Saturday, December 10, 2022

‘After School Satan Club’ at California elementary school stirs controversy

After School Satan Clubs are sponsored by The Satanic Temple, a nontheistic religious organization based in Salem, Massachusetts, that pushes for the separation of church and state.

The Satanic Temple After School Satan Club logo. Image courtesy of TST

(RNS) — An “After School Satan Club” aiming to teach students about inquiry and rationalism is set to begin in early December at a California elementary school, triggering controversy among parents and guardians who say the club shouldn’t be allowed, according to local news reports.

After School Satan Clubs are sponsored by The Satanic Temple, a nontheistic religious organization based in Salem, Massachusetts, that pushes for the separation of church and state. They meet at select public schools where other religious clubs meet, such as the Good News Club — an after-school program hosted by the Child Evangelism Fellowship to “bring the Gospel of Christ to children.”

The Satanic Temple, which is separate from the Church of Satan, was founded in 2013. It does not worship Satan and its tenets declare that the freedoms of others should be respected, that people should have control over their own bodies and that scientific facts shouldn’t be distorted to fit one’s beliefs.

The After School Satan Club is to launch Dec. 5 at Golden Hills Elementary School in Tehachapi, a city in Kern County about 115 miles north of Los Angeles, said June Everett, an After School Satan Club campaign director. After School Satan Clubs are set up at the request of local parents, educators or other community members, according to the Satanic Temple website. Everett said a parent reached out a few months ago requesting the club, which will gather once a month through May 2023.

“The fact that others find our club controversial when they have absolutely no issues with the other religious clubs operating in their public school is puzzling to us,” said Everett, an ordained minister with The Satanic Temple.

Tehachapi Unified School District Superintendent Stacey Larson-Everson, in a Nov. 15 letter obtained by The Bakersfield Californian, announced the district had approved the After School Satan Club to host gatherings after school hours in the elementary school’s cafeteria.

By law, Larson-Everson said, the district can’t discriminate among groups wishing to use its facilities or distribute flyers “based on viewpoint.” The superintendent noted that religious groups are among those the district has allowed to rent its facilities over the years.

The 2001 Supreme Court ruling Good News Club v. Milford Central School paved the way for After School Satan Clubs to exist in public schools. The High Court ruled that schools cannot discriminate against religious organizations offering a club on its facilities.

Sheila Knight, grandparent to a fifth grader at Golden Hills, told Bakersfield CBS affiliate KBAK that the After School Satan Club is “disgusting.”

“I understand the school by law has to allow them because they allow other after school programs such as the Good News … but I can’t imagine why anyone would want their child to attend,” she told KBAK.

“Just the name alone, ’Satanic Temple,’ is negative and these elementary kids don’t need that,” another woman told the news agency.

Additionally, Tehachapi News reported that news of the club had generated so much controversy on social media that administrators of the Tehachapi Raves and Rants Facebook group shut down comments at least once “so they could sleep.” The administrator of the Tehachapi Ask Facebook group decided to remove comments about the topic, the news site reported.

Paul Hicks, identified as a volunteer with the After School Satan Club, told KBAK that Christian-based clubs such as the Good News Club are a main reason the After School Satan Club is necessary. “We want to give an alternative point of view,” he said.

“I’m not teaching these kids that they need to hail Satan or identify as Satanists. What we’re doing is we’re thinking critical thinking, we’re teaching science, we’re teaching empathy,” Hicks said.

According to Everett, there are two active After School Satan Clubs in the country, one in Moline, Illinois, and another in Lebanon, Ohio. One such club is launching Nov. 28 in Wilmington, Ohio. Three clubs are pending approval in Eaton, Ohio; Chesapeake, Virginia; and and Endwell, New York.

The Satanic Temple said it uses the word “Satan” in the name of the club because “Satan, to us, is not a supernatural being.

“Instead, Satan is a literary figure that represents a metaphorical construct of rejecting tyranny over the human mind and spirit,” it states on its website.

The presence of evangelical after-school clubs “not only established a precedent for which school districts must now accept Satanic groups, but the evangelical after school clubs have created the need for Satanic after school clubs to offer a contrasting balance to student’s extracurricular activities,” according to the Satanic Temple.

Friction over LGBTQ issues worsens in global Anglican church

(AP/RNS) — The divide came into the spotlight four months ago at the communion’s Lambeth Conference, typically held once every decade to bring together bishops from the more than 165 countries.

FILE - Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, front row, centre right poses for a photo with bishops from around the world at the University of Kent, during the 15th Lambeth Conference, in Canterbury, England, Friday, July 29, 2022. Friction has been simmering within the global Anglican Communion for many years over its 42 provinces’ sharp differences on whether to recognize same-sex marriage and ordain LGBTQ clergy. In 2022, the divisions have widened, as conservative bishops – notably from Africa and Asia – affirmed their opposition to LGBTQ inclusion and demanded “repentance” by the more liberal provinces with inclusive policies. (Gareth Fuller/PA via AP, File)

December 7, 2022

Chinedu Asadu, David Crary Of The Associated Press, Catherine Pepinster Of Religion News Service

(AP/RNS) — Friction has been simmering within the global Anglican Communion for many years over its 42 provinces’ sharp differences on whether to recognize same-sex marriage and ordain LGBTQ clergy. This year, the divisions have widened, as conservative bishops – notably from Africa and Asia – affirmed their opposition to LGBTQ inclusion and demanded “repentance” by the more liberal provinces with inclusive policies.

Caught in the middle of the fray is the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, the seior bishop of the Church of England and the ceremonial leader of the Anglican Communion, one of the world’s largest Christian communities. Welby has acknowledged “deep disagreement” among the provinces, while urging them to “walk together” to the extent possible.

The divide came into the spotlight four months ago at the communion’s Lambeth Conference, typically held once every decade to bring together bishops from the more than 165 countries with Anglican-affiliated churches. It was the first Lambeth Conference since 2008, and the first to which married gay and lesbian bishops were invited.

The conservative primates of Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda refused to attend, while other bishops who share their opposition to LGBTQ inclusion pushed unsuccessfully for the Lambeth gathering to reconfirm a 1998 resolution rejecting same-sex marriage.

Now those primates, and their allies worldwide, are looking ahead to a conference in Kigali, Rwanda, in April. They’re expected to discuss their dismay at support for same-sex marriage in some Anglican churches and what they see as Welby not taking a tough stand against such marriages.

Welby, in turn, says neither the Lambeth Conference nor he individually has the authority to discipline a member province or impose demands on it.

In Nigeria, Anglican leaders say a formal separation from the global church over LGBTQ inclusion is more likely than ever. They cite Welby’s comments at Lambeth and the subsequent appointment of the Very Rev. David Monteith – who has been part of a same-sex civil partnership since 2008 – as the new dean of the Canterbury cathedral.

Bishop Williams Aladekugbe of Nigeria’s Ibadan North Anglican Diocese said same-sex unions are “ungodly and devilish” and their recognition by some provinces is a major reason “we cannot continue to fellowship with them.”

“If it is going to cause further division, let it be,” Aladekugbe told The Associated Press. “If they don’t worship God the way we worship him, if they don’t believe in what we believe in… let us divide (and) we go our own way.”

Henry Ndukuba, primate of the Anglican church in Nigeria, cited such divisions during an interview with a church-run television network.

The archbishop of Canterbury “is a symbol of unity” in the Anglican Communion, Ndukuba said, but “because of the way things are going, we are not tied to the apron of Canterbury.”

The umbrella group for the conservative bishops is the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches (GFSA). Its steering committee is headed by South Sudan Archbishop Justin Badi, and includes archbishops from Bangladesh, Chile, Congo, Egypt, the Indian Ocean region and Myanmar.

At the Lambeth Conference, the committee issued a stern communique – in effect demanding their views on LGBTQ issues hold sway throughout the Anglican Communion and that the “revisionist” provinces be disciplined or marginalized.

That threat was aimed at the provinces which have embraced LGBTQ-inclusive politics – including the Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Anglican churches of Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales. For now, the Church of England refuses to conduct same-sex marriages, but some of its bishops want that policy to change.

The GFSA leaders contend that conservative-led jurisdictions are home to 75% of the global Anglican Communion population, which is estimated at 80 to 85 million.

“For too long the Anglican Communion has been driven by the views of the West,” Badi told news media during the conference. “We often feel that our voice is not listened to, or respected.”

In their communique, Badi and his allies stressed they are not defecting. Yet they questioned whether the global Anglican community, under current circumstances, could consider itself a truly unified body.

“If there is no authentic repentance by the revisionist Provinces, then we will sadly accept a state of ‘impaired communion’ with them,” the communique said.

Welby, instead of reprimanding the LGBTQ-inclusive provinces, commended the sincerity of their approach to human sexuality.

“They are not careless about scripture. They do not reject Christ,” Welby said at Lambeth. “But they have come to a different view on sexuality after long prayer, deep study and reflection on understandings of human nature.”

The Most Rev. Michael Curry, presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church, saw this as a breakthrough.

“What shifted in the rhetoric,” he said, “was a genuine acknowledgement that both sides had arrived at their views through serious study of scripture, theology, and modern understanding of human nature.“

The Rev. Chuck Robertson, a top aide to Curry whose dossier includes relations with the Anglican Communion, described Welby’s comments as “a game-changer.”

“It reflects that those who’ve been going beyond traditional teaching have done so with deep care,” Robertson said. “This is something new — a corner had been turned.”

The conservative bishops’ frustrations with Welby intensified in October when Monteith was appointed the new dean of the Canterbury cathedral.

While Welby did not personally make the appointment, he issued a statement expressing delight at the choice made by a selection panel. Within days, the GSFA steering committee conveyed its dismay.

The announcement “puts in question the seriousness with which (Welby) wants to pursue the unity of the Communion,” the committee said. “We take exception to the Church of England’s accommodation of a person in a same-sex union being appointed to an office of spiritual authority over the flock of God’s people.”

A Rwandan bishop, Alexis Bilindabagabo of the diocese of Gahini, said he condemns the ordination of gay priests because “weak” people shouldn’t stand at the pulpit.

“A gay man must be led, but he should not lead others,” said Bilindabagabo.

LGBTQ activists say most Anglican churches in Africa are led by conservative priests, including many averse to even discussing homosexuality.

“For Uganda, the Anglican church has almost played a leadership role in being intolerant,” said Frank Mugisha, a prominent LGBT leader in the East African country where a lawmaker once introduced legislation seeking to punish some homosexual acts with execution.

In some cases, Mugisha said, Anglican priests take a hard-line stance because they fear losing their flock to more conservative evangelical groups.

In contrast to other Anglican provinces in Africa, the Anglican Church of Southern Africa has considered letting dioceses conduct same-sex marriages, though it has yet to take that step.

The church is based in South Africa – the only African country to legalize such unions – and also represents dioceses in several neighboring countries. It was led for many years by the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was a staunch advocate of LGBTQ rights well as leading foe of apartheid.

The Southern Africa church has been critical of Anglican leaders elsewhere on the continent who support harsh laws against LGBTQ people.

“It is evident that some of the draconian laws in some African countries are in fact violations of human rights and some bishops of the Anglican Church in these countries have openly supported these laws,” said Bishop Allan Kannemeyer, who heads the Diocese of Pretoria.

It’s unclear what lies ahead for the Anglican Communion. The GSFA leaders, in their October statement, say that if Welby does not take the lead in “safeguarding the Church’s teaching,” there may be an opening for conservative bishops to increase their influence.

That topic will likely be paramount at the April meeting in Rwanda, to which GSFA bishops have been invited. It will be hosted by the Global Anglican Future Conference – known as Gafcon – which includes the archbishops of Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda, as well as leaders of conservative Anglican entities that already have split from the Anglican Communion, such as the Anglican Church in North America.

No one from the Anglican Communion’s head office in London is expected to attend.

“Some in Gafcon see it as a movement for biblical renewal, which is fine, but others as a rival to the Anglican Communion,” said Gavin Drake, the communion’s communications director. ‘There is a growing frustration within the Communion at this ‘political wing’ of Gafcon.”

By the time they meet in April, Gafcon and GFSA members might be further angered by events within the Church of England, whose General Synod will gather in February to consider proposals on same-sex marriage developed during a lengthy discussion process. There’s a possibility of an unprecedented vote allowing Church of England priests to conduct same-sex weddings for the first time.

A significant development came in early November, when Steven Croft, the bishop of Oxford, became the church’s first diocesan bishop to speak in favor of same-sex marriage. He published a 50-page essay urging a lifting of the ban and sent it to all members of the College of Bishops.

At stake, he said, was the Church of England’s claim to serve the whole of society. Its anti-LGBTQ stance “is leading to a radical dislocation between the Church of England and the culture and society we are attempting to serve,” he said.

Five other Anglican bishops have publicly backed Croft’s call for change.

___

Asadu reported from Abuja, Nigeria; Crary from New York and Pepinster from London. Associated Press writers Rodney Muhumuza in Kampala, Uganda, and Mogomotsi Magome in Johannesburg, South Africa, contributed.

___

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.

For India’s ‘third sex,’ acceptance is slowed by colonialism’s legacy

Nineteenth-century British colonial rulers dramatically altered the prevailing cultural understanding of gender identity and morality.

Contestants compete in the Miss Trans Northeast 22 beauty pageant in Guwahati, India, Nov. 30, 2022. In a celebration of gender diversity and creative expression, the beauty pageant in the eastern Indian state of Assam brought dozens of transgender models on stage in Guwahati. Sexual minorities across India have gained a degree of acceptance, especially in big cities, after transgender people were given equal rights as a third gender in 2014. But prejudice against them persists and the community continues to face discrimination and rejection by their families. (AP Photo/Anupam Nath)

December 8, 2022

Kalpana Jain

(RNS) — The Hindu epic Mahabharata tells the story of a warrior, born as a female named Shikhandini, who seeks to avenge a dishonor in her past life. To do so, she transforms into a male, taking the name Shikhandin. Shikhandin causes the fall of the great warrior Bhishma, who had taken oath not to fight a woman or one who had been a woman.

Shikhandin is not the only transgender hero of the Mahabharata. Arjuna, a key warrior, takes on the appearance of a beautiful woman in order to live incognito in exile.

Indian philosophy, said Lavanya Vemsani, a scholar specializing in Indian history and religions, has long considered the soul beyond gender identity. The supreme being from whom the universe emerged, Brahman, appears in the ancient sacred writings known as the Vedas, without gender. Innumerable mythological stories affirm that a person can choose to embrace the male or female form, depending on the circumstances.

When the country’s Supreme Court handed down its landmark 2014 ruling recognizing transgender Indians as a third gender separate from males and females, declaring that all persons have the constitutional right to self-identify their gender, the judges were in a sense affirming ideas about gender that had circulated in India for thousands of years.

The court’s rulings were aimed primarily at hijras, a broad demographic that includes transgender, transsexual and intersex communities, who were once widely accepted, as gender fluidity was throughout South Asia.

But public attitudes toward transgender people have been slow to change, still hewing to European ideas about sexuality introduced by 19th-century British colonial rulers. This foreign elite dramatically altered the prevailing cultural understanding of gender, attaching considerable stigma and discrimination to the transgender community that continues today.

It took four years after its 2014 ruling for the high court to scrap a colonial-era law that criminalized gay sex. A year after that, India’s Parliament passed a law protecting transgender rights. But hijras are still India’s most socially excluded group.

The hijras’ fortunes began to fall in the 1830s, according to research by Jessica Hinchy, a historian at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Before then, hijras had received patronage from the Mughals, Muslim rulers who controlled large parts of South Asia for more than 300 years, and from the Marathas — Hindu kings who ruled much of central India.

Khushi Mir, left, a transgender Kashmiri, relaxes with friends after a meeting of community members in the outskirts of Srinagar, Indian-controlled Kashmir, on June 4, 2021. Mir and four others created a volunteer group to distribute food. They provided ration kits for hundreds of people, many of them makeup artists, singers and matchmakers who have lost their livelihoods during the pandemic. (AP Photo/Dar Yasin)

In the 18th century, in northern India, hijras would be invited to perform for noble and royal women. Another transgender community, the Khwaja sara, who live mainly in today’s Pakistan, were employed as guards, military commanders, high-ranking state officials or even as spies or tax collectors. “Hijras were generally of humble status but deserving of the patronage of state and performance culturally valued,” said Hinchy.

From the 1830s onward, as Hinchy found in her research, in some regions of British India hijras began to be seen as “ungovernable and a threat,” she said. Public nuisance laws enacted in the 1850s allowed policing of transgender and other marginalized people in “respectable spaces.” More concerted campaigns, which had the support of elite Indians, called for “extinction or for hijras to die out,” Hinchy said.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the law undone in 2018, was introduced in 1861. Reflecting Victorian morality, it designated gay sex as “unnatural offences” and “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” said Anjali Gopalan, executive director of the Naz Foundation Trust, a nonprofit that first challenged the law in court in 2001.

These oppressive laws and customs have left a lasting impact. Hijras today mostly live on the fringes of society, earning their livelihood through sex work or by performing blessings at weddings and the birth of a child. More broadly, all transgender communities suffer stigma and discrimination. Suicide is disproportionately common among transgender Indians and children who are trans often drop out of school due to bullying. Often families are the first ones to shun their own transgender members. “Just because laws change does not mean attitudes will change,” said Gopalan.

COVID-19 lockdowns further worsened the situation of transgender people, especially sex workers, as many of them lost their livelihoods. Falling back on their families was not an option for many. Aruvi, a transgender person in Hyderabad, started a “transkitchen” with the help of three friends from the queer community, who cooked food and delivered it to the hijra community and other marginalized groups. “Hunger was a big killer,” said Aruvi, “as there weren’t many resources for cheap and free food.”

Despite Hinduism’s numerous accounts of gods with male and female attributes, Vemsani said, the conservative values held by many Hindus today “have very little to do with India’s ancient tradition.”

It’s not that the stories of the gods’ gender fluidity are suppressed. In one of his forms, the prominent god Shiva is joined with his consort, Parvati, and depicted as the half-male and half-female Ardhnarishwara. In the Hindu tradition of Vaishnava, the deity Lakshminarayan is a composite form of Vishnu and his female consort, Lakshmi.

The deity Ayyappa, worshipped mostly in southern India, is believed to be the result of the union between Shiva and Vishnu that took place when Vishnu took on the form of an enchantress, Mohini, to save the world from a demon.

These tales live side by side with the legacy of European sexual morality. “Colonization left a huge damage psychologically, morally and emotionally,” said Jeffery D. Long, a professor of religion and Asian studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania. “So much knowledge has been erased or distorted. It may be time to rediscover and understand the lost past.”

Today’s Hindus need look no further than the saint Basavanna, a legendary devotee of Shiva, who rejected the limitations of gender in a devotional poem written in the 12th century: “Look here, dear fellow, I wear these men’s clothes only for you,” it reads. “Sometimes I am man, sometimes I am woman.”

Poll: Politics drives religious Americans’ views on the environment

Religious people who lean Republican are less inclined to be concerned about global warming than people of the same religion who identify or lean to the Democratic Party.

Bruce McDougal watches embers fly over his property as the Bond Fire burns through the Silverado community in Orange County, California, on Dec. 3, 2020. (AP Photo/Noah Berger, File)

November 17, 2022

Yonat Shimron

(RNS) — Many reasons have been suggested as to why highly religious Americans are less likely to be worried about climate change or work to try to stem it. But in the end, a new Pew Research survey concludes, it’s all about politics.

“The main driver of U.S. public opinion about the climate is political party, not religion,” the survey of 10,156 Americans concludes.

Republicans are far less likely than Democrats to believe human activity is causing global warming or to consider climate change a serious problem. The same is true for the religious among them: Religious people who identify or lean Republican are less inclined to be concerned about global warming than people of the same religion who identify or lean to the Democratic Party.

Take evangelicals as an example — a group with a reputation for denying the dangers of climate change — 34% of evangelicals say climate change is an extremely or very serious problem. But if you break evangelicals down by political party, a bipolar picture emerges: 78% of evangelicals who lean Democratic say climate change is an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 17% who lean Republican.

The survey shows the same consistent pattern, if not quite as extreme, among other religious groups, including mainline Protestants, Catholics and even the religiously unaffiliated. In every group, the Democrats among them are significantly more likely to be concerned about climate change. The same is true when asked about the cause of climate change: Democrats in each group are much more likely than Republicans to lay the blame on human activity, regardless of religion.

These massive gaps in views among people claiming the same religion points to political partisanship as the crucial factor driving these opinions.

The study also shows a gap between those with high, medium and low religious commitments. The higher the religious commitment, the less likely to be concerned about climate change — and the more likely to identify with the Republican Party, according to the report.

While more than half of Americans believe the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, only 39% of highly religious Americans — those who pray daily, attend religious services regularly and say religion is very important to their lives — agree. By comparison, 70% of those with a low religious commitment believe the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, the survey found.

“Highly religious Americans are less concerned about climate change, less convinced human activity is causing warmer temperatures” Graphic courtesy of Pew Research Center

Other theories for why highly religious Americans are less concerned about the environment — there are much bigger problems in the world today; God is in control of the climate; the end times are near, why worry? — were not as salient.

The survey found only a modest relationship between end-times beliefs and concerns about climate change. Those who say the “end times” are coming soon are less likely to think climate change is an extremely or very serious problem compared with those who do not believe the end times are near (51% vs. 62%) .

Overall, 57% of Americans believe climate change is an “extremely or very” serious problem.

Evangelicals are the only religious group in which a majority (66%) say stricter environmental laws and regulations will hurt the economy. It’s almost the reverse among unaffiliated Americans, 68% of whom don’t believe stricter environmental laws will hurt the economy.

The survey also found that climate change is not a topic discussed much in religious congregations. Only 8% said they heard a great deal about it in sermons; 70% say they hear little or nothing about it.

About half of Americans take steps to protect the environment, like reducing food waste, using fewer plastics, driving less or eating less meat. Here too, evangelicals scored lowest on these efforts, especially eating less meat.

“Within each major religious group, Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to say climate change is not a serious problem” Graphic courtesy of Pew Research Center

And, the survey found, religiously affiliated Americans are less likely to be civically engaged in combating climate change — donating money to environmental groups, volunteering with such groups or attending protests.

Among Americans who attend services at least once a month, 46% said their religious congregation has recycling bins; 43% said their congregation has taken efforts to be more energy efficient. Only 8% in this group said their congregation relies on solar energy.

Americans, regardless of religious affiliation, don’t view efforts to reduce carbon emissions in moral terms. Only 10% of U.S. adults — including 8% of those with a religious affiliation — say it is morally wrong to drive a car that gets poor gas mileage.

The margin of error for the survey was plus or minus 1.6 percentage points.

Indiana judge backs a religious right to abort

And poses a serious challenge to the Supreme Court’s religious liberty jurisprudence.

Marion County, Indiana, Superior Court Judge Heather Welch. Photo via Indy.gov

December 7, 2022

Mark Silk

(RNS) — Should religious liberty claims prevail over anti-abortion laws in the United States today? A county superior court judge in Indiana, Heather Welch, thinks they should, and she made the argument in an opinion that blocked the state’s new anti-abortion law last week.

In the case at hand, Hoosier Jews for Choice and five anonymous women of several faiths and no faith contend that the measure, which bans abortion after 10 weeks of pregnancy unless it’s the result of rape or incest, violates the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed into law by then-Gov. Mike Pence in 2015. Welch granted a temporary injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs would otherwise suffer irreparable harm and are likely to prevail when the case goes to trial in Indiana’s Supreme Court next month.

The opinion, which relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ever-more-robust embrace of religious rights, begins by citing a range of religious beliefs — Jewish, Muslim, Episcopalian, Unitarian Universalist and pagan — to the effect that human life or personhood begins well after conception. These not only tend to support the necessary determination that the plaintiffs are sincere in their beliefs but also underscore the judge’s position that the question of when life begins is theological and philosophical, not scientific.

Facts about the process of human zygotic, embryonic, and fetal development do not answer the question of when life begins. The “personhood” status of a zygote, embryo, or fetus cannot be stated as matters of fact. For many individuals, such as the Plaintiffs, questions such as the beginning of life or when personhood begins cannot be stated without reference to moral, ethical, spiritual, and religious beliefs.

You may disagree with this position and contend that science does indeed establish that there is a human being or person from the moment of conception. However, as the judge points out, the U.S. Supreme Court’s position, put forward by Justice Samuel Alito in his majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, is that what counts from a religious liberty standpoint is when a person believes that life begins.

Even if the court should take the position that, as a factual matter, life begins at conception, its free exercise jurisprudence would seem to allow the women in question to procure otherwise prohibited abortions. That’s because, in Welch’s terms, Indiana’s anti-abortion law is “underinclusive” — as restrictive as it is, it nevertheless allows abortions when the life or health of the mother is seriously at risk, when there’s a lethal fetal anomaly and, early on, in cases of rape and incest.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has made abundantly clear (for example, regarding in-person worship attendance during COVID-19), where exceptions for secular reasons are permitted, so must exceptions for religious reasons. So if abortions are permitted for such secular reasons as the mother’s health, the survivability or the fetus and the circumstances of a pregnancy, then abortions grounded in sincerely held religious beliefs must also be permitted.

To be sure, the state of Indiana contends that prohibiting the plaintiffs from having abortions would not meet the standard of “substantially burdening” their religious exercise because abortion is “a secular means to a religious end.” But this, according to the judge, is contradicted by Hobby Lobby, where the secular means of refusing to provide employees with certain kinds of contraception coverage was recognized as a legitimate way to serve the religious end of opposing abortion.

One other thing. Among the plaintiffs in this case is a woman who claims no specific religious basis for her belief. The opinion recognizes her as having a legitimate claim comparable to that of nonreligious conscientious objectors to military service.

Long story short, Judge Welch’s opinion indicates that any woman who sincerely believes that her fetus is not a person should be able to procure an abortion in any state of the Union — as the Supreme Court’s religious liberty jurisprudence currently stands. To that jurisprudence it poses

RELATED: The Satanic Temple takes aim at Idaho, Indiana abortion bans no trivial challenge.

US leaders gather to discuss rights of nonreligious people across the world

'Discrimination against the non-religious is often caused, not by a desire to hurt atheists, but by the desire to help one or more religions,' according to a new report by Humanists International.

U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, center, virtually addresses a meeting about the rights of nonreligious people around the world, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022, in Washington. Photo courtesy of American Atheists

December 9, 2022

Alejandra Molina

(RNS) — Religious freedom leaders — including a United States ambassador, commissioner and elected representative — gathered in Washington, D.C., on Thursday (Dec. 8) to shed light on the rights of nonreligious people in countries across the globe.

The convening was part of the launch of the “Freedom of Thought Report” by Humanists International, an annual look at how non-religious individuals — comprising atheists, agnostics, humanists and freethinkers — are treated because of their lack of religion or absence of belief in a god.

It was hosted by American Atheists, a civil rights organization that works to achieve religious equality for all Americans. Among those in attendance were U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman, a congressman for much of California’s Bay Area; U.S. Ambassador-at-Large Rashad Hussain with the Office of International Religious Freedom; and Frederick Davie with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

To Nick Fish, president of American Atheists, it was meaningful that the Biden-Harris Administration, along with other U.S. leaders and the global human rights community “are recognizing our rights are just as worthy of protection as any other religious or belief groups.”

Emma Wadsworth-Jones, a coordinator for Humanists International who presented the report, underscored that nonreligious people are a distinct category within freedom of religion or belief “who have universal human rights,” which include the right to freedom of religion and belief and to freedom of thought and expression.

“Discrimination against this community is pervasive,” she said.

Wadsworth-Jones underscored that “true secularism is inclusive of all,” adding that “where secularism is upheld … rights tend to be better respected for all.”

Emma Wadsworth-Jones presents Humanists International’s “Freedom of Thought Report,” Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022, in Washington. Photo courtesy of American Atheists

The report — which is in its 11th year — rates all countries and highlights “Key Countries,” where the organization updated the ratings in 2022, and a “Watch List,” which includes countries that Humanists International continues to monitor despite their rating holding steady.

Humanists International creates ratings by focusing on global human rights agreements “that most affect nonreligious people,” such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and the right to freedom of expression.

Ratings factor in apostasy laws that make it illegal to convert to a religion or declare oneself as nonreligious, as well as blasphemy laws that outlaw criticism of protected religions and religious figures and institutions, according to the report.

The organization also considers family laws that exclude atheists from getting married as well as other laws requiring citizens to identify their religion on state ID cards, forbidding citizens from identifying as atheist or nonreligious.

“Discrimination against the non-religious is often caused, not by a desire to hurt atheists, but by the desire to help one or more religions,” according to the report.

The report found that only 4% of the global population “live in societies that are truly secular, where there is a clear separation of religious and political authorities, that do not discriminate against any religion or belief community.”

Countries like Afghanistan and Iran, which are on the organization’s “Watch List,” were found to have grave violations and poor ratings due to state legislation being largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities.

In Iran, the country’s morality police have triggered months of protests after the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini. The report noted that Iran’s government periodically jails and executes dozens of individuals on charges of “enmity against God” (moharebeh).

“Although this crime is framed as a religious offense and may be used against humanists and other religious dissenters, it is most often used as a punishment for political acts that challenge the regime (on the basis that to oppose the theocratic regime is to oppose Allah),” the report reads.

Just as Humanists International launched the report, the Center for Human Rights announced on Thursday that 23-year-old Mohsen Shekari was hung under the charge of “moharebeh,” after he was accused of wounding a paramilitary officer during a protest.

In Pakistan, the country’s legal environment is “notably repressive,” Wadsworth-Jones said, with “oppressive blasphemy laws, impunity for violence on religious grounds and systematic religious discrimination.”

When looking at Barbados, while its constitution declares the state to be secular, “symbolic trappings of state religion remain,” Wadsworth-Jones said. The preamble to its constitution, for example, states that the people of Barbados “acknowledge the supremacy of God,” she said.

In France, where secularism is a fundamental principle of the state, Wadsworth-Jones noted that strict enforcement of such principles has been criticized “for leading to discrimination against religion or belief minorities by limiting their freedom of worship.” Discrimination against Muslims in France has increased in recent years, particularly after the 2015 terrorist attacks and during COVID-19, she said.

U.S. Ambassador-at-Large Rashad Hussein speaks at a meeting about the rights of nonreligious people, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022, in Washington. Photo courtesy of American Atheists

U.S. Ambassador-at-Large Rashad Hussain speaks at a meeting about the rights of nonreligious people, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2022, in Washington. Photo courtesy of American Atheists

The United States received a relatively good rating due to “strong constitutional protections in favor of freedom of thought, religion or belief.”

It remains on the “Watch List” because, according to the report, those freedoms mixed with Christian conservatism and a wealthy Christian right lobby, “means that secular, humanist and civil liberties groups find themselves facing a battle to preserve the inherent secularism of the constitution.”

This threat to secularism “gained a greater foothold” under the presidency and influence of Donald Trump, resulting in the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe and the federal right to an abortion, according to the report.

“Extremism and religion continue to pose a severe threat to our democracy,” said Huffman, who identifies as a humanist, adding that white Christian nationalist groups “continue to export their dangerous, violent ideology and to find more traction in the mainstream.”

“My colleagues are feeling more confident in calling out the threat of white Christian nationalism directly,” he said.

Huffman, who helped establish the Congressional Freethought Caucus, highlighted a bipartisan resolution passed by the House of Representatives last year that condemns “heresy, blasphemy and apostasy laws.”

He also noted legislation he introduced that would require health care sharing ministries to disclose a range of information to federal agencies.

Hussain, with the Office of International Religious Freedom, spoke about Nigerian humanist and atheist Mubarak Bala, who was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison “following accusations he had committed blasphemy against Islam and Muslims,” he said.

Bala was arrested in 2020 and formally charged in 2021 “for causing a public disturbance by posting ‘blasphemous’ content.”

Early this month, the USCIRF called out the U.S. Department of State after it failed to include Nigeria or India in its latest designations of “Countries of Particular Concern.”

“Governments do not only weaponize blasphemy laws against humanists and atheists, they use them against Christians, Muslims and many more,” Hussain said.

The report highlighted that “any rights violations and discrimination are important, even when only small numbers of people are affected,” adding that “the non-religious are not a small group.”

It cited findings from the 2012 WIN-Gallup International Association showing that atheism and the non-religious population have grown rapidly, with religion dropping by 9 percentage points and atheism rising by 3 percentage points between 2005 and 2012.

This story has been updated.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment