Some of the secular Fellows of the Secular Global Institute

Catholic, born-again, Reformed, Jew, Muslim, Shiite, Sunni, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist…religions give people labels. The downside can be tribalism, an assumption that insiders are better than outsiders, that they merit more compassion, integrity and generosity or even that violence toward “infidels” is acceptable. But the upside is that religious or spiritual labels offer a way of defining who we are.  They remind adherents that our moral sense and quest for meaning are core parts of what it means to be human. They make it easier to convey a subset of our deepest values to other people, and even to ourselves.

For those who have lost their religion or never had one, finding a label can feel important. It can be part of a healing process or, alternately, a way of declaring resistance to a dominant and oppressive paradigm. Finding the right combination of words can be a challenge though. For a label to fit it needs to resonate personally and also communicate what you want to say to the world. Words have definitions, connotations and history, and how people respond to your label will be affected by all three. What does it mean? What emotions does it evoke? Who are you identifying as your intellectual and spiritual forebears and your community? The differences may be subtle but they can be important.

If, one way or another, you’ve left religion behind, and if you’ve been unsure what to call yourself, you might try on one of these:

1. Atheist. The term atheist can be defined literally as lacking a humanoid god concept, but historically it means one of two things.  Positive atheism asserts that a personal supreme being does not exist.  Negative atheism simply asserts a lack of belief in such a deity.  It is possible be a positive atheist about the Christian God, for example, while maintaining a stance of negative atheism or even uncertainty on the question of a more abstract deity like a “prime mover.” In the United States, it is important to know that atheist may be the most reviled label for a godless person. Devout believers use it as a slur and many assume an atheist has no moral core.  Until recently calling oneself an atheist was an act of defiance.  That appears to be changing.  With the rise of the “New Atheists” and the recent atheist visibility movement, the term is losing its edge.
2. Anti-theist. When atheist consistently evoked images of Madalyn Murray O’Hair, hostility toward religion was assumed.  Now that it may evoke a white-haired grandmother at the Unitarian church or the gay kid on Glee, some people want a term that more clearly conveys their opposition to the whole religious enterprise.  The term anti-theist says, “I think religion is harmful.”  It also implies some form of activism that goes beyond merely advocating church-state separation or science education. Anti-theism challenges the legitimacy of faith as a moral authority or way of knowing. Anti-theists often work to expose harms caused in the name of God like stonings, gay baiting, religious child maltreatment, genital mutilation, unwanted childbearing or black-collar crime. The New Atheist writers including Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins might better be described as anti-theists.
3. Agnostic. Some atheists think of agnostic as a weenie term, because it gets used by people who lack a god-concept but don’t want to offend family members or colleagues. Agnostic doesn’t convey the same sense of confrontation or defiance that atheist can, and so it gets used as a bridge. But in reality, the term agnostic represents a range of intellectual positions that have important substance in their own right and can be independent of atheism. Strong agnosticism views God’s existence as unknowable, permanently and to all people.  Weak agnosticism can mean simply “I don’t know if there is a God,” or “We collectively don’t know if there is a God but we might find out in the future.” Alternately, the term agnosticism can be used to describe an approach to knowledge, somewhat like skepticism (which comes next in this list). Philosopher Thomas Huxley illustrates this position:‘Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle… Positively the principle may be expressed as ‘in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.’These three definitions of agnosticism, though different, all focus on what we do or can know, rather than on whether God exists. This means it is possible to be both atheist and agnostic. Many describe themselves as both.The question of what term to use is a difficult one, in strict terms I suppose I’m an agnostic because of course the circle of the things I do know is vastly smaller than the things I don’t know about out there in the darkness somewhere maybe there is a God. But among all the things I do know in this world I see no evidence of a God whatsoever and everybody who claims to know there is a God seems to use that as an excuse for exercising power over other people, and historically as we know from looking at the history in Europe alone that’s involved persecution, massacre, slaughter on an industrial scale, it’s a shocking prospect.
4. Skeptic. Traditionally, skeptic has been used to describe a person who doubts received religious dogmas. However, while agnostic focuses on God questions in particular, the term skeptic expresses a broader life approach.  Someone who calls him- or herself a skeptic has put critical thinking at the heart of the matter. Well-known skeptics, like Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, or James Randi devote a majority of their effort to debunking pseudoscience, alternative medicine, astrology and so forth. They broadly challenge the human tendency to believe things on insufficient evidence.
5. Freethinker. Free-thinker is a term that dates to the end of the 17th century, when it was first used in England to describe those who opposed the Church and literal belief in the Bible.  Freethought is an intellectual stance that says that opinions should be based on logic and evidence rather than authorities and traditions. Well known philosophers including John Locke and Voltaire were called freethinkers in their own time, and a magazine, The Freethinker, has been published in Britain continuously from 1881 to the present. The term has gotten popular recently in part because it is affirmative. Unlike atheism, which defines itself in contrast to religion, freethought identifies with a proactive process for deciding what is real and important
6. Humanist. While terms like atheist or anti-theist focus on a lack of god-belief and agnostic, skeptic and freethinker all focus on ways of knowing—humanist centers in on a set of ethical values. Humanism seeks to promote broad wellbeing by advancing compassion, equality, self-determination, and other values that allow individuals to flourish and to live in community with each other. These values drive not from revelation, but from human experience.  As can be seen in two manifestos published in 1933 and 1973 respectively, humanist leaders don’t shy away from concepts like joy and inner peace that have spiritual connotations. In fact, some think that religion itself should be reclaimed by those who have moved beyond supernaturalism but recognize the benefits of spiritual community and ritual.  Harvard Chaplain Greg Epstein dreams of incubating a thriving network of secular congregations.
7. Pantheist. As self-described humanists seek to reclaim the ethical and communitarian aspects of religion, pantheists center in on the spiritual heart of faith–the experience of humility, wonder, and transcendence. They see human beings as one small part of a vast natural order, with the Cosmos itself made conscious in us. Pantheists reject the idea of a person- god, but believe that the holy is made manifest in all that exists. Consequently, they often have a strong commitment to protecting the sacred web of life in which and from which we have our existence. The writings of Carl Sagan reflect this sentiment and often are quoted by pantheists, for example in a “Symphony of Science” video series which mixes evocative natural world images, atonal music, and the voices of leading scientists, and has received 30 million views.

If none of these fit … Keep looking. Many of the American founding fathers were deists who didn’t believe in miracles or special revelation through sacred texts but thought that the natural world itself revealed a designer who could be discovered through reason and inquiry.  Naturalists assume a philosophical position that the laws operating within the natural realm are the only laws governing the universe and no supernatural realm lies beyond. Secularists argue that moral standards and laws should be based on whether they do good or harm in this world and that religion should be kept out of government.

A parody of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam, is an iconic image
of the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’ by Arne Niklas Jansson.

Recently there has been steep uptick in people who identify as godless and a parallel uptick in atheist and humanist visibility efforts.  Many godless people are newly out of religion (or newly out of the closet). Despite the best efforts of, say, the Humanist Community Project or Foundation Beyond Belief, stable communities organized around shared secular values and spiritual practices have yet to emerge. That means our labels are largely individual and sometimes experimental. We may try one on for size, live with it for a while, then try on something else.

As a movement, sexual and gender minorities have faced a similar challenge. LGB started replacing the term “gay community” in the 1980s. It then became LGBT, and then LGBTQ (to acknowledge those who were questioning) or LGBTI (to include intersex people).  In India, an H got added to the end for the Hijra subculture. For urban teens, the catch-all termqueer has now replaced the cumbersome acronym. Secular rights activists may eventually evolve a similar catch all, but in the meantime, organizations that want to be inclusive end up with long lists on their ‘About’ pages:  atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, pantheist, skeptic and more.

So, join the experiment that picking one that fits and wearing it for a while. Or make up your own. I often call myself a “spiritual nontheist.” It’s a mouthful, but it forces people to ask, what is that?  and then, rather than having them make assumptions I get to tell them where I’m at: I don’t have any kind of humanoid god concept, and I think that issues of morality and meaning are at the very heart of what it means to be human. Maybe next year I’ll find something that fits even better.

By: Valerie Tarico . . This article originally appeared in AlterNet.

Photo by Luke MacGregor/Reuters

LONDON, England — The era of Londonistan may be over. A series of dawn raids at addresses across the capital on Thursday appeared to signal an abrupt change in Britain’s policy towards the radical Islamic figures that have operated in London for years. Britain arrested nine radical Islamists in a series of dawn raids on Thursday, including a powerful imam whose acolytes tried to behead a soldier in London last year.

Among those seized by Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism officers was Anjem Choudary, Britain’s most outspoken Islamist, who said this week that he had no sympathy for Alan Henning, the latest hostage to be threatened ISIS. Choudary, a lawyer and preacher who has been linked to around 70 people with convictions for terror-related offenses, has been accused of inciting violence and working with banned pro-terror groups for more than a decade—but his public proclamations have always remained on the right side of the law.

At a briefing earlier this year, a senior Scotland Yard official explained that Choudary had been monitored intensively but his clear grasp of anti-terrorism legislation meant it would be difficult to bring a successful prosecution against him. Britain’s stance has changed, however, since it became clear that hundreds of British citizens were fighting for ISIS, including the hooded executioner seen in their most despicable videos.

On Friday, the British parliament will vote in favor of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, reflecting a shift in the mood of the public who were previously wary of intervention in the Middle East. The authorities are also showing a renewed aggression towards extremists. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, recently proposed a change to British law so that Choudary’s extreme rhetoric would be criminalized. Meanwhile, Thursday’s arrest of nine men in London, all with alleged links to the banned radical Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, suggested a different approach to the current terror legislation.

“David Cameron and the security community see an opportunity to stamp on these people. It’s clear that the volume has been turned up,” a former government security advisor told The Daily Beast.  “There is a clear perceived national danger in letting people like Choudary get away with incitement, when there are already British Muslims fighting for the Islamic State. This is a real threat; not a worry about what might happen.”

In the hours before his arrest, Choudary took to Twitter to denounce airstrikes against ISIS.  “The war being waged by the US/UK & Co is a war against Islam & Muslims,” he wrote. “The Islamic State could not wish for a better rallying call for Muslims worldwide to join them than for the USA to start bombing again.”

Speaking to The Daily Beast about three weeks ago, Choudary insisted that none of his statements ever amounted to incitement to violence or encouraging terrorism, both of which are illegal in Britain. “I’m not encouraging anyone to do anything quite frankly,” he said. “I would never encourage anyone to go abroad, I would never encourage anyone to undergo military training.”

Many of Choudary’s former acolytes have gone on to commit, or attempted to commit, acts of terrorism, including Michael Adebowale and Michael Adebolajo, who murdered and tried to behead off-duty soldier Lee Rigby in a daylight attack on the streets of London.

Both of those convicted killers had been seen at protests and events with members of al-Muhajiroun, which was co-founded by Choudary. According to an investigation by anti-extremist group Hope Not Hate, 75 British citizens associated with al-Muhajiroun or one of its front organizations have subsequently been convicted on terror charges or carried out suicide attacks.

“We welcome these arrests,” said Nick Lowles, chief executive of HOPE Not Hate. “Since our own extensive investigations into Anjem Choudary and his disciples, we’ve been saying that more must be done to curb this hate-supporting and recruiting organization.”

After raids on 18 properties in London and one in Stoke, a Scotland Yard spokesman said that the nine men had been arrested on suspicion of being a member of a proscribed organization, supporting a proscribed organization and encouraging terrorism.

By Nico Hines .. Published in The Daily Beast

When the monument is finished, the Baphomet will rest on the block beneath the inverted pentagram. His lap will serve as a seat for children.

One of the favorite myths that Christian conservatives like to tell about themselves is that they are champions protecting “religious freedom” from the supposed oppressions of a secular humanist society. But that argument is increasingly being tested by, of all people, Satanists. Yes, people who claim to worship the demon that Christians believe runs hell are quickly learning how easy it is to show that the Christian right never had any intention of protecting “religious freedom”. Instead, time and time again, Satanists are showing that the conservative Christian definition of “religious freedom” doesn’t apply at all to faiths, like Satanism, that offend them. Faced with the demands of Satanists, the supposed religious freedom crusaders of the religious right turn right back into the theocrats they always were, interested only in having government endorsement of their religion and often eager to demand that the government stomp out religious practices that offend them.

Oh yeah, and it all has the side benefit of exposing the Christian right as a humorless movement that struggles to tell the difference between reality and satire. But that’s just a bonus for observers. A few recent stunts by Satanists have done a great job exposing Christian hypocrisy.

The latest dust-up involves a Satanic “black mass” conducted in a Civic Center in Oklahoma City. The Dakhma of Angra Mainyu Syndicate held a 2-3 hour ceremony that mocked the Catholic mass by stomping on bread and sexualizing the grape juice-in-lieu of wine, as well as praying to various demons.

Father Jonathan Morris went on Fox News Sunday to demand that Oklahoma City officials shut down the black mass. After paying lip service to the idea that Satanists have a “political right” to worship, the fact that some people in the community oppose it should be considered reason enough to shut it down. “When you have a group that does this, not just because they want to do their own little worship, but they are provoking anger and hatred among the community, the city can step in and say, ‘That’s not worship, that’s not free speech, that’s mockery, and you’re inciting violence!’”, he added, as if it’s the fault of Satanists if people assault them and not the fault of people doing the assaulting.

“But what if I want to go and desecrate a Koran out in front of my church?” complained Morris. “What if I want to speak pro-Nazi stuff right in front of my church and get people all fired up on a public sidewalk?” In fact, both of those would actually be completely allowed under the First Amendment. Christian conservatives are constantly floating the fear that Christian pastors will be thrown in jail for preaching hate against gay people, but in fact, this doesn’t happen precisely because of the same freedoms that allow a bunch of Satanists to stomp on some bread and say they are against Jesus. By flailing around like this, Father Jonathan Morris showed how much the Christian right wants to have it both ways: Demand broad religious rights for themselves while demanding state oppression when others want the exact same rights.

Oklahoma is the home of another stunt by much-funnier Satanists who have figured out how to expose this particular Christian right hypocrisy.  Christians put a monument to the Ten Commandments up at the Oklahoma Statehouse, declaring their right to do so as one of religious freedom. The Satanic Temple, run out of New York City, responded by demanding the same religious freedom to put up a monument to the demon Baphomet.

The proposed monument is a hoot: Baphomet sitting on a throne while two children gaze adoringly at his goatly visage. The point of the stunt, however, is quite serious, to expose the hypocrisy of Christian conservatives who want to justify government endorsement of religion under the guise of “religious freedom”. Lucien Greaves of the Temple told Vice, “Constitutional law is quite clear on this issue: The state can’t discriminate against viewpoints. If they’ve opened the door for one, they’ve opened it for all.” To turn down the Satanists is to admit that the Christian right didn’t care for religious freedom at all, but simply wants government to push their religion while suppressing others who disagree.

The Satanic Temple is pulling a similar stunt in Florida, to protest the Orange County Public Schools, which allowed the World Changers of Florida to pass out Bibles and religious pamphlets on campus.  An atheist group already managed to get its protest in by getting similar permission to pass out atheist materials, putting the district in a situation where they either had to let them do it or risk a lawsuit. But the Satanist groups are making the situation hilariously surreal by asking to distribute The Satanic Children’s BIG BOOK of Activities, a coloring book with games that explain the ins and outs of Satanic rituals, as well as showing kids how to draw a pentagram.

The Satanic Temple publishes a kids’ coloring book called ‘The Satanic Children’s Book”

As with the Oklahoma case, Greaves explains that it’s a matter of simple fairness, because “if a public school board is going to allow religious pamphlets and full Bibles to be distributed to students — as is the case in Orange County, Florida — we think the responsible thing to do is to ensure that these students are given access to a variety of differing religious opinions.

Ian Millhiser at Think Progress concurs, pointing out that in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, the Supreme Court decided that churches could show religious films on school property so long as they didn’t turn around and discriminate against other religions who want the same rights. “Under the Constitution, what’s good for an evangelical church is also good for the Satanic Temple,” Millhiser concludes.

For years now, the Christian right has been able to push government endorsement of religion by claiming that they aren’t asking for special rights to use school grounds, statehouse lawns and civic centers for their religious agenda. The only way to know for sure is to put them in a situation where they extend the same privileges they want for themselves to people who they not only hate, but fear: Satanists. So far, they’re failing the test.

By: Amanda Marcotte . . She is the author of “It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.”

Mormon Missionaries . . Photo by Leif Hagen

In 2012, Mormon General Authority Marlin K. Jensen acknowledged that members are leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints “in droves.” Access to the internet is often credited and blamed for this mass exodus, where members learn about problematic doctrines and cover-ups of LDS history.

Many are happy as Mormons. And many are not. Those who leave, and those doubters who stay, face struggles that few others can understand. Much of this suffering is caused by manipulative and controlling techniques pervasive throughout LDS doctrines and culture. Understanding these techniques will help recovering Mormons overcome the effects of belonging to a high-demand group.

As a former Mormon, Luna Lindsey experienced this coercive persuasion firsthand. Recovering Agency presents years of research into social psychology and the science of cult dynamics, to describe 31 mind control techniques, alongside examples of their use in Mormon scripture, lessons, and from the pulpit.

Even if you have never been Mormon, chances are that coercive influence techniques have been used to manipulate you at some point. Turn the pages and learn the answers to longstanding questions about this unique American religion and about the human mind.

In the current moment, too, Mormons have fewer liberal sympathizers and more enemies. Now, we see atheists who are cultural combatants every bit as assertive as their evangelical counterparts, and we hear regularly from liberal pundits such as Maureen Dowd and Lawrence O’Donnell as they invoke temple rituals and sacred undergarments to measure the oddities of Mormons. Currently, the church seems to be getting it from all sides.

Read : “Recovering Agency: Lifting the Veil of Mormon Mind Control” by Luna Lindsey

The author added “Like the title indicates, it is an analysis of LDS doctrine from a cult and mind control perspective, using research from secular cult researchers and social psychologists. It describes the psychological principles behind human belief, and then delves into each of the 31 thought reform techniques, with examples from LDS sources to show exactly how the Church uses each. It has an overall recovery bent, with the main goal to help exmos process their experience.”

We are pleased to report that many SGI Fellows and communicators have made the news and are engaged in spreading secularism to our growing non-religious brothers and sisters worldwide.

• Michael Shermer’s latest book “The Believing Brain“In this, his magnum opus, one of the world’s best known skeptics and critical thinkers Dr. Michael Shermer—founding publisher of Skeptic magazine and perennial monthly columnist (“Skeptic”) for Scientific American—presents his comprehensive theory on how beliefs are born, formed, nourished, reinforced, challenged, changed, and extinguished. This book synthesizes Dr. Shermer’s 30 years of research to answer the questions of how and why we believe what we do in all aspects of our lives, from our suspicions and superstitions to our politics, economics, and social beliefs.
• Paul Krassner was honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Oakland branch of the writers organization PEN.Paul Krassner just published, “Patty Hearst and the Twinkie Murders: A Tale of Two Trials,” now available at paulkrassner.com.
• Elham Manea  was elected as a Member of Federal Commission for Women Affairs by appointment of the Swiss Federal Council.Elham also awarded a Research Grant, Swiss South African Joint Research Program (2014-2016).
• Phil Zuckerman will be speaking at CFI Portland on Oct. 9^th, and also speaking at Freethought Day in Sacramento, California, on Oct.12^th.Phil’s new book, “Living the Secular Life”, comes out in December, 2014.
• Elizabeth Loftus received a recent Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology.American Psychological Foundation. (For “extraordinary contributions to our understanding of memory during the past 40 years that are remarkable for their creativity and impact”).Her Recent Ted talk, at Ted Global  2013 “The fiction of Memory“.
• Taslima Nasrin an award-winning writer, physician, secular humanist and human rights activist, is known for her powerful writings on women oppression and unflinching criticism of religion, despite forced exile and multiple fatwas calling for her death. In India, Bangladesh and abroad, Nasreen’s fiction, nonfiction, poetry and memoir have topped the best-seller’s lists. Bestowed with honorary doctorates from Gent University and UCL in Belgium, and American University of Paris and Paris Diderot University in France, she has addressed gatherings in major venues of the world like the European Parliament, National Assembly of France, Universities of Sorbonne, Oxford, Harvard, Yale, etc. She got fellowships as a research scholar at Harvard and New York Universities. She was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow in the USA. Visit Taslima’s  website : http://www.taslimanasrin.com/index2.html
• Edwina Rogers reminds us that SGI recognizes September 30–this coming Tuesday–as Blasphemy Rights Day International. We request that all our fellows, communicators, and supporters make a statement on their Twitter and Facebook accounts about the importance of supporting blasphemy rights. Free expression of ideas is a basic human right and needs to be upheld in every country around the world.

The subject of spirituality has long been controversial among atheists. Some argue that no self-respecting atheist should talk about spirituality because it implies supernatural entities of some sort. Perhaps they do not realize that not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists. Other atheists are determined to convince us that spirituality is good for everyone and that atheists should embrace secular forms of spirituality. They may forget that their own needs or desires for what they call spirituality are not universal and that some atheists find little use for spirituality of any form.

I recently watched one of the many YouTube videos available of Dan Barker’s “Losing Faith in Faith” tour. I don’t recall exactly which one it was, but I’d guess that they are similar enough that it probably doesn’t matter. During this particular performance, Barker mentioned that some atheists who were not former evangelical Christians like him probably have a difficult time understanding the nature of the spiritual experiences evangelicals have. He drew a contrast between himself and Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett in this respect.

Barker explained that some people (like him) have had all of the most intense spiritual experiences evangelical Christians describe and that this puts them in a position to understand evangelicals in a different way than the rest of us. I think he’s right about that. Like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett, I have never had spiritual experiences I associated with supernatural entities. I’ve had secular experiences that some might associate with spirituality, not all of which were drug induced. But I’ve never felt the presence of gods, been filled with “holy” spirits of any sort, or had the experience of feeling like my prayers received any sort of response. My attempts to understand the evangelical Christians have all been from the outside.

The experiences of so-called secular spirituality might be similar enough to religious forms of spirituality that they can promote understanding, and they might not. I have no way of knowing how similar the feelings of awe, transcendence, or oneness with all living creatures I’ve experienced at various times are with the spiritual experiences religious believers describe. The best I can do is to say that the way the experiences felt to me and how I described them afterward seemed very close from what I have heard from religious believers but without the explicitly religious connotations. My guess is that the primary difference boils down to how the experiences are interpreted in our minds, but this is only a guess.

I think Dan Barker’s experiences as a bible-believing evangelical Christian are one of the things that make him interesting. If we want to better understand something that seems extremely foreign to some of us (e.g., evangelical Christianity), it can be helpful to hear from others who have far greater familiarity with it. Individuals with this background, like Barker, can help us get a glimpse of what this is like from the inside.

As for the question of whether atheists should be promoting secular spirituality or opposing it, I’ll take neither option. In my opinion, the question of whether spirituality of any sort is worthwhile is one that will have to be answered by each of us for ourselves. There have been periods in my life where secular spirituality was important to me, not so important that I would have tried to convince others that they should seek them out but still important. I have not been in one of these periods for several years now. At present, I don’t have much interest in seeking such experiences. I have even less interest in trying to discourage anybody else from doing so.

If secular spirituality is important to you and you find it valuable to cultivate spiritual experiences, I say go for it. Pursue those goals while remembering that many atheists do not share these interests. If secular spirituality is not something you are interested in and you find little point in the pursuit of spiritual experiences, I say that’s perfectly fine. Steer clear of such things if you prefer, but remember that many atheists do value secular spirituality. As far as I’m concerned, the only right answer when it comes to secular spirituality is what you decide is right for you.

If you are interested in the subject of secular spirituality, you may be interested in Sam Harris’ new book, Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion.

Posted by Jack Vance

After much speculation and confusion due to his previous statements, Stephen Hawking finally came out of the closet and embraced his atheism publicly, in an interview for the Spanish newspaper El Mundo: –

“In my second question, I ask him to clarify his stance on God and religion, which has generated an intense debate among his readers. On one hand, at the end of A Brief History of Time, he wrote that if someday we reached that ‘Theory of Everything’, we would know “the mind of God”. But afterwards, in his controversial book The Grand Design, he said that the universe can be created “out of nothing, out of nowhere”, and that the idea of ​​God is “not necessary” to explain its origin. I ask him, given this apparent contradiction, if he changed his mind in this field, and if he considers himself an agnostic or atheist.

His resounding answer is very clear that although many have come to describe Hawking being alive as “a miracle”, half a century after being diagnosed with a disease which its life expectancy is usually a couple of years, the astrophysicist rejects all religious beliefs: “in the past, before we understood the science it was logical to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant when I said we would know ‘the mind of God’ was that we would understand everything God would be able to understand if it existed. But there is no God. I am an atheist. Religion believes in miracles, but they are not compatible with science”.

Welcome to the rational side, Dr. Hawking — we’ve been waiting you for a while.

Posted by David A. Osorio S.

SGI’s Government Affairs Fellow, Edwina Rogers attended the Cato Institute’s 13th Annual Constitution Day Symposium on Wednesday, September 17th. There are thirty-nine cases already scheduled for the fall term for the Supreme Court. The distinguished panel at the event focused on looking ahead for the October Supreme Court term 2014, and had numerous observations and predictions.

One religious case, Holt v. Hobbs, will involve the legal right of a Muslim inmate in prison to wear a beard. It concerns the grooming policy of the prison system and is a statutory case based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which protects religious freedom. A fundamentalist Muslim inmate from Yemen would like to wear a beard of a certain length as part of his Muslim faith. The distinguished panel predicted that the inmate will prevail in his right to wear a beard of a certain length. He filed his case by writing a handwritten brief and has secured counsel from the University of Virginia. Currently 40 other states allow these types of religious beards. The case will be heard on October 7th.

A second case, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, concerns whether or not the State Department should allow Jerusalem-born citizens to have their passports display “Jerusalem, Israel” instead of just “Jerusalem”. The Executive Branch (including the State Department and the White House) has long taken a neutral position on whether Jerusalem is a part of Israel or Palestine. However in 2002 Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which ordered the State Department to allow citizens to have their passports display their city of birth as “Jerusalem, Israel” as opposed to simply “Jerusalem”. The case is scheduled to be heard in November.

By SGI’s Government Affairs Fellow – Edwina Rogers

Laws are supposed to protects us, but when the government decides to get in our pants, some crazy sexual taboos become laws.

Here are some actual sex laws for the record books:

1. In  Bakersfield, California, if you’re going to have sex with Satan, you’ve gotta use a condom. And definitely come up with a holy religious word!

2. Poking a porcupine is illegal in  Florida. But apparently that law didn’t go far enough. Just a couple of weeks ago, State Sen. Nan Rich submitted a bill that would ban peeps in the Sunshine State from being able to stick it in where the sun don’t shine on any animal.

3. In  Minnesota, it’s illegal for any slime bucket to hook up with a live fish. Don’t worry disinterested wives, a cold fish is still A-OK!

4. In  Dyersburg, Tennessee, it is illegal for a lady to call a gentleman for a date. Clearly no one in that town is getting laid! What were the lawmakers thinking?

5. In  Merryville, Missouri, no woman can waste her natural waist. Wearing a corset is illegal because “the privilege of admiring the curvaceous, unencumbered body of a young woman should not be denied to the normal, red-blooded American male.” No wonder it’s called the “Show Me State!”

6. It’s illegal to sell sex toys in Alabama. This law can beat with Ebay and Christian Dating.

7. In  Washington state, it’s totally legal to  eff an animal like an animal, as long as it weighs less than 40 lbs. . . What, fatty farm pets don’t deserve some love?

8. While most would argue that this is place where the people get  screwed many different ways, in  Washington, D.C., engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal. Time to write your congressman’s wife!

9. In  Massachusetts, you cannot recklessly consummate your  love with a rodeo clown while the horses are still around. But seriously, there’s a reason for the expression “hung like a horse.” I doubt the animal would get jealous!

10. The  biggest Internet-porn-consuming state,  Utah, gets freaky in its laws too. Sex with an animal is totally cool, unless you’re doing it for cold, hard cash! . . Hey, why buy the cow when you will find sexy cows on you planet in heaven!

This is not to deny that some dislike of Islam, or impatience with Muslims and their spiritual leaders, has a quasi-racist character, motivated by parochialism and xenophobia, and sometimes a racist dislike of Arabs in particular. “Islamophobia” is a suspect word, but there is clearly such a thing as anti-Muslim bigotry.

The bigots and the critics

It is not coincidental that so much of the public criticism of Islam as a religion, and of Muslims and their practices, emanates from European political parties and associated groups found on the extreme right. These organisations typically promote an intense, even bigoted nationalism – combined with what they portray as a defence of Christian traditions and values, and an endangered “Christian identity.” They thrive on a fear of strange cultures and a fear of change.

An obvious problem for critics of Islam who do not share these values is that they may find themselves painted with the same brush. Conversely, extreme-right critics of Islam can gain a degree of respectability by co-opting issues and adopting stances that many politicians and members of the public find compelling. E.g., extreme-right figures have attacked such practices as forced marriages, honour-killings, female genital mutilation, and highly conservative apparel for women such as the burqa and the chador. All of these are legitimate targets for criticism.

At the same time, many Muslims in Western countries continue to suffer from suspicion, cultural and personal misunderstanding, discrimination, and outright intolerance that sometimes rises to the level of harassment and violence. It’s legitimate to oppose this bigotry while also fearing Islamist groups that seek to impose some version of Islam by force.

The situation creates a complex set of advantages, disadvantages, and risks. The extreme right benefits from the availability of politically respectable criticisms of Islamic thought and associated cultural practices. As this goes on, however, there is also a risk that the word “Islamophobia” will be used to demonize and intimidate individuals whose hostility to Islamism, or even to Islam itself, is based on what they perceive as its faults. In particular, we should remember that Islam contains ideas, and in a liberal democracy ideas are fair targets for criticism or repudiation. Religious doctrines influence the social and political attitudes of their adherents in ways that merit public comment (favourable or otherwise), and many religious leaders and organizations exert immense power or influence. It is in the public interest that all this be subjected to monitoring and criticism.

Indeed, there are reasons why right-wing organizations have borrowed arguments based on feminism and secularism. These arguments are useful precisely because they have an intellectual and emotional appeal independent of their convenience to unpleasant opportunists. Regardless of who uses these arguments, they plausibly apply to certain elements of Islam, or at least to attitudes and practices associated with it. In any event, it is an inescapable fact that political Islam is a threat to global peace and to liberal ideals.

Whether or not they are put in good faith on a particular occasion, nothing precludes the arguments being put sincerely, and perhaps cogently, by individuals with legitimate concerns.

Thus, there are genuine reasons for some people who are not racists, cultural supremacists, or anything of the sort, to criticize Islam, or certain forms and manifestations of Islam, or to express hostility towards it. These relate to disapproval of various doctrines, canons of conduct, associated cultural practices, and so on, to the power wielded by Islamic leaders and organisational structures, and increasingly to the ambitions and actions of Islamists such as ISIS.

Take-home lessons

A number of lessons can be drawn from all this. One is that opponents of Islam, or some of its forms and manifestations, cannot reasonably be expected to keep quiet when accused of racism or the quasi-racism of “Islamophobia.” When these accusations are misdirected, they are likely to inflame passions even further, though they may intimidate some individuals into silence.

This suggests that we understand that racism and bigotry do not underlie all hostility to Islam. Beyond a certain point, there is too much disadvantage in walking on eggshells. We don’t have to do it all our lives.

By Russell Blackford . . An SGI Fellow : https://secularglobalinstitute.org/russell-blackford