditures.

“Not only are churches shielded from basic investigations in a way that no other non-profits are, but the laws that are in place for them are nearly impossible to uphold,” Rogers said. “Because churches do not have to submit a 990 form how then can the IRS hold them accountable for breaking other IRS laws that limit the amount the amount of political lobbying they do?” 

Secular 501(c)(3) organizations that surpass the 20 percent cap on lobbying or electioneer in any way are in jeopardy of losing their tax exempt, and investigations and can be initiated by low-level IRS officials.

To address concerns of religious privileging in the tax code, , the Secular Coalition has urged Congress to require religious nonprofits to submit 990 forms like other nonprofit organizations, and to enforce the largely ignored current IRS rules that bar churches from endorsing political candidates.

Earlier this month, the Joint Committee on Taxation for included the Coalition’s recommendations on removing religious privileging from the tax code, in a report submitted May 7, 2013 to the House Ways and Means Committee. The Secular Coalition is now urging the House Ways and Means committee to adopt the SCA’s recommendations in the final bill the Committee puts forth to the full House.

The Secular Coalition for America represents atheists, agnostics, humanists and others who don’t possess and absolutely belief in God on Capitol Hill. The Secular Coalition lobbies to protect and strengthen the secular character of the government as the best guarantee of freedom for all. The Coalition is comprised of 11 member organizations and 118 endorsing organizations. The Secular Coalition has chapters in all 50 states that lobby lawmakers at the state level.

Recently, I read two articles about dying for a cause. The first, on these pages, by Sally Quinn, addressed the Dalai Lama’s lack of compassion for not criticizing the self-immolation of more than 100 Tibetans since 2009 to protest China’s occupation of Tibet.  The second article concerned 813 Italians who were just declared “saints” by the Catholic Church because they chose death in 1480 rather than convert to Islam. 

Different religions have formulated arguments about what constitutes a “just war” and causes worth dying for. Some of history’s most brutal wars have been holy wars, perpetrated by people who expected heavenly rewards for killing countless “heretics.” They justified their massacres because designated infidels either did not believe in “the one true god” or did not worship the one true god in the one true way. Most of the civilized world now condemns those who take innocent lives, regardless of the cause. More nuanced is whether we can justify taking our own life for a cause, the theme in both articles mentioned above.

I can respect, if not agree with, those who believe their suicide will save additional lives and increase the happiness of others. That was the goal of the self-immolators trying to free Tibet and bring back the Dalai Lama. On the other hand, I always look for ways to resolve problems without loss of life. This is why war must always be a last resort.

I reserve my harshest criticisms of religion for its practices that intrude on the lives of those outside the religion. This doesn’t mean I can easily ignore religious practices I find ridiculous, which brings me to Catholic sainthood. How many miracles does it take to change a dead human into a saint? The Catholic Church says two, but no such miracle has ever been as documented as, say, would be a televised prayer that results in a light bulb changing itself.

Continue reading at Washington Post's On Faith.

Washington, DC-- The Secular Coalition for America today released its 2013 Massachusetts Senate Candidate Scorecard for the upcoming special election —a guide for secular-minded Massachusettsians on the senate candidates.

The scorecard grades the Republican and Democratic candidates vying for the senate seat in the upcoming election to be held on June 25:

• Republican, Gabriel E. Gomez received an "A"
• Democrat, Edward J. Markey received an "A"

“We are pleased that the choice for Massachusetts’ next senator is between two candidates who appear to have a strong respect for the separation of church and state,” said Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “The Secular Coalition looks forward to working with the victor to ensure that future legislation is based on reason, science and logic.”

The candidates were scored on their public answers to four topics relating to separation of church and state issues:  

1. What role would religion play in the candidate's decision making in his or her role as a U.S. Representative?  Does the candidate support a mutual separation between religion and government?
2. Does the candidate support a science based curriculum in public schools and reject the use of public funding of religious schools or religiously-based curriculums?
3. Does the candidate support social policies that do not discriminate based on religion, such as marriage equality?
4. Does the candidate support scientifically based regulations including science surrounding reproduction?

"We are in a good position in this race, with candidates who understand the need to separate matters of personal belief from the duties of office," said Zachary Bos, co-chair of the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts. "As the election proceeds, the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts will continue to invite the candidates to speak directly to the question of how they would work toward the inclusion of all voters -- including nontheists -- in the legislative process."

The Secular Coalition recently established a state chapter Massachusetts that has already begun work, lobbying state lawmakers on separation of religion and government issues. The Secular Coalition for Massachusetts is chaired by Zachary Bos, 30, Lunenburg, MA and Ellery Schempp, 72, Medford, Massachusetts.

The Secular Coalition represents nontheists -- atheists, agnostics, humanists and others who do not have an absolute belief in a god -- and lobbies to protect and strengthen the secular character of the government as the best guarantee of freedom for all Americans -- both religious and nonreligious.

For more information on the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts and for chapter co-chair contact information, visit http://secular.org/states/chapters/massachusetts

CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725
Secular Coalition for Massachusetts Co-Chair, Zachary Bos at zakbos@gmail.com or 617-871-0759

The Humanists of RI and The Secular Coalition for RI are pleased to announce pursuant to their request, that on April 30, 2013 Governor Lincoln D. Chafee issued a State of Rhode Island Gubernatorial Proclamation officially declaring May 2 the Day of Reason in Rhode Island. In doing this, Governor Chafee helps raise awareness throughout the State of Rhode Island of the importance of Reason as a guiding principal of our secular democracy.

Humanists of RI and the Secular Coalition of RI join with The National Day of Reason, a consortium of leaders from within the community of reason endorsing the idea of a National Day of Reason. This observance is held in parallel with the National Day of Prayer, on the first Thursday in May each year. The goal of this effort is to celebrate reason-a concept all Americans can support-and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. Humanists of Rhode Island are dedicated to good works and service
projects that will best demonstrate our ideals.

The Secular Coalition for Rhode Island and the Secular Coalition for America share the common mission to increase the visibility of and respect for nontheistic viewpoints in the United States, and to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of
freedom for all.

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

View official press release and Proclamation here.

Contact: Secular Coaltion for Rhode Island
Christine Eldridge 401-484-0147
rhodeisland@secular.org

• www.facebook.com/pages/Secular-Coalition-for-Rhode-Island/342933115786516
• http://nationaldayofreason.org/ www.humanistsri.com/
• www.facebook.com/pages/Humanists-of-Rhode-Island/198628243538886/www.meetup.com/Humanistsof-
• Rhode-Island/

 

###

 

Recently I was invited to participate in a Religion and Law Conference at Florida State University. Almost all the other speakers and attendees were legal or religion scholars, from disciplines in which I’ve had no formal training.

My only “credential” to speak was as a former plaintiff in a South Carolina Supreme Court victory for atheists. In a conference session called “Legislating Conscience,” I described (to much amusement and agreement with my position) the legal roadblocks South Carolina had placed in my path in its failed attempt to maintain god belief as a requirement for public office. The conference, though, was not a “kumbaya” weekend because I disagreed with many speakers on issues they supported.

Almost all attendees were religious liberals, whose conference papers I’d roughly place in three categories: (1) objection to favoring mainstream religions over minority religions; (2) approval of selected government support for religion; (3) disputes over what legally constitutes a religion.

I agreed with all the cases presented in (1) and disagreed with all the cases presented in (2). My position was that government should never favor one religion over another or religion over non-religion.

The most interesting discussion for me was about (3), disputes over what legally constitutes religion, because I found all the attempts to define religion problematic. One speaker defined religion as “a sincerely held non-rational (i.e., faith based) belief concerning the nature of the universe.” Why, I asked, should our government privilege irrational beliefs over rational beliefs? Of course there are both theistic and nontheistic religions, the latter placing more emphasis on what adherents view as rational beliefs.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said, “Pornography is hard to define, but I know it when I see it.” I think the same can be said of religion, and therein lies the problem. My favorite definition of religion is from a “Non Sequitur” cartoon. An old man sits behind a table on a street corner with a sign-up sheet. Next to the table is a big poster with a huge thermometer. An arrow at the top of the thermometer points to the phrase,  “Join and help us reach our goal!” The bottom is labeled “handful of wackos.” As people stop to sign, the temperature indicator moves up the thermometer alongside labels that say “cult,” “faction,” “sect,” and finally the goal of “mainstream religion.”

Read remainder of article at Washington Post's On Faith.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2013

Washington, DC – The Secular Coalition for America today applauded the Joint Committee on Taxation for including the SCA’s recommendations on removing religious privileging from the tax code, in a report submitted yesterday to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The Secular Coalition is now urging the House Ways and Means committee to adopt the SCA’s recommendations in the final bill the Committee puts forth to the full House.

In its recommendations, the Secular Coalition urged Congress to address religious privileging in the tax code, including requiring religious nonprofits to submit 990 forms like other nonprofit organizations, and enforcing IRS rules that bar churches from endorsing political candidates. The Coalition’s recommendations are included on page 496 of the Joint Committee’s report. In full:

“Eliminate the following three special rules for churches: (1) the exemption of churches from the requirement that section 501(c)(3) organizations apply for tax exempt status; (2) the exemption of churches from the requirement that section 501(c)(3) organizations file an annual Form 990 series return; and (3) the restrictions on church tax inquiries and audits under section 7611.”

“We were pleased to see the Coalition’s recommendations included in the report and hope that the Committee will adopt the SCA’s recommendations in the final bill,” said Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “These are common sense reforms that level the playing field for all nonprofits.”

In addition to the recommendations submitted to the Joint Committee, the Coalition met directly with several House offices regarding these tax issues, including Reps. John Lewis (D-GA) and Dave Reichart (R-WA), heads of the Charitable/Exempt Organizations Tax Reform Working Group. The SCA also met with Harold Hancock, a staffer with the House Ways and Means Committee.  These tax issues were one of the topics 100 secular constituents lobbied their representatives on during the Secular Coalition’s annual Lobby Day on April 26, 2013, including the tax staffer for Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX), who sits on the Ways and Means Committee.

The tax code has not been comprehensively addressed in over 25 years. The SCA’s recommendations were in line with the Committee’s stated of goal of creating a “simpler and fairer tax code.”

"Both Democrats and Republicans say they want to make the tax code simpler and fairer-if that's what they truly want we have the perfect solution," Rogers said. "Make it simpler by removing unnecessary language from the tax code and fairer by applying the same rules to all nonprofits regardless of religious affiliation."

The Ways and Means Committee held 20 separate hearings on comprehensive tax reform in the 112th Congress, released an international tax reform discussion draft in October 2011 and released a financial products discussion draft in January 2013.  In February, Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) and Ranking Member Sander Levin (D-MI) announced the formation of 11 separate Ways and Means Committee Tax Reform Working Groups. The full Committee will review the report and draft a bill.

 

CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725

Washington, DC--The Secular Coalition for America today condemned the Obama administration's decision to limit the sale of Plan B, the so-called "morning-after pill," to women 15 years of age and older. The Secular Coalition said the administration's decision is inconsistent with the scientific and evidence-based findings of the Federal Drug Administration, which in the past has deemed the drug safe for women of all ages.

According to The American Council on Science and Health, Plan B is safer than aspirin and other painkillers and is impossible to overdose on. The ACSH has said that any theoretical risk of taking Plan B is far outweighed by the risk of an unplanned pregnancy in girls and young women.

"We need to ensure that all of our laws are based on reason and science and the science indicates that this drug is safe for women of all ages," said Edwina Rogers, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America. "The decision to limit the sale of Plan B runs counter to the evidence collected by the very scientists hired by the administration to review prescription drugs."

The morning-after pill contains higher doses of regular contraceptives that cut the chances of pregnancy up to 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. In 2011 the FDA planned to lift all age limits and allow the over-the-counter sale of Plan B. However, the FDA scientists were overruled by Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

On Tuesday, the FDA lowered the age limit from 17 to 15 for over-the-counter access to Plan B. A federal court ruling took it a step further, finding no "coherent justification" for the age limit. The judge's decision would make the sale of the morning-after pill available to women of all ages. U.S. District Judge Edward Korman said in his opinion that the administration had let election-year politics trump science.

The Justice Department announced that it would appeal the federal court ruling.

On Monday, President Obama spoke before the National Academy of Sciences where he told attendees he would ensure science was "not subject to politics" or "skewed by an agenda."

A New York Times editorial published Thursday, said the administration had "betrayed" science, noting that the decision will, "hurt girls and women and is bound to undermine Mr. Obama's credibility when he calls for principled, evidence-based policy-making on other issues, like global warming." The piece continued, "The Justice Department's legal argument, moreover, is incoherent. In court documents, it claims that Judge Korman's order improperly interferes with the F.D.A.'s "scientific judgments" pertaining to the drug approval process. But it was Ms. Sebelius's interference with science that sparked Judge Korman's ruling in the first place."

"President Obama has consistently voiced his support for science and evidence-based laws," Rogers said. "He's talked the talk, but it's now time to make good on those commitments."

Both the Society for Adolescent Medicine and American Academy of Pediatrics, support easier access to emergency birth control pills for young women.

 

CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Secular Coalition for America today applauded the support of the National Day of Reason by lawmakers at the federal and local levels and urges all Americans to support the constitutional principal of church-state separation by recognizing the annual observance.

The National Day of Reason, to be observed on May 2, is a more inclusive alternative to the congressionally endorsed National Day of Prayer.  

Rep. Michael Honda (CA) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC) declared their support for the Day of Reason within the last several days.

“The National Day of Reason celebrates the application of reason and the positive impact it has had on humanity,” Michael Honda declared in the Congressional record last week. “It is also an opportunity to reaffirm the Constitutional separation of religion and government.”

“I encourage all citizens to join in observing this day and focusing upon the employment of reason, critical thought, the scientific method, and free inquiry to the resolution of human problems for the welfare of humanity,” Holmes Norton said in a statement.

Additional support and acknowledgement of the National Day of Reason has been issued in several states and local jurisdictions. Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx, President Obama's nominee for transportation secretary, issued a proclamation, naming Thursday A Day of Reason in the city.  The Dunedin City Council in Florida also issued a Day of Reason proclamation.

Secular Coalition for America Executive Director, Edwina Rogers, said she is encouraged to see support of the National Day of Reason by some politicians and is hopeful that others will show their support as well.

 “The National Day of Reason reminds us of the continued importance of our nation’s founding principles and offers an alternative to the government-sponsored theism that the National Day of Prayer represents,” Rogers said, noting that nearly 20 percent of the American population does not identify with any religion. “Government endorsed prayer excludes the millions of Americans who do not subscribe to a religious belief—as an organization we are working to ensure that politicians at both the federal and state levels will take a more inclusive approach and base all laws on reason and science.”     

The National Day of Prayer was created in 1952 by an act of Congress to be held each year on the first Thursday of May. In response to what it regards as an ongoing violation of the First Amendment, the American Humanist Association—a Secular Coalition member organization—together with the Washington Area Secular Humanists, created the National Day of Reason “to celebrate reason—a concept all Americans can support—and to raise public awareness about the persistent threat to religious liberty posed by government intrusion into the private sphere of worship.”

Many local groups affiliated with the American Humanist Association to observe the National Day of Reason by participating in blood drives, holding rallies outside state government building or host social gatherings. Some groups also hold rallies outside state government buildings or host social gatherings.

The Secular Coalition for America urges all Americans to support the constitutional principal of church-state separation by recognizing the National Day of Reason. Supporters are encouraged to visit the official website, NationalDayOfReason.org, to post an event in their area and learn how to encourage local governments to issue a National Day of Reason proclamation.

CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725

 

Inevitably after major disasters, particularly those involving the senseless loss of life such as last week's Boston Marathon bombing, an interfaith service of some type will take shape, where various religious groups will come together to mourn and heal. This happened in Boston last week, with a high-profile service that included religious leaders from various faith communities: Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Greek Orthodox, and several Protestant traditions.

In a modern pluralistic society such as ours, it not only seems natural, but arguably even healthy, that various religious groups could come together in a time of crisis. Indeed, considering that these groups have historically justified bloodshed against one another based on their theological differences, their coming together for an interfaith service, recognizing the importance of our common humanity, can only be seen as a positive development.

Nevertheless, to humanists and other nonbelievers, such interfaith services are often problematic. Though the "interfaith" concept is perhaps commendable, the specifics of how interfaith services are often conducted and presented are not. That is, most interfaith services are quite exclusive, not at all inclusive, yet they are perceived by the media and the public as representing virtually all citizens. Interfaith services are generally accepted as a forum where "everyone" comes together, but in fact they usually represent an exclusive club.

Exacerbating the misunderstanding is the fact that interfaith services often become a platform not just for various religious leaders, but for politicians. The Boston service, for example, included speeches by both President Obama and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, adding a decidedly civic element to a religious service.

The inclusion of governmental leaders in an interfaith religious ceremony such as this adds to the misperception that the event is a reflection of the entire community. Even the word "interfaith" misleadingly conveys a sense of community unanimity, and the addition of key secular leaders to the event - leaders who, unlike the religious leaders, are indeed supposed to represent all citizens - magnifies that falsehood.

The entire exercise leaves nonbelievers with a mix of emotions and opinions. Some complain about their exclusion, saying that any interfaith ceremony should include humanist celebrants or atheist representatives. But others, uncomfortable with the word "faith" and wanting no part in an interfaith service, complain not of their exclusion, but only of the participation of government officials.

Read remainder of article at Psychology Today >>>>

If you think it's rough being an atheist in America, consider the situation in less open societies. In Bangladesh, for example, several atheist bloggers were recently arrested and dozens of others face possible charges. Their crime, although described in various ways (including "insulting religion"), appears to be nothing more than being openly atheist.

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) via an action alert and other measures, is trying to raise public awareness of troubling anti-atheist developments in Bangladesh and elsewhere. Around the world, enforcement of blasphemy laws, sometimes described as "defamation of religion," is threatening fundamental freedoms of conscience and expression, thereby making religious dissent, especially in the form of open atheist activism, very dangerous. (Some blasphemy laws call for the death penalty.) American secular groups are working with the IHEU, and plan to take steps, including possible protests and demonstrations, to call more attention to the issue. (Follow my Twitter feed for updates on these activities.)

Interestingly, mainstream American media have given little coverage to this issue, even though it presents a plain case of indefensible repression of not just one basic freedom, but several: freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of conscience, and even free press (if we consider blogging as a form of press). Guilty of little more than standing up publicly as atheists, these criminal defendants go unnoticed in the media of the free world. Where is the outrage?
Nothing is more repugnant to freedom of conscience than the notion that some ideas - whether religious, political, or philosophical - are beyond criticism. Thus, it's not surprising that we see countries governed by religious fundamentalists claim that "defamation of religion" must be discouraged. Perhaps more concerning, however, is that the idea of defending religion is gaining traction in some unexpected places, such as Russia.

One of the many problems with the concept of protecting religion from defamation is that ideas (including religious ideas) cannot be defamed - only people can be defamed. If governments feel that any idea must be shielded from scrutiny, questioning, or even ridicule and satirical commentary, that idea must be extremely weak, or alternatively the society in question must be repressive.

Read remainder of article here.

 

 

 

Washington, DC— The Secular Coalition for America is disappointed and saddened that the nontheist community was excluded from the Interfaith Service taking place in the wake of Monday's marathon bombing—despite that at least two of the victims of the bombing were part of the nontheist community.

Celeste Corcoran of Lowell, Massachusetts, who lost both her legs at the knees in one of the bomb blasts, and her 18 year-old daughter, Sydney, who suffered severe injuries as a result of being hit by shrapnel, were part of the greater-Boston humanist community.

The Interfaith event, called “Healing Our City” is taking place at Cathedral of the Holy Cross and will be attended by President Obama and representatives from the Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim faiths.

“The tragic events on Monday affected people of many different faiths and none,” said Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. “The organizers said they want to ‘heal the city’ and to do that, we need to come together as a community in these times of need despite our differing beliefs.”

The nontheist community in Boston has been working hard to help those affected, including raising nearly $310,000 to assist victims. WeAreAtheism.com, the Boston Atheists, the Humanist Community at Harvard, and the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts have raised $26,856 to assist victims at the time of writing. The Humanist Community at Harvard played a lead role in raising nearly $281,837 for a fund established to help Celeste and Sydney.

“The very purpose of  these types of programs are put on is to comfort the victims, their families and the community at large,” Rogers said. “To exclude the very community that at least some of the victims were a part of not only alienates the victims themselves, but also Boston’s vibrant nontheistic community and the nearly 20 percent of Americans who choose not to identify with a religion. We are grieving too.”

The Secular Coalition – in conjunction with the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts and Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and Vice President of the Harvard Chaplains – work worked diligently to secure the inclusion of a representative from the nontheist community. For several days, the Coalition contacted representatives of all aspects of the planning and coordination of the event, including White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, the Office of Community Affairs in the Governor’s office, the Archdiocese of Boston, the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, the Massachusetts Council of Churches, the Office of the Mayor and the Boston City Council.

Epstein said the exclusion of nontheists at an event meant to focus on healing and community togetherness, is a blow to the community as a whole.

“As a chaplain, I can tell you that members of our community are grieving right now,” Epstein said. “And as an atheist and humanist, I can tell you that this type of exclusion makes their pain even worse.”

Epstein describes said the nontheist community in Boston is thriving with attendance at events numbering in the thousands yearly. The Harvard Humanists and the Boston Coalition of Reason, are opening a nearly 3000-square foot storefront Humanist Community Center in the heart of Harvard Square.

The Secular Coalition for America is a nonprofit advocacy group, representing 11 nontheistic groups, including the American Humanist Association.

 

 CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Secular Coalition for America today expressed condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in the bombings and well wishes for victims who were injured in the attack.

"Our hearts go out to the victims, their families and to all of those affected by this senseless act of violence," said Edwina Rogers, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America.

The nontheist community in Boston has been working hard to help those affected, including raising nearly $160,000 to assist victims. Rogers noted that at least two of the victims were part of the humanist community in the greater Boston area, Celeste Corcoran of Lowell, Massachusetts, who lost both her legs at the knees in one of the bomb blasts and her 18 year-old daughter, Sydney, who suffered severe injuries as a result of being hit by shrapnel.

WeAreAtheism.com, the Boston Atheists, the Humanist Community at Harvard, and the Secular Coalition for Massachusetts have raised over $20,000 to assist victims. A fund established to help Celeste and Sydney has raised nearly $140,000.

Rogers said the nontheist community is eager to be a part of the interfaith services and other memorials, vigils and community events honoring the victims--not only to support and represent several of the victims who are part of the nontheist community in Boston, but also in a show of solidarity with the greater-Boston community as a whole.

 "The tragic events on Monday affected people of many different faiths and none," Rogers said. "In times like these, it's important that people from all walks of life and religious perspectives band together as a community and do what we can to help those in need."

 

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

 

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Secular Coalition for America on Monday-Tax Day-will submit comments highlighting religious privileging in the tax code to the House Ways and Means Committee Tax Reform Charitable/exempt organizations working group.

In its comments, the Secular Coalition urges Congress to address religious privileging in the tax code, including requiring religious nonprofits to submit 990 forms like other nonprofit organizations, and enforcing IRS rules that bar churches from endorsing political candidates. 

Specifically, the Coalition is asking that two exemptions are removed from the tax code. The two provisions are 26 USC §6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) and (C)(i) which  exempts churches, their integrated auxiliaries and exclusively religious activities from the requirement to file an annual return-something every other organization exempt from taxation must do-and 26 USC § 7611, which includes five pages of restrictions on the IRS's ability to investigate churches engaged in activity that would void a 501c3 tax exemption.

"Both Democrats and Republicans say they want to make the tax code simpler and fairer-if that's what they truly want we have the perfect solution," said Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. "Make it simpler by removing unnecessary language from the tax code and fairer by applying the same rules to all nonprofits regardless of religious affiliation."

The Secular Coalition met with several House offices recently to speak about tax issues, including Reps. Dave Reichart (R-WA) and John Lewis (D-GA) the chair and vice chair, respectively, of the Charitable/Exempt Organizations Working Group of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Religious nonprofits receive a list of tax benefits unavailable to other nonprofits. Among some of the Secular Coalition's concerns are:

• Religious organizations do not have to prove they are doing charitable work in order to receive a tax exempt status from the IRS.
• Religious organizations do not have to inform the public of assets, annual income or expenses through an annual 990.
• Organizations recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities and risk loss of status as tax exempt status if violated, yet hundreds of churches break these laws without being investigated.
• Even when churches are in violation of IRS rules, the IRS, based on Church Audit Procedures Act of 1984, has special rules that make initiating an audit of churches, mosques, synagogues and other religious entities more difficult than with other secular nonprofits.
• K-12 schools run by religious organizations, funds or retirement programs run by religious organizations, and religious organizations organized for overseas missionary work do not have to file an annual return.
• Clergy employed by religious organizations are exempt from owing any income tax on the property that they rent or live in if the property is church-owned.
• A special tax exemption in the Internal Revenue Code allows a house of worship to provide one or more of its "ministers of the Gospel" to receive tax-free housing or tax-free income equivalent to the rental value of the clergy's residence.
• Clergy may also deduct their real estate taxes and mortgage interest from their taxes-as any taxpayer who owns a home may do. But clergy are allowed to do so even if the mortgage interest was paid with the tax-free housing income[3]. This is considered a "double-dip", and is generally prohibited by the tax code.

A July 2012 poll by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found 66 percent of Americans believe churches or other houses of worship should not endorse political candidates and the majority of Americans (54%) say that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters.

Rogers said part of the original logic behind giving religious organizations tax exemptions was that they were viewed to be providing charitable services to the public, but with the lack of transparency it is impossible to know if the money is actually being used for its intended purpose.

Charitable contributions by individuals, foundations, bequests, and corporations reached $298.42 billion in 2011, with religious organizations receiving the largest share - 32 percent-of total estimated contributions, according to Giving USA.

"These tax exemptions constitute blatant religious privileging, but there is also an issue of transparency," Rogers said. "Holding these organizations to the same filing standards as other charitable and educational institutions ensures that the almost $100 billion being donated to religious organizations is actually going to help those who need it."

On April 25-26, the Secular Coalition will hold its Secular Summit and Lobby Day on Capitol Hill, where tax issues will be discussed by panelists. U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) will be a keynote speaker.

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

In December, the Secular Coalition held "A National Summit: Correcting Religious Privileging in the Tax Code" and will continue to ensure there is a level playing field for all nonprofits when it comes to the tax code.  

CONTACT: Kelly Damerow, Director of Federal and State Government Affairs at (o) 202-299-2091 ext. 204, (c) 202-630-0801 or by email at Kelly@secular.org

/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

 

Washington, DC-- The Secular Coalition for America today released its 2013 South Carolina First Congressional District Election Scorecard-a guide for secular-minded South Carolinians on the House candidates.

The scorecard grades the three candidates vying for the first district seat on May 7:

• Democrat, Elizabeth Colbert Busch, received an "A"
• Green Party candidate, Eugene Platt, received a "B"
• Republican, Mark Sanford, received an "F"

The candidates were scored on their public answers to three questions relating to separation of church and state issues: What role would religion play in the candidate's decision making in his or her role as a U.S. Representative?  Does the candidate support a science based curriculum in public schools and reject the use of public funding of religious schools or religiously-based curriculums?  Does the candidate support social policies that do not discriminate based on religion, such as marriage equality?

Herb Silverman, a Charleston resident and president emeritus of the Secular Coalition for America, lives in the first congressional district and said there are both believers and nonbelievers in the district that are tired of religion being inserted into the local politics.

"Candidates like Mark Sanford would like to promote alternatives to the theory of evolution in public schools and it's up to those of us who respect science to promote alternatives to Sanford and politicians who push this type of ignorant faith-based legislation," Silverman said. "There are rational people in my district who are tired of politicians playing the God card."

A full 54 percent of Americans believe that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and 66 percent say that churches and houses of worship should not endorse candidates.

"While voters choose candidates for many reasons and based on many issues, we hope the Secular Coalition's scorecard will be one more tool they use to inform their decision," said Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America. "We will continue to work at the federal and state level to curb legislation based on religion and to hold our politicians accountable to our nation's core founding principle of secularism."

The Secular Coalition recently established a state chapter in South Carolina that will lobby state lawmakers on separation of religion and government issues. For more information on the Secular Coalition for South Carolina and for chapter co-chair contact information, visit http://secular.org/states/chapters/south_carolina

 

CONTACT: Shayne Chesire, SCA Program Assistant, shayne@secular.org,  [o] 202.299.1091 ext. 203, [c] 954-649-5489

Contact the Secular Coalition for South Carolina:
Reach Chapter Co-Chair, Matthew Facciani (Columbia, SC) at 803-250-6456
Reach Chapter Co-Chair, Amy Monsky (Summerville, SC) at 843-291-8248

WASHINGTON, DC—The Secular Coalition for America on Monday submitted comments to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) expressing strong opposition to the proposed rule changes for “religious employers” regarding preventive healthcare services. The comments were signed by a coalition of 12 organizations representing atheists, agnostics, humanists and other secular Americans.

If adopted, the proposed rule changes will have a significant impact on American women across a wide spectrum of the workforce. The changes would broaden the religious employer exemption to include all non-profit organizations that self-certify as a “religious employer.” Furthermore, the changes put the religious interests of a few employers ahead of immense health and social benefits for all Americans.

“The proposed exemption set a terrible precedent for religious interference in individual choice,” said Edwina Rogers, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America. “If adopted, this exemption gives employers the ability to impose their particular religious beliefs on employees, infringing on the religious freedom of potentially millions of Americans.” 

In February 2012, the HHS announced final rules regarding exemptions to contraception requirements that exempted Houses of Worship and other “religious employers.” However, in February of 2013, pressured by religious groups including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the HHS rescinded three out of four requirements needed to comply with its earlier definition of “religious employer” broadly expanding the number of qualifying exempt organizations.

In the submitted comments, the Secular Coalition makes several points:

• The Cost-Free Contraceptive Coverage Requirement Is Constitutional
• The SCA’s Suggested Alternatives are More Appropriate and Clear than the Proposed Rule
• Any Employer Exemption Imposes the Employer’s Religion on Employees
• The Proposed Exemption Change Will Deny Thousands of Women Contraceptive Coverage
• The Proposed Rule Leaves the Exemption Open for Abuse
• The Eligibility Requirements for the Accommodation are Vague and Overly Broad

The Secular Coalition urged the Administration to keep intact the four-pronged definition of “religious employer” proposed in earlier drafts of the rules. The previous definition adequately accommodated religious institutions, by insuring that women employed by nonprofits with an expressly religious mission employing a majority of people of the same faith, could obtain contraception directly from the insurance provider.

Alternatively, the Coalition encouraged the HHS to adopt the religious employer Social Security exemption, which requires that both the employer and employee must be of the same religious faith and adherent to the religion’s established tenets or teachings. Additionally, the organization would be required to file an application for the exemption, which would be then approved or denied by the Administration.

If HHS adopts the newest version of proposed rule changes, not only will 317,751 congregations across the country be eligible for the exemption, but the expanded definition will also include 7 percent of the American workforce currently employed by nonprofit charities. Many of these nonprofits are in health care, social assistance and educational services—fields where women are strongly represented.

Over 90 percent of nurses and 74 percent of private school teachers are women.   In many areas religiously affiliated hospitals are the only local available employment options. In any already difficult employment climate, the rules would require many nurses and teachers to give up their religious liberty and important personal health considerations for employment.  

“Employees should not have to choose between their career and their religious liberty—and these rules would force millions of American women to do exactly that.”  Rogers said. “The values of an employer that happens to be a parochial school or a Catholic hospital, should not supplant the personal values and religious liberty of its employees any more than a secular school or hospital should.”

Rogers added, “In an already difficult employment climate, are we asking our nurses and teachers to give up their religious liberty and important personal health considerations for employment.”

The comments submitted yesterday were signed by 12 organizations, including:

Secular Coalition for America
American Atheists
American Ethical Union
American Humanist Association
Atheist Alliance of America
Camp Quest
Council for Secular Humanism
HUUmanists
Institute for Humanist Studies
Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
Secular Student Alliance
Society for Humanistic Judaism

View the SCA's comments at http://secular.org/content/secular-coalition-comments-hhs-proposed-rule-0. The Secular Coalition has previously submitted comments to the administration with each proposed rule change.

CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725

Washington, DC—The Secular Coalition for America today expressed disappointment that on Friday President Barack Obama issued an executive order extending the Faith-Based Advisory Council without addressing employment discrimination among many of the faith-based organizations that receive federal funding through the program.

On the campaign trail in 2008, President Obama promised to abide by "a few basic principles" that would protect the Constitutional separation of church and state in his plan for an expanded faith based initiative program.  He said, "First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs."

“It’s a huge disappointment that five years later nothing has been done to address this problem,” said Edwina Rogers, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America. “It is unacceptable that religious institutions accepting taxpayer dollars are permitted to discriminate based on religious preferences with the federal funds.”

The Secular Coalition has called for reform and oversight of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the agencies that it oversees for years. Government reports and hearings have documented the Constitutional problems and gross abuses rampant in this program, yet many of these organizations continue to receive federal funds used for religious discrimination in hiring, while reforms to prohibit proselytizing in these purportedly secular social service programs have been weak. 

In April of 2012, the Obama administration published new guidelines for organizations receiving federal funds to provide services through faith-based initiatives. In the 50-page report, the Administration detailed how organizations must separate their religious mission from their community service mission. However, the report contained little significant change to the church-government partnerships initiated by President George W. Bush that provide direct taxpayer funding to religious institutions.

Rogers said it’s time for the President to make good on his failed campaign promise.

“It seems President Obama was all bark and no bite when it comes to reforming the faith based initiative,” Rogers said. “The Administration’s decision to allow this discrimination prioritizes the concerns of religious organizations over the people these programs are intended to serve.”   

A change in the rules governing faith-based initiatives would not require Congressional participation and could be done via executive order by the President.

 

CONTACT: Lauren Anderson Youngblood, SCA Communications Manager at lauren@secular.org or (202)299-1091 ext. 205, cell (202)630-9725

 

The Secular Coalition for America is a 501(c)(4) organization that serves as the national lobby for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheistic Americans. Composed of 11 diverse member organizations, SCA works to protect and strengthen the secular character of our government as the best guarantee of freedom for all. For more information, please visit www.secular.org.

####

I’m not gay. But I am jealous. How did homosexuality shift in public opinion from less respectable than atheism to more? And what can the atheist movement learn from the LGBT movement?

The psychiatric community considered homosexuality a mental disorder until 1974, and it wasn’t until 2003 that the U. S. Supreme Court declared sodomy laws (same-sex sexual activity) unconstitutional.When the public is polled about a willingness to vote for a well-qualified person for president who happens to be gay or atheist, gays are now ranked ahead of atheists.

The most obvious and effective lesson atheists are learning from gays (including all LGBTs) is to come out of the closet. Attitudes toward gays changed rapidly when people learned that their friends, neighbors, and even family members were gay. Attitudes about atheists are slowly changing as atheists are slowly coming out.

Gays are more likely to come out publicly because it’s easier for atheists to remain in the closet. There aren’t many excuses to give your mother (or anyone else) about why you’ve been living for years with someone of the same-sex and not dating.

Like most Americans, I gave little thought to fundamentalist, soul-saving Christians until they began to focus on politics. I’ve never been a closeted atheist, but I was an apathetic atheist for most of my life. While a graduate student in New York and later a math professor in Massachusetts in the 1970s, my friends and I had more important things to discuss than religion. For instance, our sex lives. Most of my friends were probably apathetic atheists, and some of them, unfortunately, felt the need to be closeted gays.

The LGBT movement deserves enormous credit for framing and publicizing their issues, forming a big tent that allows for cooperation between activist and laid back gays, and developing a well-organized community with a constituency recognized by politicians. And so it should be with atheists, which is a goal of the Secular Coalition for America and its member organizations.

 

Read remainder of article at Washington Posts' On Faith.

The leaders of major secular organizations have issued a united call for civility in online discussions. Edwina Rogers, Executive Director for the Secular Coalition for America is a signatory to the letter. Find the full letter below.

***

Open Letter to the Secular Community
It is an amazing time to be part of the secular movement. Look at what's happened in 2012 alone.  We held the Reason Rally, the largest event our community has ever had, which brought over 20,000 atheists, humanists, and other secular people together on the National Mall. We are growing, attracting new people, and drawing more attention than ever before.  A big part of that growth is thanks to our large and dynamic online community.  Online secular communities have helped people encounter new ideas, deepen and broaden their thinking, and even change their minds.

A Problem with Online Communication
At the same time, the fact that so much of our community is online brings with it certain challenges.  Communicating primarily online can make it difficult to recognize each other's humanity. Online we don't have the same vocal and physical cues to tell us what another person means by his or her comments, so it's easier for misunderstandings to develop. The instantaneous and impersonal nature of online communication also makes it much easier for these misunderstandings to escalate, or for civil arguments to turn into bitter fights. Like many online communities, our comment and forum threads all too often become places for name calling and even threats, rather than honest dialogue based on mutual respect. Between the small but vocal number of abusive participants (often called "trolls") who hurl threats and insults, and the overheated rhetoric of some ordinarily friendly and reasonable people, our online environment is in danger of turning toxic. Fortunately, our secular values of reason and compassion give us tools to rise above the lowest common denominator of online communication.

Our Position and Our Pledge
We, the leaders of the undersigned national secular organizations, pledge to make our best efforts toward improving the tone and substance of online discussions. The secular movement as a whole is friendly, welcoming, and committed to the use of reason and evidence as a means of resolving disagreements. We refuse to allow the deplorable conduct of a few to debase the reasonable, appropriate, and respectful conduct of the overwhelming majority of our community.

We seek to promote productive debate and discussion. We firmly believe open and candid discussion is the most reliable means of resolving differences of opinion and bringing about needed change. 

Insults, slurs, expressions of hatred, and threats undermine our shared values of open and candid discussion because they move us away from an exchange of views supported with reasons.

Of course we will disagree with each other on some issues, but we can do a better job of expressing our disagreements. We can resolve to avoid mischaracterizing the positions of others, relying on rumors as the basis for our opinions, and using inappropriate tactics such as guilt by association. Instead, we can give one another the benefit of the doubt, strive to understand the whole story, and de-escalate rhetoric to foster more productive discussions. We can become better at disagreeing by treating each other like reasonable human beings. 

It takes patience to educate people, but we can change how people think by having a constructive dialogue.  If that weren't the case, we wouldn't bother in the first place to communicate online about important issues.

The Debate over Sexism and Feminism
Before listing some specific recommendations regarding improvement of online communications, we have observations about one particular set of interrelated issues that has engaged much of the secular community in the past year, namely sexism within the secular movement, the appropriate way to interpret feminism, and the extent to which feminism, however interpreted, should influence the conduct, policies, and goals of movement organizations. This set of issues is worthy of careful consideration, but in a few areas our positions should be very clear.

The principle that women and men should have equal rights flows from our core values as a movement. Historically, there has been a close connection between traditional religion and suppression of women, with dogma and superstition providing the rationale for depriving women of fundamental rights. In promoting science and secularism, we are at the same time seeking to secure the dignity of all individuals. We seek not only civil equality for everyone, regardless of sex, but an end to discriminatory social structures and conventions - again often the legacy of our religious heritage-that limit opportunities for both women and men.

Unfortunately, the discussion of these issues has suffered from the same problems that plague online discussion in general-although arguably to a greater extent.  Some blogs and comments actually exhibit hatred, including rape threats and insults denigrating women. Hatred has no place in our movement. We unequivocally and unreservedly condemn those who resort to communicating in such a vile and despicable manner.

Our Approach
Here are some things that we plan to do to make our online secular community a place where we can exchange ideas and views instead of insults.  We hope that others may also find this approach useful. 

• Moderate blogs and forums. Any organization or individual engaged in blogging or administering a forum has an obligation to moderate comments. Slurs, threats, and so forth beget more of the same. Keeping our online spaces free of these elements creates a civil climate that makes it much easier for people to engage issues productively.
• Go offline before going online: pick up the phone. When you hear that an organization or member of our community is doing something that you think is wrong or bad for the community, call and talk with them, find out what they are actually doing and why they are doing it.  If you don't have a phone number, send a private email and arrange a time to talk.  So much of the time there's more to the story, and talking to another person on the other side of the issue can help us more fully understand the situation.  Plus, a phone call makes it easier for people who are making mistakes to change course, because they aren't on the defensive as they would be after being called out publicly.
• Listen more. We miss the nuances and differences within "the other side" once an issue becomes polarized, while continuing to see our side as filled with nuance and distinctions.  There is a tendency to stop listening and treat everyone associated with an opposing position as a monolithic group. People can be painted with views that aren't their own just because they may disagree with some aspects of your own position. We should listen more so we can see distinctions among those with opposing views and start to move toward a more accurate understanding of the issues rather than being deadlocked into two entrenched camps.
• Dial down the drama. It's tempting to overuse inflammatory and derogatory rhetoric. It gets attention. We should be cautious about using this tactic within our community because of the long-term damage it does to relationships and morale. When critiquing people within our community, everyone should remember that our goal is to persuade our allies to see our perspective and modify their opinions. Insults don't change opinions; they harden them.
• Be more charitable. We should remember that the purpose of argument within our community is to come to shared and correct conclusions that move us forward, not to score points against the opposing side. To that end, we should apply the principle of charity, which tells us to aim our argument against the best interpretation of the opposing arguments rather than picking off weaker versions. By applying the principle of charity we will elevate the discussion so we're actually talking about our real differences, not just engaging in a pointless exchange.
• Trust but verify.Before we believe and repost something we see, we should ask ourselves about the evidence provided and the context. It's easy for multiple people saying the same thing to look like a lot of evidence, but if their statements are all based on the same original source, they do not constitute independent verification. We should look for the original data and corroboration from independent sources before believing and spreading claims.
• Help others along. We should remember that we weren't born knowing the things we know now. To get to the reasoned conclusions that we've reached, we learned by reading, thinking, and talking with others. When we encounter someone espousing a view we think is based on lack of knowledge or experience, we should remember that we have all held ill-informed views. We should cultivate patience and try to educate instead of condemn.

By improving our online culture, we can make this movement a place that engages, fulfills, and welcomes a growing number and increasing diversity of secular people. 

Sincerely,

David Silverman, President, American Atheists
Rebecca Hale, President, American Humanist Association
Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director, American Humanist Association
Chuck VonDerAhe, President, Atheist Alliance of America
Richard Haynes, President, Atheist Nexus
Ayanna Watson, CEO, Black Atheists of America, Inc.
Mandisa L. Thomas, President, Black Nonbelievers, Inc.
Mynga Futrell, for Brights Central, at The Brights' Net
Amanda Metskas, Executive Director, Camp Quest
Ronald Lindsay, President and CEO, Center for Inquiry
Tom Flynn, Executive Director, The Council for Secular Humanism
Jan Meshon, President, FreeThoughtAction
Joseph McDaniel Stewart, Vice President, FreeThoughtAction
Margaret Downey, Founder and President, Freethought Society
D.J. Grothe, President, James Randi Educational Foundation
Stuart Jordan, President, Institute for Science and Human Values
Jason Torpy, President, Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Executive Director, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Edwina Rogers, Executive Director, Secular Coalition for America
August E. Brunsman IV, Executive Director, Secular Student Alliance
Todd Stiefel, President, Stiefel Freethought Foundation
Fred Edwords, National Director, United Coalition of Reason

As an Orthodox Jew growing up in Philadelphia, Passover was my favorite holiday because children were an integral part of the ceremony, and I got to sit at the Seder table with grownups. After the Seder leader hid the Afikomen (a piece of matzo) during the meal, the child who found it received a small prize. I always enjoyed sipping the ritual wine, while my mother voiced her concern that I would become an alcoholic. (I now think that Manischevitz wine would be an effective one-step program to prevent alcoholism.)

I especially looked forward to the Mah nishtanah…, the question asked by a child, which translates to “Why is this night different from all the other nights?” The scripted answers from the leader represent the substance of the Seder. Though I no longer believe the answers, the question reminds me of my favorite Passover joke:

“Because of his generous charitable contributions in England, Morris was to become the first Jew knighted by the queen. As part of the ceremony, Morris spent a great deal of time memorizing what he would have to say in Latin. But when the queen approached, Morris panicked and forgot the Latin passage. So he blurted out a familiar foreign phrase, ‘Mah nishtana halyla hazeh meecol halaylos?’ Surprised, the puzzled queen whispered to a member of her entourage, ‘Why is this knight different from all the other knights?’”

Before accepting Seder invitations, I always make clear to the host that I am an atheist. I believe the traditional Passover story to be both fictional and horrible. Here’s why: There is no historical or archaeological evidence that Moses existed, that Israelites were slaves in Egypt, or that they wandered in the desert for 40 years. And that’s the good news. I find the Passover story of the Exodus is horribly inhumane: An insecure and sadistic God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Why? So God could respond by bringing 10 plagues to Egypt, which culminated in killing innocent first-born Egyptian sons (but passing over Jewish households). Now and forever, we Jews are to thank God every Passover for creating plagues to benefit his “chosen” people.

 

Continue reading at Washington Post's On Faith.