Eva Quiñones, Hate for Atheists and Framing Humanism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/25

Eva Quiñones Segarra resides in the municipality of Río Grande. She studied from third grade at a Catholic school in Guaynabo, receiving the religion medal at her graduation in 1984, despite having stopped believing a few years earlier. She pursued agricultural sciences at the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez, specializing in livestock industries. She later enrolled in the School of Law at the Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, graduating with a Juris Doctor in 2001. Quiñones discusses her experiences as a humanist in Puerto Rico, including receiving hate mail and death threats, which she reported to the FBI without action. She highlights the limited organization and acceptance of atheism and humanism locally, despite hosting a regional convention in 2014. Quiñones details challenges in affiliating with larger groups, emphasizing support from figures like Dan Barker. She describes upcoming Latin American humanist conferences, logistical issues, and efforts to foster global unity against politicization. Additionally, she shares personal stories about her atheist son facing religious bullying in school and her growing positive media presence. Initiatives like student essay contests aim to promote humanist values.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about the hate mail you receive? What has that been like over the years?

Eva Quiñones: I’ve had to call the FBI once due to death threats. They did not feel immediately believable—I don’t generally fear for my life in Puerto Rico. But I did send those messages to the FBI, and they called me, asking, “Can you explain this?” After explaining, they told me they wouldn’t do anything about it. They didn’t consider the threats severe or actionable. I thought, “Okay, fine.”

Over the years, I’ve received three or four threats. I inform authorities so they have it documented in their files, even if they don’t act on it. The FBI keeps a file on it, but that’s as far as it goes.

Jacobsen: How did discussions about atheism and humanism develop in Puerto Rico?

Quiñones: Before 2011, no one was talking about these things. There were some small atheist activities, but I never knew about them, and we still aren’t very organized. My group has lost some popularity for reasons I’ve mentioned before—it’s not considered prestigious to talk about religion right now.

But we did have our moment. For example, we hosted an American Atheists regional convention here in 2014.

Jacobsen: There’s an A.A. chapter in Puerto Rico, right?

Quiñones: We don’t have an official chapter. We were affiliated at one point, but they haven’t paid much attention to us in recent years. David Silverman was very enthusiastic and heavily involved with us. I tried to maintain that relationship, but they didn’t stay engaged.

However, Mandisa Thomas and her group have been involved. Dan Barker from the Freedom From Religion Foundation has been massively supportive. He even spoke at one of my events in Puerto Rico, as did David Silverman. Humanists International was also involved with us to some extent, but American Humanists needed more interest.

It didn’t sit well with people here when they decided to rescind certain awards, like the Humanist of the Year from 20 years ago. We thought it was petty and insignificant, especially since they’d never shown much interest in us.

For a while, there were attempts to involve Latinos in humanist initiatives in a meaningful way. I was contacted—not directly by American Humanists, but by one of their Latin American representatives—to be part of a subdivision. However, it fell apart because there were too many conflicting opinions, and nothing could be solidified into a basic position statement. It’s impossible because we are all so different. Latin American countries have different dynamics, and Latin Americans in the U.S. have different needs and perspectives than those in Latin America.

Plus, American Humanists have yet to show interest in us. There was no outreach, no invitations to collaborate. But other groups were involved, and we accomplished many great things together. I have to give credit to Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. David Silverman, until his departure, was very supportive of us. Anything we needed, he was in.

Jacobsen: It sounds like building worldwide unity is difficult.

Quiñones: Yes, but humanism has the potential to unite people because it’s based on ethics, science, free-thinking, and compassion—universal values. Leaders do have to be careful nowadays, but it is possible to create global unity. Many attempts have been made, but they often get politicized, making it challenging. You’ve heard the phrase “herding cats,”right?

Jacobsen: Yes, that’s a common analogy.

Quiñones: It’s difficult and nearly impossible, especially with the current wave of wokeness. Humanism isn’t “woke.” It has a central mission.

Jacobsen: How would you define wokeness? And is there any similarity or overlap with humanism?

Quiñones: There are similarities and overlaps because human flourishing isn’t achieved in just one way. Many factors contribute to flourishing, and individuals within minority groups are affected by their interactions with majorities in particular ways. Humanism can provide guidance and reasoning for addressing these interactions.

So, there is overlap in that humanism can help guide interactions between minorities and majorities and promote better understanding. Humanism emphasizes caring for the individual, whether they’re part of a minority or not. There has to be some overlap, but humanism doesn’t impose acceptance.

Jacobsen: That’s insightful. You’re defining humanism in terms of its approach, which is newer to me. Humanism, as you describe it, doesn’t impose—it asks critical questions, seeks evidence, and applies that evidence to improve human well-being at the individual level, which can then extend to groups and societies. On the other hand, wokeness starts ideologically. It builds forward from there, often collecting grievances rather than working from a positive framework. It’s almost as if both come to similar conclusions but apply solutions differently.

Quiñones: Exactly. Humanism already acknowledges our collective—humanity, people.

Jacobsen: So, that’s our collective. Yes, it’s about avoiding re-racializing one another in the process. When you re-racialize in a “benevolent” way, it’s still problematic. Benevolent racism can be seen as a counterpart to malevolent racism. The nasty kind is the overtly negative, harmful type we often see.

Quiñones: I see. But your collective—your tribe—is humanity.

Jacobsen: You mentioned that events for Latin American free thought organizations happen every three years, right?

Quiñones: Yes, that’s correct. These events happen once every three years. The upcoming one this year will be held in Mexico. The first event was in 2018 in Arequipa, Peru. The second was supposed to happen in 2020, but COVID-19 postponed it, so it was held in September 2022. Now, in 2024, it’s happening in Mexico City. The 2022 event was in Pereira, Colombia, the country’s coffee capital. I appreciate that place every day, all day.

Jacobsen: It’s called the Coffee Axis, right?

Quiñones: Yes, the Coffee Axis—A-X-I-S. Not the “Axis of Evil,” but the axis of coffee growers.

Jacobsen: So, they’re the good guys by default?

Quiñones: They’re pretty great, yes. Unfortunately, I couldn’t attend the 2022 event because I was hospitalized.

Jacobsen: Oh no. What happened?

Quiñones: I had an abscess and an infection that required antibiotics. It wasn’t life-threatening, but it was significant. I’m okay now, but I was more upset about missing the event in Colombia at the time. I had everything set up—Airbnb, transportation, plane tickets. It was expensive, too. But such is life.

Jacobsen: I’m glad you’re okay now.

Quiñones: Thank you. So, the upcoming event in Mexico will be held at the Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia (ENAH)—the National School of Anthropology and History. Anthropology, history, and archaeology are significant in Mexico due to its beautiful and extensive pre-Columbian history, with different civilizations in the region that now includes Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. Archaeologically, it’s an important area. And Mexico takes pride in its history, which I will enjoy because I love museums.

I love that stuff. So yes, the event will happen, and it will be three days long. It starts on November 13 and runs through the 15th, Wednesday through Friday.  There will be a wide range of speakers from various Latin American countries, including Mexico. There will be well-known journalists, scientists, and thought leaders. Of course, I will speak about nuclear energy, which is interesting considering Mexico’s significant oil production and its role as a petroleum user and exporter.

We’ll have three days of activities. A reception on Tuesday the night before, and a group tour to Puebla is planned for Saturday. I’ll be flying back to Puerto Rico on Sunday. I’m travelling with my partner, son, and another group member here in Puerto Rico. In total, there will be four of us travelling, along with other Puerto Ricans living in the U.S. who will also be attending. There will be speakers from Peru, Colombia, and Argentina, which will be a significant event.

Mexico is known for its prominent atheist movements; about 15 years ago, they hosted an “Atheist in Congress” event, the largest atheist gathering I’ve heard of globally, with around 2,000 people attending. Mexico City is immense—it’s incredible. Puerto Rico could fit into the metropolitan area of Mexico City five or six times over. I’ve never been to Mexico, so I’m excited to meet my best friends from across Latin America and reconnect with those I’ve met at previous events.

Jacobsen: Have you met many of them before?

Quiñones: I’ve met many of them multiple times in the U.S. through other groups. I’m sure you’ve heard of David Tamayo from Hispanic American Freethinkers. He’s a close friend and has been very supportive. We’ve helped each other many times, and he’ll be there, too. It’s going to be a big gathering of freethinkers and atheists. Mexico is a wonderful country, and I’m happy to participate in this event.

Jacobsen: Were other cities considered potential hosts for this conference before Mexico was chosen?

Quiñones: Yes, there were. At the end of the last day of the first conference, I led the conversation about which countries were interested in hosting the next one. Costa Rica, Colombia, and Chile were all potential candidates. I collected all the feedback, and we eventually voted and decided on Colombia for the next event.

I didn’t want to hold the conference in Colombia, even though it was chosen. When I voted, I voted for Costa Rica. First, Costa Rica is the only country in Latin America with a formal agreement with the Vatican to be a Catholic country by governmental decree. So, what better place to hold the event than in a Catholic country? However, with Colombia selected, I still wanted Costa Rica as an option. I’ve been there before, and it’s a beautiful country that everyone should visit.

I preferred Costa Rica because my friends Carlos and David Tamayo cannot visit Colombia. Despite being Colombian, David has certain security clearances from his job that prevent him from visiting specific countries, including Colombia. He had reminded me, “Remember, I can’t visit Colombia.” So that was another reason for my preference.

However, Colombia was chosen as the focal point. David said, “Don’t worry, we’ll go for the next one.” After the second conference, even though I couldn’t attend due to my hospitalization, I was part of the group that evaluated the next host city. We chose Mexico because of their experience hosting high-level events. I knew the organizers and trusted their commitment and expertise. Mexico won the vote.

We’ll decide on the next city on the last day of this conference in Mexico. We’re considering Argentina or Chile to bring it further south and distribute the events more evenly throughout Latin America. I will never propose Puerto Rico because the hotels here are expensive, and the currency exchange rate makes it costly for people from other Latin American countries.

Jacobsen: That makes sense.

Quiñones: People often ask, “Why not host it in Puerto Rico?” I always respond, “You won’t be able to afford to travel here.” Plus, there are visa issues with the U.S., which adds complications. Even some Peruvians cannot travel to Mexico without hurdles.

Jacobsen: Why can’t they?

Quiñones: They need a formal invitation from an organization stamped by the government. They have to submit a proposal explaining why they must travel to Mexico, and then they might get a visa. The Peruvian attendees face challenges, and the organizers have been working hard to issue the necessary documents for travellers from Latin America.

This differs from the European Union, where Schengen agreements make it easier to travel between countries. In the EU, countries agree to the Schengen Area, allowing people to cross borders without visas—like going from France to Germany. But that’s not the case here.

We also deal with that issue. It gives you a sense of the organization needed for meetings in Latin America.

Jacobsen: Yes, I imagine it’s a huge task. I plan to travel to visit different communities. That would be an interesting project—an investigative photojournalism trip to explore humanist communities in various countries. It could be a very cool project.

Quiñones: One of the things we’re doing at the conference is a student essay contest, similar to what Dan Barker has done in the past. We received much interest from students, and my group is sponsoring the cash prize for the winner. I’ll be presenting and reading the winning essay.

Jacobsen: How much is the prize?

Quiñones: First place will receive $300, and second and third place will receive $100 and $50, respectively. The first-place essay will also be published in a highly regarded scientific journalistic magazine. We want to make an impact and are passionate about initiatives like this.

Dan Barker hosted a similar contest here, and we received so many entries—about 150—that we had to split them among six judges for evaluation. It was much work, but involving high school students is rewarding.

Jacobsen: That sounds like a great initiative.

Quiñones: It is. I have a 20-year-old son, and when he was in first grade, there was a thunderstorm, and his teacher said, “That’s God moving furniture around.” My son replied, “Gods don’t have furniture.”

Jacobsen: Good one! What else can a first-grader say?

Quiñones: Even in religious communities, they often find such comments from kids amusing rather than offensive. I’m glad they did in that case. The school was evangelical, although it was supposed to be non-religious. They didn’t pray excessively, but God was present everywhere. Don’t worry—I took him out of that school.

Later, in fifth grade, a Catholic teacher humiliated him for not standing up during the prayer said over the intercom.

One day, a girl defended my son, saying, “He doesn’t need to stand up. He doesn’t believe in that.” The school called me, and it turned into a big deal. The counsellor even had the nerve to say, “Tell your kid not to talk about not believing in God at school.”

I responded, “Let me start by saying he never does. This came up because he was asked. Will you tell all the other kids not to talk about their belief in God at school?”

Jacobsen: Good question.

Quiñones: That ended the conversation. My son doesn’t talk about his beliefs unless he’s asked. It’s different when someone answers a question versus initiating the topic. And as you and I know, especially with American evangelicals and Catholics, it’s typically taught with a different frame of mind.

At this other school, he attended, there was a girl whose parents were Muslim, and she was being bullied. One day, I noticed her clinging to the teacher and asked, “What’s going on? Why is she clinging to you like that?” The teacher, a Christian Puerto Rican woman from Connecticut, explained that a little group of evangelical kids was bullying the girl. This was third or fourth grade—young kids.

The bullying was because the mother was Muslim, wearing a veil and speaking a different language, and the girl herself had an accent. The teacher told me it involved 15 or so kids. I immediately asked, “Is my kid part of that?” She said, “No. He’s nice to her and tries to engage with her.”

I told her, “Remember, that boy is my atheist kid. He’s not into any of this religious nonsense.” The teacher’s eyes widened, and she nodded, saying he tried to calm the girl. But, understandably, the girl didn’t want to talk to him or be friends with anyone because all the kids seemed the same to her. She knew she was different, and it made her cautious.

The fact that other kids bullied her because of religion at that age—eight or nine years old—is sickening. I was proud when the teacher said, “Your son is not involved. He tries to approach her.”

Jacobsen: That’s something to be proud of.

Quiñones: Absolutely. I told the teacher, “Don’t forget—he’s an atheist.” I even gave her my card. So when people ask, I say, “Yes, I am,” and they nod in understanding.

I don’t see anything shocking about it. The opposite would be shocking. I’m often called to appear on TV, and I always say, “I’m the atheist; I’m the humanist.” It’s easier to say “atheist” because people generally know what that means. When I say “humanist,” I have to explain it. But I’ve done TV interviews where I’ve explained humanism, and people get it. I know how to frame it culturally to resonate with people here.

I do a lot of TV and radio, and I’ve noticed that I’m also asked to comment on other topics because people know I’ll provide a non-religious perspective. Many in the media find that refreshing. I’ve been featured on the highest-rated radio show in Puerto Rico numerous times and have built a good relationship with the journalist who hosts it. If I have something to say, I text him and tell him to invite me. He usually sets me up for a 15-minute segment that week.

He teases me about religion for the first 10 minutes, but then he gives me the floor to deliver my message. That’s where I get the death threats, but it’s also where I receive the highest engagement. My clips often have the most comments on the station’s page. The first time I appeared, there were 3,000 comments, and 99% of them were negative—calling me a crazy woman, using slurs, and saying awful things.

Over the years, though, I’ve seen a shift. Now, about 50% of the comments are supportive. People say, “She’s not crazy; she makes sense,” and you can see religious and atheist individuals debating in the comments, defending me. It shows change. Fewer than 50% of the comments are negative, calling me names like “crazy woman” or worse in more colourful Spanish terms.

You can see the change. People get it. People understand if you sit down and patiently explain humanism, secularism, rational thinking, or ways of approaching life without relying on God or the Bible. My favourite example is this: what do you do when you lose your keys? You look for them. You might mumble, “God, help me find them,” but you won’t find them if you don’t look. You have to act. You can thank God afterward, but you’re the one who put them in your hands.

Most religious people live like that, and they get it when I explain it this way. Recently, I was on TV talking about euthanasia and dying with dignity. I’ve done this two or three times already. I start by saying that euthanasia and dying with dignity are not religious issues.

Take that out of your minds right away. Most religious people are for it. Why would God tell one person it’s a sin and tell others it’s a compassionate act? Why would the same God give conflicting messages?

Remove God from the equation, and let’s have a discussion. One religious individual from one sect doesn’t represent the religious beliefs of everyone in Puerto Rico. There are many different spiritual perspectives, and only some are representative.

I often clarify why my viewpoint holds more weight than the specific religious opinions of the person I’m debating. I say, “You’re speaking from your religious framework in your Church. I’m not. My perspective is different, based on principles that aim for better reasoning and outcomes.” That’s what I do.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Eva.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.