International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Tianxiang Shao (Camus Shaw), a 20-year-old from Huangshan City, Anhui Province, China, is an undergraduate student fluent in Chinese, French, and English. A talented individual, he excels in mathematics, high-range IQ tests, and travel design. He is also a poet, lyricist, and member of multiple high-IQ societies: growing up; extended self; family background; youth with friends; education; purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; extreme reactions to geniuses; greatest geniuses; genius and a profoundly gifted person; necessities for genius or the definition of genius; work experiences and jobs held; job path; myths of the gifted; God; science; tests taken and scores earned; range of the scores; ethical philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview; meaning in life; source of meaning; afterlife; life; and love.
Keywords: Chinese classical philosophy significance, Chinese southern mountain town culture, existentialist ethical philosophy reflection, family legacy influence on choices, high intelligence influence on life, internally generated meaning from experiences, mathematics competition certificates, mystery and transience of human life.
Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Tianxiang Shao: My grandparents were remarkable. During the years when China was impoverished and weak, they made their way from the countryside to the city, which brought prosperity and happiness to our entire family. To this day, their story and spirit continue to be passed down in our family.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Shao: Yes, these stories have influenced my choices, inclining me to pursue my career in big cities. At the same time, I believe life is a continuous journey of exploration, and success is something that each person defines for themselves.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Shao: My parents work in the financial sector, and they are materialists with no religious beliefs.
One distinctive aspect is my mother’s side of the family. My maternal grandparents are from Huangshan, a southern mountain town in China. It’s a peaceful and serene city, and I often say that this city has significantly shaped my outlook on life and the world.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Shao: In fact, I didn’t get along well with most of my peers. In kindergarten, I was often excluded by my classmates, and in elementary school, I tended to remain quiet. It wasn’t until middle school that I started engaging in some social activities.
During elementary school, I would sometimes spend time imagining entire stories inspired by a clock and filling my notebook with writing and drawings. None of my classmates understood what I was expressing, but I found joy in it nonetheless.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Shao: I have received certificates from several mathematics competitions. Additionally, a few months ago, I achieved a good score in the IELTS exam.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Shao: Initially, I took intelligence tests like Mensa and Raven’s out of curiosity to understand my own intellectual abilities. Later, I encountered high-range IQ tests. Now, for me, they serve more as a form of leisure and entertainment.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Shao: In fact, I don’t consider myself to have exceptional intelligence. I don’t want others to see me as someone special. If I had to pinpoint something, it would be during my childhood when we were all learning together—I tended to grasp things more quickly and think about problems more deeply than others.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Shao: A person’s success is influenced by their own qualities, but often, fate plays a significant role as well. Newton became Newton not just because of his genius, but also because he lived in post-Renaissance England. Look at Giordano Bruno, who was also a genius—what was his fate in the end? If Alan Turing were alive today, would he still meet a tragic end?
Similarly, geniuses have different personalities. Some align with the times, while others stand in opposition. Success is not solely determined by intelligence; many factors are involved, and most of them are beyond one’s control.
As for your point about geniuses being camera-shy, I am reminded of my best friend, one of the top geniuses in China, who has achieved incredible scores on various tests. However, he remains humble and dislikes being in the spotlight. This is his personality. In short, geniuses have their own perspectives and choices in life, and we must respect their decisions.
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Shao: There are several people, not just one. I can list a few for you:
From China: Laozi, Zhuangzi, Su Dongpo, and Wang Yangming.
From the West: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Immanuel Kant, and Albert Camus.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Shao: Let me explain it using a mathematical concept: a genius is a subset of profoundly intelligent people. Being profoundly intelligent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a genius.
If we imagine the existing body of knowledge as a large circle, profoundly intelligent individuals can approach the boundary of that circle, while a genius has the ability to break through it. That’s the key difference between them.
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Shao: I already explained this in the previous question: profound intelligence is indeed a necessary condition for genius.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Shao: Haha, I’m currently just a second-year university student.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Shao: I’m currently a student. In the future, I plan to pursue research in artificial intelligence or algorithms because I find these fields fascinating.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Shao: To be frank,I don’t know how to respond. So I don’t answer this question.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Shao: I don’t have any religious beliefs, but when I try to find calm and quiet, I sometimes read Buddhist scriptures.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Shao: Science accounts for about 80% of my worldview.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Shao: I personally enjoy numerical tests. I scored IQ 180+ on Mahir Wu’s Numeric Inspiration Test and even broke the record for this test. On the Chinese verbal test Nocturne II, I achieved an IQ score of 185.
As for international tests, I scored IQ 176 on the SLSE test and IQ 177 on the spatial test COSMIC.
So far, I have achieved six scores above IQ 170 and two scores above IQ 180. I only started taking high-range IQ tests this year, so I haven’t accumulated many scores yet.
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence teststend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Shao: My lowest score on a test was IQ 139 (I submitted it very casually), and my highest score was IQ 185. The median of my twenty test scores is IQ 168, and the average is IQ 169.4.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: For me, the ethical philosophy that makes the most sense and seems the most workable is existentialism. It emphasizes individual freedom, choice, and responsibility, suggesting that each person must create meaning in their own life through their actions. This philosophy encourages me to reflect on how to find myself in an uncertain and complex world while taking responsibility for my choices.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: It would likely be Marxism, as I was exposed to it from a young age.
Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: I am not sure.
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: I am not sure.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: Personally, I am fond of classical Chinese philosophy, particularly the Daoist perspective. I advocate for the concept of “wu wei” (non-action), believing that people should follow the natural flow of things, approach gains and losses with a sense of detachment, and face each challenge with a calm and steady mindset.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Shao: I think it would be Marxism, but I don’t really like answering questions with absolutes, such as “the most,” because nothing should be seen as entirely absolute.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Shao: I believe books and music provide meaning in my life.
Reading is a way to engage in dialogue with the great minds of the past, and when I feel life lacks meaning, I find joy in books. Often, problems resolve themselves through this.
Music, on the other hand, is something that can break down barriers, allowing people across the world to understand and communicate with each other without the obstacle of language. In the rhythm of music, I sometimes feel that “the world is one.”
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Shao: I tend to believe that meaning is internally generated.
I can share an interesting story with you. There was an ancient Chinese philosopher named Wang Yangming who once had an insight while looking at flowers. He said, “Before you looked at this flower, it remained in silence with you. When you observe it, its colors become clear. This shows that the flower’s existence is not outside your heart.”
His words are often labeled as subjective idealism, but I don’t think labeling ideas is the right approach.
When people are born, they cannot choose their circumstances. But from that point onward, everything can be changed through their own efforts. One of my favorite movies, The Truman Show, illustrates this well. The protagonist only breaks through the barriers at the end because he firmly believes that he is real and others are not. His belief in himself leads to his final breakthrough.
Life indeed resembles The Truman Show. History continuously rhymes, and no matter how much the external world changes, on a scale of millennia, it all repeats itself. The only thing that can determine everything, and give meaning to all things, is your own heart.
There’s a famous Chinese saying I’d like to share: “Where the heart finds peace, there is my home” (此心安处是吾乡).
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Shao: I only seek peace and happiness in this life, not wealth or status in the next. I don’t like discussing the afterlife much because thinking about the next life before living this one well only adds unnecessary worry.
However, I do hope that everyone has a next life, a chance to reach the “other shore” in the Buddhist sense. There are many forms of cause and effect in this world, and one lifetime isn’t enough to fully understand them. If plants can regenerate over and over, why shouldn’t people be able to as well?
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Shao: The mystery of life lies in the fact that you can never clearly know what will happen in the next moment. You never know whether the next step will be good or bad.
Human life is incredibly brief, but within that short span, endless possibilities can still be created.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Shao: This question brings a bit of sadness to me, as I recently went through a breakup while working on this interview. I used to think I was more mature than others and understood these concepts earlier. I had relationships in both middle school and university, though none of them lasted in the end.
However, I still believe in pure love. To me, love is both a passion and a long-term commitment. I often compare love to Morse code, made up of alternating signals: passion (the short signals) and enduring care (the long signals).
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1). October 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, October 8). Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (October 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Tianxiang Shao on Views and Life: Member, OlympIQ Society (1) [Internet]. 2024 Oct; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/tianxiang-shao-1.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
We’re in the middle of Banned Books Week — an observance that is troublingly appropriate this year.
“The attempts to censor, restrict or ban books in 2024 in the United States continued to surpass pre-pandemic levels, while books with LGBTQ-plus themes dominate the most-challenged list, advocacy groups said in reports released Monday, just as Banned Books Week began,” reports the Washington Post. “The annual event, which will run through Saturday nationwide, seeks to spotlight the value of free and open access to information.”
We at the Freedom From Religion Foundation are deeply familiar with the awful history of censorship. As Heinrich Heine famously observed, “Where they burn books, they will end in burning human beings.” And the scourge of book suppression currently seems phenomenally robust.
“More than 10,000 books were removed, at least temporarily, in U.S. public schools during the 2023-24 school year, according to preliminary data from PEN America,” states the Post. “This figure is nearly three times higher than the number from the previous school year, it said.”
A huge propellant of these bans, as the Post points out, are statehouses and right-wing, often Christian nationalist advocacy groups. Examples range from Utah, South Carolina and Tennessee recently to Iowa and Florida a bit further back.
FFRF advocates, above all, for freedom of thought. We oppose banning books from public schools and libraries. There’s no true freedom of thought, conscience or even religion, unless our government and its public schools and libraries are free from religion and its control over thought.
FFRF is right to be concerned. The American Library Association has come out with some numbers confirming the state/church watchdog’s fears.
“Between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31, 2024, ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked 414 attempts to censor library materials and services; in those cases, 1,128 unique titles were challenged,” it says. “In the same reporting period last year, ALA tracked 695 attempts with 1,915 unique titles challenged. Though the number of reports to date has declined in 2024, the number of documented attempts to censor books continues to far exceed the numbers prior to 2020.”
The book-banning sweeps are indiscriminate and overbearing, catching masterpieces in their net sometimes simply for referencing topics that censorious critics deem “immoral.” Among the top ten booksbanned in recent times is the Nobel Prize-winner Toni Morrison’s classic “The Bluest Eye.”
Jonna Perrillo, who is pulling together an entire book on these bans and their social effects, details in a piece for Slate the grim consequences.
“Mary teaches in an American high school, but like the other educators in this story, she asked me not to identify her because she fears retribution from her school or district administrator,” she writes. “Mary’s principal reprimanded her colleague for teaching Sherman Alexie poems anthologized in her district-approved textbook. Another elected not to teach Martin Luther King Jr.’s classic ‘Letter From a Birmingham Jail,’ convinced she would be unable to respond freely to student comments in class.”
As Perrillo points out, upward of 40 percent of book challenges in 2022 came from school officials themselves. “‘Parental rights’ has become a major rallying call for conservatives, but in many cases, parents have little to do with the process,” she writes.
Another major source is self-righteous grandstanders hostile to critical thinking, such as the Orwellian and hypocritically named Moms for Liberty. And the impetus isn’t protecting children, it’s about discouraging thought, especially thought that is antithetical to Christian nationalist ideology. True advocates for free speech must be dedicated to counter book bans at all levels.
“We urge everyone to join librarians in defending the freedom to read,” American Library Association President Cindy Hohl has recently said. “We know people don’t like being told what they are allowed to read, and we’ve seen communities come together to fight back and protect their libraries and schools from the censors.”
This Banned Books Week, do everything you can to push back against the pernicious trend of banning, such as letting your local school boards and representatives know that you are against book banning and censorship, donating books to Little Free Libraries in your neighborhood, and buying or checking out banned books.
We need to defend free expression to the utmost of our abilities.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Sanders has persisted in entangling the university’s football program with religion and engaging in religious exercises with students and staff. A video showed Sanders after the Sept. 22 game once again making religious remarks and holding a team prayer in the locker room. Sanders appears to have invited Pastor E. Dewey Smith from the House of Hope Church in Atlanta to deliver the following prayer: God, we thank you tonight for victory, thank you that you kept us relatively safe. Thank you that in spite of our imperfections you still blessed us, Lord. And thank you for being with us to the end. Lord, some people call it Hail Mary, some people call it karma, some people call it luck, but in my faith tradition, we call it Jesus. Grace, thank you for your mercy, bless us, help us to grow from this, learn from this, and take it to the next level. We give you praise, we thank you, in your name we pray, amen.
Smith appears to be acting as the team’s chaplain. A July 29 pregame video refers to him as the “spiritual adviser” to Coach Sanders and the “Chaplain for the Colorado Buffs.” The video features Smith discussing the upcoming football season and team dynamics in a sermon-like manner, intertwining lessons from biblical scripture with his remarks to the team. Sanders may have invited Smith to act as team chaplain when Sanders was previously coaching at Jackson State. It seems Sanders is yet again allowing Smith to act as a team chaplain, this time for the University of Colorado Buffaloes.
Notably, this is not the first time FFRF has fought back against Sanders’ proselytization. In early 2023, FFRF wrote to the college to assert that Sanders must not misuse his position as coach to entangle the football program with Christianity. Shortly afterward, the college assured FFRF that Sanders was provided “guidance on the nondiscrimination policies, including guidance on the boundaries in which players and coaches may or may not engage in religious expression.”
“It appears that Coach Sanders was not as receptive to the training as the university may have initially thought,” FFRF Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence writes to University of Colorado Boulder Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Officer Patrick T. O’Rourke.
FFRF reiterates that the U.S. Supreme Court has continually struck down school-sponsored proselytizing in public schools, and that it is no defense to call these religious messages and activities “voluntary.” Coach Sanders’ team is full of young and impressionable student athletes who would not risk giving up their scholarship, playing time or losing a good recommendation from the coach by speaking out or voluntarily opting out of his unconstitutional religious activities — even if they strongly disagree with his beliefs. Coaches exert great influence and power over student athletes and those athletes will follow the lead of their coach. Using a coaching position to promote Christianity amounts to unconstitutional religious coercion.
FFRF is once more asserting that the University of Colorado must take action to protect the First Amendment rights of student athletes. Sanders needs to understand that he was hired to coach football, not to force student athletes to engage in his preferred religious practices. He must cease infusing the football program with Christianity. In addition, FFRF has submitted an open records request to learn more about Smith’s involvement in the football program and the university, and any policies and records provided to Sanders relating to making religious remarks, holding or leading prayers, promoting religion or otherwise entangling the football program with religion while acting as head coach.
“Sanders is showing his brazen disregard for not only the Constitution, but also the rights of all his players when he decides to force his religion upon them,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Students undoubtedly feel extra pressure to abide by his will at a collegiate sporting level.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with around 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,300 members and a chapter in Colorado. Its purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned district community member informed FFRF that a sixth grade teacher promoted to students a personal bible study taking place every morning before school. The teacher appeared to be orchestrating and teaching the before-school meetings. Additionally, the teacher read as part of the curriculum a book about witches, during which she denigrated witches and witchcraft (since it conflicted with her personal religious beliefs) and told students that Christianity does not look kindly upon witches.
“Public officials may not promote or advertise religious ceremonies when acting in the course of their official duties,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi wrote to the district.
Students have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination in their public schools, FFRF emphasized. By promoting her personal bible study in class, this teacher coerced students’ attendance, and then preached her personal religious beliefs in the classroom when discussing witchcraft. The teacher placed students in a difficult dilemma: Either attend the bible study, affronting their conscience, or not attend — outing themselves as a different believer than their teacher. Similarly, it was inappropriate for the teacher to condemn witchcraft by introducing her personal religious beliefs into the classroom. Her control over the curriculum suggests that she planned the lesson with the intent to denigrate witchcraft.
After FFRF’s action, the district decided to correct the violations at hand.
The school’s legal counsel, Emily Omohundro, wrote back informing that while an investigation did take place, it involved confidential student and personnel information that could not be shared. “The district has taken steps to remind district staff of the district’s policies, including the requirement that staff avoid the promotion of religious views at school,” Omohundro wrote.
“Public school teachers are trusted to teach students secular subjects, and to leave religion to parents or guardians,” adds Joshi, a Missouri-licensed attorney. “Taxpayers should not have to support government officials who demean their religion. That includes teachers who pick on witches.”
FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor agrees.
“This teacher’s behavior was unacceptable, and we’re glad to have taken action when we did,” she says. “No public school student should feel coerced into attending a bible study during class time, or have their beliefs be stomped on.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members across the country, including more than 400 in Missouri. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The association recently distributed a special election issue of its Decision magazine focused on the 2024 election, for which the cover page says “SOCIALISM VS. FREEDOM” with corresponding photos of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. In an opening letter, President and CEO Franklin Graham denigrates the Democratic Party’s platform:
Progressive, liberal thought and activism have so contaminated the mainstream of American life and culture that once-unthinkable abominations such as same-sex marriage, abortion on demand and transgender advocacy have become dogma in one major party’s platform.
Graham then tells readers to “vote for candidates who best align with and stand for Biblical principles.” This is followed by a cherry-picked comparison between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump intended to encourage readers to vote for Trump over Harris. Outside of the comparison, the election guide includes a quote from Trump given at a Moms for Liberty event in June 2023:
Our enemies are waging a war on freedom and faith, on science and religion, on history and tradition, on law and democracy, on the family, on children, on America itself.
There is no reason for this quote to appear except to encourage readers to vote for Donald Trump. The overall takeaway from this election guide is that Christians should vote for Trump over Harris in the presidential election and Republicans in state and local elections. It shows a clear bias and preference for Trump and Republicans in the upcoming elections and is distributed for the purpose of intervening in these elections.
“The Internal Revenue Code states that to retain their 501(c)(3) status an organization cannot ‘participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office,’” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writes to the IRS. “In this instance, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has breached the responsibilities of its tax-exempt status by publishing an election guide that gives the clear impression that it favors one candidate over the other and one party over the other.”
FFRF is a registered 501(c)(3) and it takes this designation — along with the accompanying privileges and responsibilities — very seriously. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association obviously doesn’t and that’s why donations made to the organization should no longer be treated as tax deductible. The IRS should immediately take all appropriate action to remedy any violations of 501(c)(3) regulations that occurred or which continue to occur.
“The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is engaging in a blatant violation of its tax-exempt status,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “The IRS can’t permit it to engage in such open electioneering.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is insisting that four public school districts in Texas put a stop to a variety of constitutional violations.
In the Mansfield Independent School District, a teacher at Mansfield High School has been placing proselytizing biblical quotes and even Christian crosses around her classroom. In the Red Oak Independent School District in Red Oak, a recent mandatory employee convocation commenced with prayer over a loudspeaker. Reportedly, this violation occurs every year at this high school and other district schools.
FFRF has also learned of violations in the Arlington-based Arlington Independent School District, where ongoing proselytization occurred during school-football team meetings at James Bowie High School. During a scheduled ninth period class, the Junior Varsity and Varsity teams received a lecture on the importance of living their lives according to the bible, with one witness reporting that a football team coach discussed how God teaches people to “spread their domain” while projecting a verse from Genesis onto a screen as a visual aid. Lastly, in the Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City Independent School District (located not too far from Austin), parents were sent a message through ParentSquare promoting a study of Ken R. Canfield’s “The H.E.A.R.T. of Grandparenting,” a book reflecting on the author’s “biblical insight.” The Sept. 10 message invited grandparents to discuss the book at the Jordan Intermediate Library on Sept. 19, while also suggesting future meetings.
“They say everything is bigger in Texas. Apparently so is the disregard for students’ rights,” remarks FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi.
School districts may not proselytize a captive audience, FFRF emphasizes — and this includes through religious displays in classrooms, school-sponsored prayers, religious classes and book studies. Each of these districts violate the First Amendment rights of conscience of students and employees when promoting religion. By promoting religion, they convey a message to non-Christians that they are disfavored members of the community, while adherents are insiders, favored members. Every public school district has a constitutional duty to remain neutral toward religion. Any inclusion of religion abridges that duty and needlessly excludes and marginalizes students and employees who are part of the 37 percent of the American population that is non-Christian — including the nonreligious at almost 30 percent segment of the populace.
In order for these districts to be brought in line with the Constitution, they must drop any and all religious intrusions in classrooms, mandatory meetings, class work and extracurricular book studies.
“School districts exist to educate, not indoctrinate into religion,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “These four districts have been using their official communication channels, classrooms and teaching to unabashedly promote Christianity to public school students and this is a misuse of their authority, violating both student and parental rights.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,700 members and a chapter in Texas. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The hosts of the “We Dissent” podcast discuss on its latest episode the most urgent Christian nationalist threat to democracy — Project 2025.
On episode 34, FFRF Deputy Legal Director Liz Cavell, Americans United Legal Director Rebecca Markert and American Atheists Vice President for Legal and Policy Alison Gill dig into the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the comprehensive transition roadmap for the next conservative administration. They explain the project and illustrate the throughlines of its policy agenda: Christian nationalist ideology and the obliteration of the separation of church and state.
Find previous episodes here, which examine developments affecting the separation of church and state, particularly in the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Past episodes include discussions about court reform, religion behind bars and abortion, and also feature a range of expert guests.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The hosts of the “We Dissent” podcast discuss on its latest episode the most urgent Christian nationalist threat to democracy — Project 2025.
On episode 34, FFRF Deputy Legal Director Liz Cavell, Americans United Legal Director Rebecca Markert and American Atheists Vice President for Legal and Policy Alison Gill dig into the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, the comprehensive transition roadmap for the next conservative administration. They explain the project and illustrate the throughlines of its policy agenda: Christian nationalist ideology and the obliteration of the separation of church and state.
Find previous episodes here, which examine developments affecting the separation of church and state, particularly in the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Past episodes include discussions about court reform, religion behind bars and abortion, and also feature a range of expert guests.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
New research confirms that evangelical Christian beliefs are the strongest predictors of climate change denial.
New York University political scientist John Kane and University of Oklahoma sociologist Samuel Perry have published a new working paper finding that the belief claiming God “has a secret timeline involving Jesus’ return and the world’s decline and destruction” is the strongest religious predictor of reluctance to endorse policies to combat climate change. Such sentiment is exemplified by William Wolfe’s “A Biblical Worldview of Climate Change,” wherein he writes: “Christians are people who take God at His word. God has promised the Earth will never again be destroyed — so we should live and act like that’s true because it is.”
This nonsensical take on climate change doesn’t only exist among rank-and-file evangelical Christians. Most evangelicals who hold elected office recklessly refuse to accept demonstrable truths about climate change and thus fail to act on this crisis. Kane and Perry cite the views of U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., at a town hall: “As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”
John Shimkus, as a member of Congress, dismissed climate change concerns by echoing the ridiculous belief that “God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood.” Jon Barton, when also in the House of Representatives, cited the bible to rebuke scientific consensus that humans have contributed to climate change. “I would point out that if you are a believer in the bible, one would have to say the great flood was an example of climate change,” Barton once told a congressional hearing.
Simply put, these narrow and ignorant viewpoints have consequences. If the Heritage Foundation and its cronies get their wish, Project 2025 would slash EPA funding, undermining the government’s commitment through the Inflation Reduction Act to transition to clean energy, and delegating environmental regulations to the states.
Stepping outside of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s office in Madison, Wis., the past two weeks is enough to give anyone pause. It is abnormally hotter than it should be for this time of year.
While this is one mere data point of temperature, the aggregate data points to a disturbing trend. The summer of 2023 was the hottest in 2,000 years and heat-related deaths rose above 2,300. NASA finds the summer of 2024 the hottest summer to date, with August 2024 setting a new monthly temperature record. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the first eight months of 2024 ranked as the second-warmest year to date. The case for climate change is clear, whether evangelicals want to acknowledge it or not. Whether they “believe” in climate change or not, our planet is experiencing catastrophic extremes, as the current endless wildfires in California and the historically catastrophic flooding going on right now in central Europe bear witness to.
While evangelicals turn a blind eye to this crisis, the “Nones” are likely to agree that there is climate change, that it is human induced and that climate mitigation policy is necessary to combat it. A Pew Research poll showed that 90 percent of atheists — the highest percentage of any group by religion (or lack thereof) to do so — believe the data and acknowledge the reality of climate change.
“Atheists, agnostics, and others with no religion see the writing on the wall and we are the ones who should be leading the charge to implement policy solutions to combat this crisis,” says Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. “Project 2025 seeks to kill the Inflation Reduction Act, which is keeping our nation on its path to meet its global commitments and protect the future of our children and grandchildren.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
This week’s episode of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “Freethought Matters” TV interview show focuses on Christian patriarchy — and the women still trapped in it.
Guest Cait West was raised in the Christian purity movement, where women are taught to be completely subservient to fathers. She eventually found the courage to break away and is now a writer and editor based in Michigan. She co-hosts “The Survivors Discuss” podcast and currently serves on the editorial board for Tears of Eden, a nonprofit providing resources for survivors of spiritual abuse. West is also the author of a gripping new personal account, “Rift: A Memoir of Breaking Away from Christian Patriarchy.” West explains in the book that in Christian patriarchy, each family’s father is deemed a prophet, priest, even a Christ figure.
“My understanding of the Christian patriarchy movement is that starting in the 1990s, there was something called Patriarch magazine and a kind of a grassroots movement of male pastors who were promoting this idea that men are in charge of all aspects of society and that women should submit to them,” West tells co-hosts Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. “It taught things like girls such as me couldn’t go to college or work a job. We had to live with our fathers until our fathers helped us find a husband to get married to.” She poignantly describes how she got the courage to break free.
(To view details on channel variations depending on your provider, click here.)
If you don’t live in any of the marquee towns where the show broadcasts on Sunday, you can already catch the interview on FFRF’s YouTube channel. New shows go up every Thursday.
Upcoming guests include an expert on the Comstock Act, an author of a new book on the Scopes Trial and another author writing on the dangers of vouchers to aid religious schools. You can catch interviews from previous seasons here, including with Gloria Steinem, Ron Reagan, author John Irving, actor John “Q” de Lancie and award-winning columnist Katha Pollitt.
Please tune in to “Freethought Matters” . . . because freethought matters.
P.S. Please tune in or record according to the times given above regardless of what is listed in your TV guide (it may be listed simply as “paid programming” or even be misidentified). To set up an automatic weekly recording, try taping manually by time or channel. And spread the word to freethinking friends, family or colleagues about a TV show, finally, that is dedicated to providing programming for freethinkers — your antidote to religion on Sunday morning!
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
FFRF, a national state/church watchdog, has learned that the district has started a bible study called “Donuts & God.” The district recently promoted and celebrated attendance at Panhandle Junior High’s study group on its official Facebook page. One picture of the post includes a bible quote from the Old Testament, Proverbs 4:25-27: “Let your eyes look forward; fix your gaze straight ahead. Carefully consider the path for your feet, and all your ways will be established. Don’t turn to the right or to the left; keep your feet away from evil.” Then, a Christian message apparently paraphrased from the New Testament book Hebrews 12:2–4 was added: “Keep your eyes focused on Jesus.”
“Government-sponsored [devotional] bible studies are unconstitutional,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi writes to the district. “Further, government religious messaging is inappropriate and unnecessarily divisive.”
It is a constitutional violation for the district to host and promote a proselytizing bible study or any religion, religious events or religious clubs on its official social media pages, FFRF adds. By promoting Christian messages on the official district Facebook page, the district conveys a message to all non-Christians that they are disfavored members of the community. The district must be more aware and sensitive to the diverse community it represents and serves.
If the event was part of a student club, the school’s promotion of it on the Facebook page would still be a violation of the federal Equal Access Act, which bars school officials or outside adults from running student clubs or, for example, hyping them up on the official district Facebook. Whether officially district-sponsored or not, “Donuts & God” runs head first into either the First Amendment or the Equal Access Act. FFRF insists that the club must be disbanded or reformed to better respect the First Amendment rights of students.
“School districts exist to educate, not indoctrinate into religion,” adds FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “This district appears to be taking advantage of a captive audience of students to promote a blatant message of religious favoritism over minority religions and nonreligion.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members and several chapters across the country, including more than 1,700 members and a chapter in Texas. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
More than 20 volunteer chapters of the Freedom From Religion Foundation have pooled their resources in order to erect voter awareness billboards on behalf of FFRF in all seven swing states.
These billboards launch Freedom From Religion Foundation’s public voter awareness campaign, a full-scale marketing effort leading up to the Nov. 5 election.
The swing state campaign is the brainchild of Judy Saint, who runs the Greater Sacramento Chapter of FFRF and says she was losing sleep wondering how her California chapter and others could help get out the vote in crucial swing states.
“This was the best thing I could do with our donors’ earnest contributions,” she remarks. “We have to save democracy.”
Saint adds, “As we fight Christian nationalism in this next election, our chapter decided to pull together all the national chapters of FFRF to put up at least one billboard in each swing state.”
This is the first time all FFRF chapters in FFRF’s close to half-a-century history have coordinated on a campaign.
Not just seven but 10 “Be a Voter” billboards are going up (including a “bonus” billboard in the important-but-not-swing state of Florida), thanks to the chapters’ impressive fundraising efforts, which yielded $32,000. FFRF almost matched that total. FFRF and its chapters sited the billboards near major public universities to encourage Gen Z voters, almost half of whom have no religious affiliation but who are less likely to vote.
“Be a Voter — Protect Democracy, Wisconsin” was the first billboard to go up in August (pictured below), just two blocks from Camp Randall Stadium in Madison, Wis., in time to greet students moving back to campus and those attending September’s overflowing home football games.
A similar message in Pittsburgh, “Be a Voter — Protect Democracy, Pennsylvania” (pictured below) is up on Banksville Road, a quarter mile south of Parkway. An identical message will soon go up on a billboard at a prominent bridge in Philadelphia near Temple University.
Two billboards saying “Be a Voter — Protect Democracy, Arizona” are already up in the Phoenix area, including a highly visible 12-foot-by-12-foot board in front of a Whole Foods store at the corner of University Drive and South Ash Avenue in Tempe, close to Arizona State University. An identical message can be found on a digital billboard on Loop 202, west of Scottsville. Mars de la Tour, who directs the FFRF Valley of the Sun chapter, helped choose the locations and arrange a group photo (pictured above).
“For us at the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Valley of the Sun Chapter, placing a ‘Be A Voter! Save Democracy, Arizona!’ billboard near Arizona State University is more than just a message — it’s a vital opportunity to reach the next generation of voters in one of the most pivotal swing states in the nation,” says de la Tour.
The final “Be a Voter” billboards will be going up by late September or early October in Ann Arbor, Mich., Charlotte, N.C., Las Vegas and Atlanta.
The “bonus” billboard in Florida can be found at Colonial Drive, west of Alafaya Trail, Orlando. Thanks to Central Florida Freethought Community co-founders David and Jocelyn Williamson (pictured below) for their help.
“We’re so grateful to Judy and the Sacramento chapter for their amazing initiative, and for the generosity of all of FFRF’s other chapters around the country, as well as for some nonchapter donors,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Our message to voters is: Vote like your rights depend on it — because they do.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with about 40,000 members across the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned Clarke County Public Schools parent has informed the national state/church watchdog that the school district is considering establishing a “Community Mentorship Program” with Fellowship Bible Church that would allow the church to proselytize to district students. On Aug. 19, the church presented its proposal to establish a mentorship program before the school board. During the presentation, Scott Santmeier, the church’s pastor of local outreach, reportedly claimed that the intent of the partnership is not to proselytize, but it is clear from the church’s website that this is not true. The church’s mentoring partnership website includes a list of “RESOURCES TO HELP YOU SHARE JESUS,” and explains that “[a] mentor from Fellowship Bible Church is an Ambassador of Christ in an increasingly difficult world.”
Clarke County Public Schools must reject this unconstitutional and inappropriate partnership with Fellowship Bible Church in order to respect the constitutional rights of students and avoid government entanglement with religion, FFRF is advising. While a mentorship program for students is a laudable district goal, it cannot partner with a church and give them access to convert or recruit its students.
“Public schools may not show favoritism toward or coerce belief or participation in religion,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writesto Clarke County Public Schools Board Chair Monica Singh-Smith. “By partnering with Fellowship Bible Church and providing its representatives special access to meet, talk to, and mentor students, the district risks displaying clear favoritism towards religion over nonreligion, Christianity over all other faiths, and a preference for Fellowship Bible Church over other churches.”
A partnership with Fellowship Bible Church would put Clarke County Public Schools in the dubious position of entangling itself with a church, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Clarke County Public Schools must respect that “the preservation and transmission of religious beliefs and worship is a responsibility and a choice committed to the private sphere,” to quote the U.S. Supreme Court. Parents, not public schools, have the right to determine their children’s religious or nonreligious upbringing. Likewise, the proposal would violate the Virginia Constitution, which explicitly bars citizens from being “compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever.”
And such a partnership would be a particular affront to the 49 percent of Generation Z members who are religiously unaffiliated, FFRF adds.
In order to protect the First Amendment rights of students, the Clarke County Public Schools Board must reject the proposal to establish a “Community Mentorship Program” with Fellowship Bible Church at its meeting on Monday, Sept. 23, FFRF reiterates in conclusion.
“A church cannot be allowed to propagate its sectarian doctrine in public school programs,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Students are young, impressionable and a captive audience. Their rights of conscience — and the right of parents to determine their children’s religious instruction — must be safeguarded.”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members across the country, including close to 1,000 members in Virginia. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Organization Description: Secular Connexion Séculière (SCS) is a national organization dedicated to advocating and lobbying for atheist rights in Canada, to facilitating communication and dialogue among Canadian atheists, and to communicating Canadian human rights values to the world. SCS does not have, nor does it seek, any governing powers in the Canadian atheist community. Rather, it seeks support for its efforts to defend non-believers right to freedom from religion, to lobby the Canadian government on the behalf of Canadian atheists, to provide communication conduits for Canadian atheist organizations.
November 17, 2024 – 12:30 pm
SCS President, Doug Thomas will represent the Secular Humanist perspective at the World Religions Conference in Hamilton, Ontario on November 17, 2024. The theme of the conference is World Peace and Religion. There will be opportunities for questions to all representatives.
This is an other opportunity for Secular Humanism to represent itself to the wider community, or as Thomas has said before, “an opportunity for a Secular Humanist to speak to people who are skeptical about skepticism.” Thomas will address the realities confronting World Peace and the effects of religions upon it, Join Doug and fellow non-believers in representing the Humanist perspective.
Details of the event are: Date: Sunday, November 17, 2024; Time: 12:30 PM to 4:30 PM Host: Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at Canada Theme: World Peace & Religion Admission: Free Venue: McMaster University, Peter George Center for Living and Learning, PG Hall, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8 Program Format: Moderator hosted w/live webcast streaming through MTA Canada Speakers representing: Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Indigenous, Sikihsm, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
The Secular Coalition for America (SCA), in collaboration with its 20 coalition partners, has penned a letter refuting several inaccuracies in Senator Josh Hawley’s essay, “The Christian Nationalism We Need.” Contrary to his claims, the Founding Fathers did not endorse a Christian nation, Christian nationalism poses a danger to our democracy, and a lack of belief in God is not the “crisis of our time.”
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Monday Afternoon, October 7, 2024
MRFF VICTORY!!!
MRFF STOPS DEMON-FEARING CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST COMMANDER FROM REPLACING UNIT HALLOWEEN PARTY WITH“NEW TESTAMENT HOLIDAY COSTUME PARTY”
“Then just the other day our Commander said some jacked up shit to our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) about how ‘Halloween is inspired by demons and the devil’ and that ‘celebrating Halloween is the devil’s work’ and that he ‘won’t support anything that supports Satan.’ Yes he actually said this shit. Not very surprised as he is big on pushing his Christian faith anywhere and everywhere within our unit. He also now sometimes wears a ‘Trump 2024’ hat lately around our unit premises. We know that’s so messed up too. Nobody says anything though because he’s the Commander. “Our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) was able to talk him out of totally canceling our Halloween party. But our Commander decided instead to ‘encourage the troops’ (meaning do what I say!) to come to a brand new event that he and his wife would put on at the same time our event was supposed to happen called a ‘New Testament Holiday Costume Party’. Where those unit personnel and the families attending dress up as their favorite New Testament characters. Are you f——ing kidding me? “I shit you not that is what he decided to do.” — E-mail from junior enlisted MRFF client on behalf of a group of 26 unit members
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Christian commander tries to replace unit Halloween party with “New Testament Holiday Costume Party” By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Monday, October 7, 2024
“I shit you not that is what he decided to do,” writes a junior enlisted service member to the MilitaryReligious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) in an e-mail about their fundamentalist Christian commander’s plan to keep his unit safe from demonic forces by replacing the unit’s Halloween party with a “New Testament Holiday Costume Party.” Yes, it’s that time of year again — that time when we have U.S. militarycommanders, some of whom have risen very high up in the ranks, who are terribly worried that spooky decorations and kids in costumes might summon the Prince of Darkness. And, so, these Lucifer-leery leaders try their damnedest to get their unit’s or base’s Halloween parties canceled or, as with this year’s “New Testament Holiday Costume Party,” replaced with good, wholesome, non-Satan-summoning Christian fun. Last year it was a commander and his wife hosting a Bible knowledge contest on Halloweenfor soldiers “who do not wish to honor Satan,” and before that a commander who tried to cancel his base’s Halloween party, claiming that Halloween is “disrespectful to Christian personnel” because it elevates “satan over Christ.” As the junior enlisted service member who sent the e-mail below explains, their commander not only aimed to have his ‘Who-would-Jesus-go-as?’ party as an option in addition to the unit’s Halloween party, he tried to de factocancel the unit’s Halloween party, which months of planning had gone into, by getting, as the junior enlisted service member explained:
“… our prior (superior military unit designation name withheld) approval to hold the unit Halloween event in our HQ multipurpose room revoked. And guess what? Now his ‘New Testament Holiday Costume Party’ gets to be there instead of our unit Halloween party.”
Well, unfortunately for any fundamentalist Christian unit members who might have wanted to get a zombie costume and go to the commander’s do as Lazarus raised from the dead, the “New Testament Holiday Costume Party” has been canceled and the unit Halloween party is back on, as our junior enlisted service member writes:
“Everyone was pissed as f— about this! We went to our base’s MRFF Reps right away who got us to Mikey Weinstein just as fast. Mikey encouraged us to hang in there while he reached out to our senior command chain on our behalf. “It took 2 days after Mikey and the MRFF intervened but the good news is that the Commander’s ‘New Testament’ party has just been scratched. And our unit’s Halloween Party is totally back on and is going to once again be held in our multipurpose room per the original plan we had already gotten approved!”
Here’s the whole e-mail from our junior enlisted service member, written on behalf of a group of 26 unit members:
From: (Active Duty Junior Enlisted Member’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: MRFF Saves Halloween From Being Replaced By Commander’s New Testament Costume PartyDate: October 3, 2024 at 2:52:07 PM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein Hello MRFF. I am an active duty service member (junior enlisted) writing on behalf of 26 other active duty service members (me included, both enlisted and officer ranks) in great thanks to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. For helping us stop our Commander from ruining Halloween for ourselves and our families. Seventeen of us, like me, are Christians by the way. Others are from other religions and some no religion. I was assigned this summer to our unit’s Halloween Party Steering Committee along with many others to help our unit’s morale. Our job was simple. Just to organize a nice traditional Halloween celebration for our unit and its families for Thursday 31 Oct 24 in the early afternoon and evening. We’ve all been working hard on this for several months now. We had filed all the appropriate paperwork to get our large multipurpose room in our unit’s HQ building as the Halloween Party venue. Took forever and was a real pain in the ass but we got it done. Lots of good eats, beverages, games etc. and typical Halloween fun and stuff for the families and especially the kids too. Then just the other day our Commander said some jacked up shit to our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) about how “Halloween is inspired by demons and the devil” and that “celebrating Halloween is the devil’s work” and that he “won’t support anything that supports Satan.” Yes he actually said this shit. Not very surprised as he is big on pushing his Christian faith anywhere and everywhere within our unit. He also now sometimes wears a “Trump 2024” hat lately around our unit premises. We know that’s so messed up too. Nobody says anything though because he’s the Commander. Our (senior enlisted title and rank withheld) was able to talk him out of totally canceling our Halloween party. But our Commander decided instead to “encourage the troops” (meaning do what I say!) to come to a brand new event that he and his wife would put on at the same time our event was supposed to happen called a “New Testament Holiday Costume Party”. Where those unit personnel and the families attending dress up as their favorite New Testament characters. Are you f——ing kidding me? I shit you not that is what he decided to do. He also got our prior (superior military unit designation name withheld) approval to hold the unit Halloween event in our HQ multipurpose room revoked. And guess what? Now his “New Testament Holiday Costume Party” gets to be there instead of our unit Halloween party. Everyone was pissed as f— about this! We went to our base’s MRFF Reps right away who got us to Mikey Weinstein just as fast. Mikey encouraged us to hang in there while he reached out to our senior command chain on our behalf. It took 2 days after Mikey and the MRFF intervened but the good news is that the Commander’s “New Testament” party has just been scratched. And our unit’s Halloween Party is totally back on and is going to once again be held in our multipurpose room per the original plan we had already gotten approved! No word at all yet from our Commander about any of this and we doubt he will say anything at all as he is obviously the Big Loser here. Even though it was bad before with him and us now pretty much everyone in the unit despises him for trying to cancel our Halloween event due to “the devil”. All 26 of us want to thank our base MRFF Reps (all 3 of them) 2 of whom are coming to our unit Halloween Party and especially Mikey Weinstein for jumping into this mess immediately for us all and getting it squared away for us. Now our military families and spouses and kids will have a real Halloween bash to be proud of! Please do not reveal any of our names to the public because we know our Commander and those in our chain who agree with him would try to tune us up good for going to the MRFF for help and for the MRFF getting us the Big W here. We so appreciate what the MRFF does for all of us in our country’s armed services because there is just no way we can do it ourselves without facing very bad consequences from our superiors. (Active Duty Junior Enlisted Member’s name, rank, MOS/AFSC, unit, and installation all withheld)
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Wednesday Afternoon, September 25, 2024
MRFF DEMAND LEADS TOP LEVEL ARMY IGTO OPEN INVESTIGATIVE INQUIRY INTO 3-STAR PENTAGON GENERAL’S DISTURBINGTIES TO NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION
As previously reported, on the weekend of August 29-31, 2024, U.S. Army Lt. General Brian Eifler, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, was photographed giving a presentation – in uniform – at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in D.C. During the Eiflers’ three years in Alaska, from 2021 until this past summer, Lt. General Eifler’s wife, Sherry, became a member of “Alaska’s War Council,” part of the extensive network of prophets, apostles, and kingdom warriors known as the New Apostolic Reformation — a politically influential Christian dominionist movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it. Two days ago, MRFF received an e-mail from a Senior Investigator with the Department of the Army Inspector General Agency – Investigations Division, informing us that his office has opened an “investigative inquiry” into Lt. General Eifler’s NAR activities. An Inspector General’s “investigative inquiry” is comparable to a grand jury in the civilian world looking at the evidence to determine if that evidence is damning enough to indict someone. If this investigative inquiry by the Army’s highest level IG office finds the requisite evidence (which MRFF intends to supply on a silver platter), a full-blown IG investigation would be the expected next step of the several actions that could be taken against Lt. General Eifler.
U.S. Army Lt. General Brian Eifler speaking in uniform at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held in Washington, D.C., from August 29-31, 2024
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Army IG opens investigative inquiry into 3-star general’s ties to the New Apostolic Reformation! By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Wednesday, September 25, 2024
A little less than two weeks ago, on Friday, September 13, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) sent a letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks demanding an immediate investigation of U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler, who, in August. delivered a presentation, in uniform, at a major New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) event. The event was NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in Washington, D.C., at which NAR prophets, apostles, and other assorted kingdom warriors from all 50 states come together to strategize about how they’re going to seize dominion over the world, which, for us here in America, means ending democracy as we know it. This is not hyperbole. The NAR is a dangerous, politically influential movement, whose annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held a stone’s throw from the Capitol Building, includes legislative briefings with like-minded members of Congress. No member of the United States military, let alone a 3-star Pentagon general, has any business being involved in any way with this subversive conglomerate of Christian dominionists, but there was Lt. General Eifler, whose wife Sherry is a member of the NAR’s “Alaska’s War Council,” delivering a presentation — again, in full uniform — at their major annual gathering (a presentation that, for some reason, involved a map of the Asia-Pacific region). Well, two days ago, MRFF received an e-mail from a Senior Investigator with the Department of the Army Inspector General Agency – Investigations Division, complete with his IG credentials signed by Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, informing us that his office has opened an “investigative inquiry” into Lt. General Eifler’s NAR activities. To borrow an analogy from MRFF’s fearless leader Mikey Weinstein, an Inspector General’s “investigative inquiry” is comparable to a grand jury in the civilian world looking at the evidence to determine if that evidence is damning enough to indict someone. If this investigative inquiry by the Army’s highest level IG office finds the requisite evidence (which MRFF intends to supply on a silver platter), a full-blown IG investigation would be the expected next step of the several actions that could be taken against Lt. General Eifler. The IG investigator has asked for MRFF’s participation in the investigative inquiry, to which the answer is “Hell yes!” Now, as often happens when MRFF exposes a bad actor in our military, we get contacted by people who, from personal experience, know things about that individual and their doings — things that we could not possibly find out on our own. And, that is exactly what has happened in this case. So, even with as much incriminating evidence and information about Lt. General Eifler and his “Alaska’s War Council” wife as was in my post from September 13 (which I am including in its entirety below for those who might have missed it), we’re gonna have a whole lot more for that IG investigative inquiry! So, stay tuned. I think this one is going to get very, very interesting.
Previous post from September 13 (Note: Some of the Facebook content linked to in this post was taken down shortly after the post was posted, but the links have been left in here as they appeared in the original post.) MRFF demands investigation of 3-Star Pentagon general’s disturbing ties to New Apostolic Reformation
On a September 4 Zoom call of “Alaska’s War Council,” Eleanor Roehl, co-founder of Kingdom Warriors Alaska, Kingdom Alliance Network and Alaskan Representative on Cindy Jacobs’s Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders, opened the call by welcoming her fellow “War Council” members:
“Good evening. Greetings to you from Anchorage, Alaska. We want to welcome of course the War Council on tonight. … And of course we have Sherry Eifler, living in Washington, D.C., who we just saw – her and of course her husband Brian in D.C. last weekend. … It is so great to have Sherry Eifler stationed in D.C. as a part of our War Council.”
And who is Sherry Eifler’s husband Brian, referred to so familiarly by Eleanor Roehl? Well, that would be U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler, who recently got his third star and a new position as Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, moving to D.C. after three years in Alaska as Commanding General, 11th Airborne Division. During the Eiflers’ three years in Alaska, Lt. General Eifler’s wife, Sherry Eifler, became a member of “Alaska’s War Council,” part of the extensive network of prophets and apostles and prayer warriors known as the New Apostolic Reformation. And what was the event in D.C. that Eleanor Roehl had just seen Sherry Eifler and her 3-star general husband Brian at? That would be the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held less than a month ago, from August 29-31, 2024. And it wasn’t as if Lt. General Eifler was just tagging along with his “Alaska’s War Council” wife and her New Apostolic Reformation pals to this NAR event. Oh no! This 3-star general was an active participant, giving a presentation (that, for some reason, involved a map of the Asia-Pacific region) to an audience that included Apostle Cindy Jacobs herself! And he even put on his 3-star Army general uniform for the occasion, as photos on the Indiana Canopy of Prayer’s Facebook page show.
H/T to NAR researcher Kira Resistance for spotting the above photos and NAR expert Frederick Clarkson, a Senior Research Analyst at Political Research Associates, for passing them on to MRFF.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), as anybody who follows us knows, routinely goes after military personnel, especially high-ranking officers, who blatantly violate the Department of Defense and service branch regulations that strictly prohibit the wearing of military uniforms while participating in religious events. There’s no question that Lt. General Eifler violated these regulations when giving his presentation at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s Reformation Prayer Network gathering in uniform. But this is infinitely more serious than that, given that the NAR isn’t just a religious movement but also a powerful, dangerous, and growing political movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it. Apostle Cindy Jacobs, whose big NAR gathering Lt. General Eifler just participated in, was one of the Trump-supporting prayer leaders outside the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, saying at the beginning of the video in the tweet below, as the breach of the Capitol was getting underway, “And we’re right in front of the Capitol and the lord had given me a vision and he showed me that they would break through and go all the way to the top.”
At the time of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Lt. General Eifler, then a 1-star general, was stationed at the Pentagon as the Army’s Chief Legislative Liaison. Don’t know much about the NAR? You’re not alone. But if you’re familiar with the now-iconic White House photo of people laying their hands on Trump, who they believe was anointed president by God, that’s as good as any place to start.
The blond woman next to Trump is Apostle Paula White (now Paula White-Cain since she married her third husband, Jonathan Cain of the band Journey), Trump’s spiritual advisor. And here is a must-watch video, preserved for posterity by PFAW’s Right Wing Watch, of Paula White on November 4, 2020, leading a prayer service to secure Trump’s reelection. (I have no idea what the guy nonchalantly walking back and forth behind her reading something is doing.)
Now, I probably know a bit more about the NAR than most people because of the kind of work I do, but I’m the first to admit that what I know barely scratches the surface of this seemingly endless web of prophets and apostles and networks and churches. Fortunately for us, there are people who have been closely following and reporting on the NAR for decades, among them Senior Research Analyst at Political Research Associates Frederick Clarkson and Rachel Tabachnick, a former associate fellow at Political Research Associates and now an independent researcher, writer, and speaker. So, before getting back to Lt. General Eifler, his “Alaska’s War Council” wife, and his participation in uniform at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in D.C. in August, let’s take a few minutes to turn to the experts and become better acquainted with this nefarious network. A November 17, 2020, Religion Dispatches article by Frederick Clarkson titled “Beneath the ‘Wacky’ Paula White Video is a Dark and Deeply Undemocratic World Propping Up the President” included the following quotes from Rachel Tabachnick, that do a good job of concisely conveying the growth and dominionist ambitions of the NAR (emphasis added):
“The apostolic and prophetic networks that now dominate organized Christian Zionism have transitioned from more passive narratives of events to take place in the afterlife toward narratives requiring dominion over the world in this life. The political implications of this transcend the role of the U.S. alone, and engages many “nationalisms” around the world, as millions are taught an increasingly politicized interpretation of the prerequisites required for the return of Jesus and the end of the natural world.”
and …
“White and many other prosperity doctrine evangelists have adopted the church governance models of the New Apostolic Reformation. White began 2012 with a sermon titled ‘Season of Apostolic Reformation,’ telling her congregation that they must align with this new order. ‘God is a theocracy, not a democracy,’ White stated, and warned congregants to ‘get in, get out, or get run over.’”
“The NAR doesn’t merit our considered attention because some of the leaders may sound nutty to those outside the movement, but because it’s driven by theocratic notions of total societal dominion, including the end of democracy as we’ve known it; and it deserves our attention because it’s developed the political capacities to make these ambitions a lot less of a pipe dream than they seemed even five years ago.”
For those who really want to learn all about the NAR, an excellent resource, already mentioned, is Frederick Clarkson’s “A Reporter’s Guide to the New Apostolic Reformation,” co-authored by Canadian scholar André Gagné, whose recent book American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times is featured in the Salon article “Meet the New Apostolic Reformation, cutting edge of the Christian right” by Paul Rosenberg. The NAR are Christian dominionists, meaning, for those unfamiliar with the term, they believe that fulfilling the “7 Mountains Mandate” — conquering the seven spheres of influence, or “mountains,” (family, religion, government, education, business, arts/entertainment, and media) — is a prerequisite for Jesus to return. On the “Alaska’s War Council” September 19, 2023, Zoom call, Lt. General Eifler’s wife shared a “vision” the lord had given her about the seven mountains:
“The lord gave me a concept that was so much bigger than I was able to fully describe so I began to draw it out and it started with mountains. And then the question I asked God was, ‘What is creative ministry?’ And I had a strong impression it was ministry that’s aligned with our unique identity in Christ lived out in our authority in Christ in the seven mountains of influence. And those seven mountains of influence, if you’re not familiar, are family – everybody’s in the family mountain, right? – religion – everyone’s in the religion mountain – government, because at least in the United States we all have a right to vote – business, education, entertainment, media arts. Those are our mountains. All of these mountains have been established by God for his people to be ministers in. Yes, ministers. Using our God-designed and purposed gifts in all of the mountains that we are in. He has placed us each uniquely in these mountains. Then I saw rivers and streams going down the mountains into the sea, followed by a flash of the throne room of God. The lord is releasing new kingdom creativity to align and partner with bringing his kingdom from heaven to earth. He is calling us to minister in the seven mountains of influence in a new way, remembering that his power, authority, creativity, and purpose flow from his throne room to us, his people. It flows to us and through us. So, in this release of this new creativity, he is calling his children to align with and stand in the authority of their kingdom identity, as royal sons and daughters of the king of kings and as the royal priesthood that he has called us to.”
Yes, visions. NAR people have visions, like this one that the founder of the Indiana Canopy of Prayer, the group that posted the photos of Lt. General Eifler at Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s event, had:
“As I was driving into Indianapolis on I-70E, I had an open vision. The Capitol building in Washington D.C. was picked up and set down in the middle of our capitol [sic] city, Indianapolis. The Lord spoke to me and said, ‘This isn’t a natural governing building, it is a spiritual governing building, but I wanted you to see the importance and the power that I was setting down.’ Next, I saw lines like ribbons going from the top of the building in all directions. They went up and then curved down in all different directions. They went up and then curved down to the ground in many locations. Where they landed, there were big golden stars. The Lord said, ‘These stars represent 24/7 Houses of Prayer that I will raise up.’ Then He said, ‘I want a CANOPY of Prayer over the State of Indiana.’”
Now, setting aside the danger of having visions while driving, the above is very typical of the kind of visions these people reportedly have. Then there are the “declarations” and “decrees,” which are defined in the very useful “A Glossary of New Apostolic Reformation Terms” as follows:
19. Decree & Declare – this is a fruit of word of faith (WoF) theology, the idea being that our words carry some form of inherent power, and are causative. So instead of obeying scripture – “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Phil 4:6) NARites believe they need to exercise their faith, speak to their mountain, and enforce their dominion in a given situation. They attempt to “speak life” into the dead, dispel hurricanes, quench fires, and restore finances with their decrees and declarations. This “little god” behavior fails every time, because only God can decree or declare. Another form of this is called “speaking into a situation.”
On the February 28, 2024, Zoom call of “Alaska’s War Council,” Sherry Eifler “released” this declaration:
“We declare the military will be God’s righteous warriors of the kingdom of God in partnership with the Lord’s angel army.”
Well, ain’t that special. The wife of a 3-star general — a 3-star general who gave a presentation at a major NAR event — “declaring” that the military will partner with the “Lord’s angel army.” Needless to say, this is extremely troubling, particularly since some NAR leaders teach that believers can command angels, “activating” or “releasing” them for a particular assignment. You might be thinking that this is Lt. General Eifler’s wife saying these things and not Eifler himself, but don’t forget that he himself was at Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s big NAR event in August giving a presentation. Even if Lt. General Eifler isn’t as deeply immersed in NAR theology as his wife clearly is — and we have no way of knowing whether he is or not since, like many high-ranking military officers that MRFF has encountered, he plays it safe by confining his social media presence to military-related posts. He does describe himself on Twitter as “Man of Faith, Servant Leader, Sheep Dog,” and a few of his tweets promote evangelical speakers coming to his base, like Victor Marx, whose website says he “explains what manhood and Christianity should look like in our day,” and whose latest book’s foreword is written by Charlie Kirk, who has called the separation of church and state a “fabrication” and whose Turning Point USA organization bused Trump-supporters to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6.
Whether or not Lt. General Eifler believes everything his wife believes, the fact remains that he appeared at and gave a presentation in uniform at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, indicating that he supports and condones the objectives of this movement – a movement that seeks to destroy democracy as we know it. That really doesn’t “align,” to use a word from Sherry Eifler’s seven mountains vision, with the oath taken by Lt. General Eifler to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, now does it? And this is why MRFF is demanding an investigation of Lt. General Eifler, as you can read in MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s letter to United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks. To wrap things up, I leave you with a few words from Lt. General Eifler’s friends and wife.
A pair of recent e-mails from two of the many, many Christians who support MRFF
“Thank you! From a Christian & Conservative” From: (Active Duty U.S. Army Soldier/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Thank you! From a Christian & ConservativeDate: September 24, 2024 at 6:28:49 PM EDTTo: “mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org“ Dear Mikey & MRFF Staff, I can’t begin to express to y’all how appreciative I am to finally have someone to believe in! You immediately understood how difficult it is to come forward. Especially as an Active Duty Soldier. When you first join, you believe in the system. You make an oath to the Constitution, but when you see senior military leaders abuse their positions of authority and be so unashamed about it, it can make you feel powerless. For your team to immediately reach back out to me within just minutes felt so reassuring. A big thing to note, I’m a Conservative and I’m a Christian. But I realized quickly that what these senior people were doing was so wrong. Using an organization that Americans are supposed to believe in, that is supposed to take our sons and daughters and prepare them for war, but instead it is fostering a radical fundamentalist Christian ideology upon young, impressionable Soldiers? All I had to do is ask myself, how would I feel if a General was pushing a radical theology from a different faith? Would that be right? Would I want to stand up against that? I’m sure it would be on the news 24/7. I don’t think what these people are doing is even what Christ would want. I won’t dive into theology, but how can using the State and military chain of command to push your particular radical brand of your Christian faith be anything close to what Jesus did? I only wish I knew about Mikey and his MRFF team before, I feel like I could’ve made a difference earlier. There’s a reason why there’s a massive recruiting and retention problem in the military right now. Best of luck on your current cases. Thanks again, y’all standing up for us means a lot to me and my family. (Active Duty U.S. Army Soldier/MRFF Client’s name, rank, MOS, military unit, and installation all withheld)Click to read in Inbox“Speaking truth to power” From: (U.S. Navy Christian Chaplain’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Speaking truth to power.Date: September 20, 2024 at 7:07:22 PM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Good evening I’m a christian navy chaplain on active duty orders and have just read the notes on former president Trump toward my Jewish friends. If any of us in uniform said anything of the sort that our former president said we would be relieved from duty. I am so grateful that MRFF is speaking up especially when we are forced to endure an unjust freedom of speech in uniform. Please continue the work that you are doing, speaking truth to power. You speak when we can’t. And indeed you are needed. Please and thank you. V/R, (name, rank, and title of U.S. Navy Christian Chaplain withheld)
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Evening, September 19, 2024
SR. DEPT. OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN & MRFF CLIENT EXPRESSES GRATITUDE TO MRFF FORDEFENDING RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS IN OUR U.S. MILITARY AGAINST ALL ODDS
“Thank you so much for your willingness to defend for the military, the freedoms that all American citizens enjoy under the First Amendment. Our strength, our readiness and our ability to fight and win our Nation’s wars depends on it!” — Excerpt from Sr. DoD Civilian/MRFF Client’s Letter
Appreciation Letter Sent to MRFF from Senior Department of Defense Civilian with Over 35 Years of Service
From: (Senior DoD Civilian/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Appreciation Letter From Senior DoD CivilianDate: September 19, 2024 at 8:14:45 AM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org Dear Mikey and staff of the MRFF, I wanted to send a note of appreciation for all you do, everyday and sometimes against all odds fighting for service members, DoD civilians and their families to ensure they have the freedom to practice their religiousbeliefs (or not to practice religion at all) and to keep the wall of separation between church and state within the military standing strong. As a senior civilian in DoD with close to 35 years of service and having served across the breadth and depth of the Department, I’ve seen firsthand how much more culturally and religiously diverse our military has become in just one generation. But I also understand how divisive this has become and how that divisiveness undermines the very things that make us the greatest fighting force in the world – morale, good order and discipline, unit cohesion and readiness. I’ve followed and supported your organization for close to 15 years now and know there is no shortage of individuals and organizations that willingly, knowingly, flagrantly violate both DoD and individual service policies intended to prevent the privileging of one religion (almost exclusively fundamentalist Christian Nationalism) over another or undue influence from leaders, chaplains and fellow service members as it relates to religion. Sadly, the Department does not do enough to enforce them. As you well know, history is littered with examples of leaders, often in very senior positions who break the rules and get away with it.With all that’s at stake, if the military is unwilling to hold them accountable, someone must! So Mikey, I am so grateful to you and the foundation for filling that void and holding people accountable for doing the right thing. I also appreciate the swiftness and effectiveness with which you address issues as they arise. You continue to get up and do it every day even though I’m sure it feels at times as though your efforts are futile.You do it even in the face of persistent and often very serious threats made to you personally, the foundation and your family. In my many years of working for the military, I’ve served alongside Soldiers, Airmen, Seamen, and Marines who demonstrated passion for their work, fearless determination, and unwavering dedication to mission, and even though you no longer wear the uniform Mikey, you are among the best of them. I also want to thank you for the handful of times I have reached out to you to report problems in the places I’ve worked over the years. You’ve always addressed the situation immediately, keep the strictest of confidences and you’ve kept me informed of how the issues were being addressed every step of the way. Thank you so much for your willingness to defend for the military, the freedoms that all American citizens enjoy under the First Amendment.Our strength, our readiness and our ability to fight and win our Nation’s wars depends on it! (Senior DoD Civilian/MRFF Client’s name, rank, title, military branch and DoD office symbol all withheld)
As in the letter above,the outpouring of gratitude expressed to the Military Religious FreedomFoundation (MRFF) strengthens our resolve inaggressively fightingChristian Nationalism’s hatred and religious bigotry in our U.S. Military MRFF is also deeply grateful for the many positive sentiments we’ve received from our supporters, who continually help MRFF build the wall separating church and state in our U.S. Military.
Below is only a small sampling of the messages left by supporters on MRFF’s Help Build the Wall website: militaryreligiousfreedom.org/helpbuildthewall/ _____ “Support the MRFF! Keep our military secular and strong!”_____ “Thanks Mikey and MRFF for protecting religious freedom”_____ “American Heroes! The Courageous MRFF! Thanks, Army Veteran”_____ “Thanks Mikey for opposing the christian Taliban in America”_____ “Thank you MRFF! USAF Vet”_____ “Thanks, Mikey and MRFF for defending the constitution!”_____ “MRFF stops christian nationalist theocrats from destroying us all”_____ “No religious tests for military service thank you MRFF!!!”_____ “Keep up the important and outstanding work.”_____ “Thank you Mikey; Keep up the important work you are doing!!!”_____ “In Honor of Mikey and his family; Thanks for your work”_____ “Thank you MRFF! Defending those who defend citizen’s rights”_____ “The Last Bastion Of Freedom Of Belief M.R.F.F.”_____ “MRFF Protects The First Amendment In The United States Military”_____ “Mikey Weinstein YOU ROCK!!!”_____ “Keep up the important work. Thanks Mikey!!”_____ “Thank you for your dedication and focus.”_____ “Thank you Mikey and MRFF for defending the constitution”_____“Love you Mikey! Don’t ever stop.”_____ “MRFF = JUSTICE”_____ “The first amendment lives through you”_____ “Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Go MRFF!”_____ “Mr. Weinstein, build up this wall!”_____ “The world needs more men like Mikey Weinstein!”_____ “Mikey Weinstein a true American hero”
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and PhD from Harvard. Johnstone is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard; he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, teaching, and books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He was Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for the New York Times, the Guardian, and other publications. His twelfth book, published in 2021, is called Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.
Professor Steven Pinker: Well, the pushback is very recent, and there is a very strong feeling among American university students that you have to watch what you say, that you cannot speak your mind, and you never know when you might commit racism, that you might commit some political sin and be cancelled, what used to be called excommunicated. The universities have not done a good job of fostering an environment of free speech. There are often student orientations in which they are warned about how they can commit a microaggression if asked somewhere, “Where are you from?” That can be considered a form of subtle racism. If you say, “Oh, you speak very well,” that can be a form of racism. So, they are often terrified. I am not even talking about controversial political or scientific opinions. I am talking about ordinary interactions where they feel like they must walk on eggshells. This leads to the paradox that many American university students in their dorms are in adolescent heaven. Their peers surround them. They are constantly invited and given opportunities for socializing and recreation. They eat with each other, but they say they are lonely. How can this be?
We have reason to believe that in adolescents and young adults. There is an increased risk of anxiety and depression, given that social interaction is one of the most important elixirs for mental health. Why is this possible? I suspect that the fact that interactions are so policed and so guarded means that social opportunities for interaction, far from being opportunities to relax, kick back, and laugh together, are more sources of anxiety. Particularly when a lot of it is done on social media, where you have to worry about being mobbed in real-time, anything you say can be dug up decades later by offence archaeologists and used to cancel you retroactively. None of this even gets to the expression of opinions on political, social, or scientific issues.
Jacobsen: Right, I like that. I like that step back from touching on social dynamics.
Jacobsen: So that will not lead to conversation, whether it be social or intellectual. There will be some people who, in response, will say, “Good, they got their comeuppance for the things they have done.” I am sure you live and work in that world. What happens in those contexts?
Pinker: One quick note that one of the side effects is the epidemic of mental health problems, together with the cases in which that general attitude of censorship and cancellation leads to entire societies adopting the wrong policies or being in the dark as to major issues, such as the effects of, say, school closures and masking during COVID, where there appears to be tremendous harm on a generation of children losing out on a year or two of education based on what turns out to be a very trivial risk of their degree of harm. At a time when it was considered taboo to criticize policies of masking children during school closures and widespread shutdowns, bringing it up would lead to massive condemnation. If there had been a greater commitment to free speech and people not being punished for their opinions, realizing that these policies are harmful may have come sooner.
Jacobsen: People will probably consider this a largely academic phenomenon outside of the social media landscape. People from more ordinary backgrounds working blue-collar jobs and do not necessarily need higher education for their pursuits might think, “It is a humanistic thing that we should generally care about, but why should I, as a blue-collar person, necessarily care about this?”
Pinker: Well, partly because many blue-collar people are on social media, but also, what happens in academia does not stay in academia. About 10 or 15 years ago, people argued, “Who cares what kids get taught or what censorship regimes are implemented in academia? When students enter the real world, they will find they cannot escape this nonsense.” What we know happens is that the whole generation brought the regime of cancel culture into the workplace, so, publishing houses, newspapers, nonprofits, and artistic organizations are being torn apart by the regime of cancel culture, microaggressions, and constant accusations of racism because they have been exported from universities, including blue-collar people being fired from their jobs because of some accidental offence–precisely because the culture of the universities was then taken into the workplace and government and nonprofits.
Jacobsen: So, eventually, this does not only chill academic life; it also chills general culture.
Pinker: Yes, well, it is a chill in that the culture of academia is often brought into other institutions by the graduates of universities as they take positions of power. However, when it comes to societies making collective decisions based on an academic consensus, it can often be the wrong consensus if academia is churning out falsehoods because ideas cannot be criticized. I mentioned the effect of school closures and masking children. However, the other example is even the origin of SARS-CoV-2, where it was considered to be racist to suggest that the virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. We do not know that that is true, but it is not implausible; it might very well have happened.
If it is true, it would have a major implication that we have got to ramp up lab security drastically, perhaps not do gain-of-function studies of the kind that could have created this virus, on pain of suffering from another catastrophic pandemic if we do not learn the lesson. So, that is a case in which what academics decide can affect the world’s fate. Another example would be the effectiveness of policing. If there is reason to think that after the George Floyd demonstrations and the riots of 2020, the idea that police do not matter or that there is an epidemic of shooting by racist cops may have led to withdrawals of policing that then caused the violent crime, if that understanding of an epidemic of racist shootings had been put into context in the first place, they knew that there are not that many shootings of unarmed African-Americans by cops, that this was a false conclusion. Journalism has as much a role in this as academia, but journalism has also developed a regime of cancel culture, where heterodox opinions are often firing offences. If the nationwide consensus is distorted, society will adopt policies that worsen it. Finally, one other thing, and I will turn it back to you, is that even when the academic consensus is almost certainly correct, as in the case of, say, human-induced climate change, if scientists, government officials, and scientific societies have forfeited their credibility by ostentatiously punishing dissenters, leading to the impression that they are their cult, we could blow off their recommendation because if anyone disagreed, they would be cancelled. So it is another cult, it is another priesthood, it is another political faction. The scientific consensus loses credibility if it comes from a culture known for intolerance of dissent.
Jacobsen: We could probably iterate that across domains, whether it is the combat over creationism, or vaccines causing autism, and things of this nature.
Pinker: Yes, so if the scientific consensus tries to debunk it, then no one has enough scientific competence to review everything scientists say perfectly. Some of the acceptance of the findings of science has to be committed trust; these are people who know what they are doing. They have means of distinguishing true from false hypotheses. If something they believed were false, it would be self-correcting. If you undercut that assumption, then people will blow off what scientists say. Scientists themselves are surprisingly oblivious to this possibility. Many scientific societies churn out a woke boilerplate, branding themselves as being on the hard political left and cultural left, with no appreciation that this may alienate the people who are not on the left or in the center who do not care but perceive science as another faction.
Jacobsen: What areas are incursions of what is called something like woke ideology or wokeness into academic and empirical findings or before the empirical findings impact a lot of academic and professional life? So, at the highest level, where people are tenured professors, it is an ideological strain pushing against proper consideration of the evidence.
Pinker: It is worse in the humanities than in the social sciences, worse in the social sciences than in science and engineering. Although, those are generalizations. Probably worst of all, the branches of humanities and social science that are sometimes denigrated as grievance studies are often departments of women and gender studies or studies devoted to particular ethnic groups. Some of the social sciences are worse than others. For example, cultural anthropology is a lost cause. There has been such ideological capture. Most of my field, psychology, is not nearly that bad. Although, there are strains there. Sociology is divided; there is a branch of more quantitative sociology, verging into economics, that is pretty empirically oriented, but then there is another far more ideological part. Even the hard sciences, particularly the scientific societies, have plenty of wokeness, even though the actual lab scientists may be more neutral or empirically oriented. However, the societies themselves tend to be “woker” than their members.
Jacobsen: Why are societies more likely to be captured than individuals?
Pinker: Yes, it is a good question, partly because of the selection of who goes into societies and institutions. If your heart and soul want to do science, you will be in the lab, getting your hands dirty with data. If your motivation is more political, verbal, or ideological, you will try to become a magazine’s editor or a society’s spokesperson. There is a tendency for institutions to drift leftward. Robert Conquest, the historian, is sometimes credited with a law that states that any institution that is not constitutionally right-wing becomes left-wing. You can see the drift that has happened to many institutions recently. They have not become left-wing in the economic quasi-Marxist sense but “woke” in the sense of identitarian politics, seeing culture and history as a zero-sum struggle among racial and sexual groups. A kind of intolerant identitarian politics has captured several societies with well-defined intellectual goals. It has happened to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and Planned Parenthood.
So, selection is part of it. Another part may be the belief that the way to change the world is through the imposition of verbally articulated philosophies, as opposed to a bottom-up approach of experimentation, data gathering, entrepreneurship, trying things out, and seeing what happens. The top-down approach is much more likely to start with a predefined narrative and to try to impose that narrative. There may be something more pleasant to institutions in this approach.
To a more left-wing mindset. To elaborate on that a little bit, this comes from Thomas Sowell. Some systems achieve order spontaneously and in a distributed fashion, market economies being the most obvious example—the invisible hand. No planner decides how many size eight shoes to make or where to sell them. The millions of people making choices proliferate information in markets, and the system becomes intelligent, with no one articulating exactly why. The evolution of a language works that way; a culture with its norms and mores works that way. There is a kind of sympathy for these distributed systems that are more on the right, and historically, there are many exceptions. However, on the left, there is more of an articulation of foundational principles, which is a good theory. Therefore, you are more likely to try to change things by joining an institution that can pass resolutions and implement verbally articulated policies. Conversely, on the right, people will go into business, try to invent things, and hope the invention will take off as part of this more distributed, bottom-up approach.
Jacobsen: Do you think the general humanistic approach is akin to an evidence-based moral philosophy where you work bottom-up and then formulate the principles of your ethics from that, rather than top-down, as you might find in divine command theory?
Pinker: There is some affinity in that humanism starts from the flourishing and suffering of individuals. When that is your ultimate good, instead of implementing scriptures or carrying out some grand historical dialectic or privileging some salient polity or entity like a nation, or a tribe, then, if you are a humanist, you see the point of a society, a religion, and so on, is what will leave those people better off.
My pleasure, thanks for the time to talk to you, Scott.
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
HAMAS apologists like to refer to the NAKBA (Catastrophe in Arabic) of 1948 to justify their program of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Israel. This video sets the record straight. The first use of the word was to describe the failure of the Arab League to exterminate Jews from Israel in 1948 in Israel’s war of independence. The Islamists TOLD the Arabs living in Israel to leave and put them into a permanent status of refugees in that “open air prison” which is Gaza and the West Bank by refusing to resettle them in Arab countries. The plight of “Palestinians” is entirely the result of Islamists’ desire to blame that on Israel and use it to justify their ongoing project of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Jews in the Middle East and ultimately against everyone who refuses to submit to their particularly vicious version of Islam. What is happening in Islamist dominated enclaves in Europe, the UK, and even the US and Canada is part of that project, with oil revenue from Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar being used to fund Islamist education in Western madrassas and even Ivy League Universities. I have been banned from posting this video to Facebook. Please post it there if you can. I had no problem posting it to X.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
8 October, 2024
A new report by the Children’s Commissioner for England, Dame Rachel de Souza, has called on the Department for Education (DfE) to ‘make sure no child falls under the radar’ by introducing a central database of children not in school. Humanists UK welcomes this as a key step in closing one of the legal loopholes exploited by proprietors of illegal faith schools. These proprietors claim that children are being home-educated and attend their establishments for supplementary religious education. The lack of any register means these claims go uninvestigated.
The report, Children Missing Education: The Unrolled Report builds on previous investigations by the office of the Children’s Commissioner into attendance and home education, to provide the first in-depth analysis of the procedures local authorities follow to support children missing education. In Summer 2023, the Children’s Commissioner’s office issued a data request to all local authorities in England and identified that 11,576 children were recorded as listed as missing education between Spring 2021-22 and Spring 2022-23. Of this figure 2,868 were still recorded as missing education. The investigation also found that local authorities lacked consistent access to the information they needed to locate children missing education, did not have the powers to see school rolls or receive information in a timely manner, and had to rely on ‘goodwill and relationships with other services to try to find children when they go missing’.
These figures apply to children taken off school rolls. There are many children who never enter a school setting at all and are therefore never counted as ‘missing education’ because local authorities and the DfE never have a record of them existing at all.
Humanists UK has campaigned for the closure of the legal loopholes used by proprietors of illegal faith schools for over a decade. This includes the introduction of a children not in school register and giving Ofsted powersto investigate suspected settings. There are at least 6,000 children in England missing from mainstream education and who are trapped in unsafe illegal faith ‘schools’, being subject to a narrow, scriptural education in cramped, unsanitary conditions. It is hoped the loopholes exploited by proprietors of illegal schools, including a register of children not in school, will now be closed by the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing Bill. This was announced in the 2024 King’s Speech.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘We welcome the Children Commissioner’s call for a register of children missing education. This latest report is a comprehensive investigation into the growing issue of children missing education, the limited powers available to local authorities, and the need for them to be given greater powers to tackle it.
‘We’ll be writing to the Children’s Commissioner in light of this report to share our work in this area, and we look forward to working with her office as well as Government ministers and officials to develop the proposals set out in the Children’s Wellbeing Bill.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
8 October, 2024
On Wednesday 23 October, there will be a Members’ Business debate and vote in the Senedd, the Welsh Parliament, on assisted dying for the terminally ill and incurably suffering – the first debate of its kind in a decade. Humanists UK welcomes the debate and calls for Members of the Senedd (MS) to vote in favour.
The motion has been put forward by Labour MS and Wales Humanists patron Julie Morgan, with three co-submitters from Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, and an additional five supporters. The motion calls for ‘adults of sound mind who are intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition and have a clear and settled wish to die should have the option of an assisted death, subject to robust safeguards.’
The Senedd does not have the power to change the law on assisted dying, as it is currently a matter governed by criminal law which is not devolved. However, if assisted dying were in some circumstances taken out of criminal law and made a health matter, then responsibility would transfer to the Senedd, Welsh Government, and NHS Wales. As such, it is essential that the Senedd has a say in any assisted dying law coming from Westminster. The Welsh Government needs an in-depth understanding of any proposals. Support for assisted dying in the Senedd would put pressure on Westminster to enact a change in the law across the UK.
This is a crucial opportunity for the assisted dying campaign. We strongly encourage you to get in touch with your Members of the Senedd and urge them to attend and speak in the debate, and vote for assisted dying.
We will also be hosting a rally outside the Senedd at midday on Wednesday 23 October. Please join and show your support for compassion and dignity.
‘This is a welcome opportunity for the people of Wales to express their support for freedom of choice and human dignity. We are hopeful that a debate in the Senedd will provide a further voice for the growing public support for assisted dying across the UK, and will spur a compassionate change in the law from Westminster.
‘People who are suffering deserve compassion, dignity, and choice. So far, assisted dying proposals in England and Wales have been limited to people who have six months or fewer left to live but this isn’t compassionate enough. Some adults who are suffering from conditions like multiple sclerosis aren’t terminally ill and wouldn’t be eligible. We are glad this motion in the Senedd also includes people who are intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Assisted Dying Campaigner Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456 200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Cymraeg:
Dydd Mercher, 23 Hydref, cynhelir dadl a phleidlais Busnes Aelodau yn y Senedd Cymreig, ar gymorth i farw ar gyfer pobl sydd naill ai yn derfynol wael neu mewn cyflwr annioddefol anwelladwy, y ddadl gyntaf o’i bath mewn degawd. Mae Dyneiddwyr y DU yn croesawu’r ddadl ac yn galw ar Aelodau’r Senedd (ASau) i bleidleisio o blaid.
Mae’r mesur wedi ei gyflwyno gan AS Llafur a noddwr Dyneiddwyr Cymru Julie Morgan, gyda thri cyd-gyflwynydd o Blaid Cymru a’r Ceidwadwyr a phump o gefnogwyr ychwanegol. Mae’r mesur yn galw am ‘y dewis i oedolion yn eu hiawn bwyll sy’n dioddef yn annioddefol o gyflwr corfforol anwelladwy ac sy’n meddu ar ddymuniad clir a sefydlog i dderbyn cymorth i farw, yn amodol ar ddiogelwch cadarn.’
Dydy’r Senedd ddim yn meddu ar yr hawl i newid y gyfraith ar gymorth i farw, oherwydd ei fod ar hyn o bryd yn fater sydd dan gyfraith trosedd ac sydd heb ei ddatganoli. Fodd bynnag, petai cymorth i farw dan rai amgylchiadau yn cael ei dynnu allan o gyfraith trosedd a’i wneud yn fater iechyd, yna byddai cyfrifoldeb yn cael ei drosglwyddo i’r Senedd, Llywodraeth Cymru, a GIG Cymru. Felly, mae’n angenrheidiol fod y Senedd yn meddu ar hawl i ddweud eu barn ar unrhyw gyfraith cymorth i farw yn deillio o San Steffan. Mae angen i Lywodraeth Cymru gael dealltwriaeth fanwl o unrhyw gynigion. Byddai cefnogaeth i gymorth i farw yn y Senedd yn rhoi pwysau ar San Steffan i newid
y gyfraith ar draws y DU.
Ysgrifennwch at eich AS
Mae hwn yn gyfle hollbwysig i’r ymgyrch dros gymorth i farw. Rydym yn eich annog yn daer i gysylltu gyda’ch Aelodau Senedd Cymru a’u darbwyllo i fynychu a siarad yn y ddadl ac i bleidleisio dros gymorth i farw.
Dywedodd Kathy Riddick, Cydlynydd Dyneiddwyr Cymru: ‘Mae hwn yn gyfle I’w groesawu ar gyfer pobl Cymru i ddatgan eu cefnogaeth dros ryddid i ddewis ac urddas dynol. Rydym yn obeithiol gall dadl yn y Senedd ddarparu llais ychwanegol i’r gefnogaeth gyhoeddus cynyddol ar draws y DU dros gymorth i farw, ac yn ysgogi newid tosturiol yn y gyfraith o San Steffan.
‘Mae bobl sy’n dioddef yn haeddu tosturi, urddas a dewis. Hyd yn hyn, cyfyngwyd cynigion ar gymorth i farw yn Lloegr a Chymru i bobl sydd â chwe mis neu lai i fyw ond dydy hyn ddim yn ddigon tosturiol. Mae rhai oedolion sy’n dioddef o gyflyrau fel sglerosis ymledol ond ddim yn derfynol wael ddim yn gymwys. Rydym yn hapus fod y mesur hwn yn y Senedd yn cynnwys bobl sy’n dioddef yn annioddefol o gyflwr corfforol anwelladwy.’
Nodiadau: Am fwy o sylwadaeth neu wybodaeth, dylai’r cyfryngau gysylltu gydag Ymgyrchydd Cymorth i Farw Humanists UK ar nathan@humanists.uk neu ffonio ar 07456 200033 Os ydych wedi’ch effeithio gan y ddeddfwriaeth bresennol ar gymorth I farw, ac am ddefnyddio’ch stori i gefnogi newid yn y gyfraith, anfonwch e-bost at campaigns@humanists.uk.
Darllener six reasons we need an assisted dying law. Darllener mwy am our analysis of the assisted dying inquiry. Darllener mwy am ein gwaith gyfreithloni cymorth i farw yn y DU.
Humanists UK yw’r elusen genedlaethol yn gweithio ar ran bobl ddigrefydd. Gyda dros 120,000 o aelodau a chefnogwyr, rydym yn hyrwyddo rhydd-feddwl a hybu dyneiddiaeth er mwyn creu cymdeithas oddefgar lle mae meddwl rhesymegol a charedigrwydd yn goroesi. Rydym yn darparu defodau, gofal bugeiliol, addysg, a gwasanaethau cefnogol sy’n elwa dros filiwn o bobl yn flynyddol ac mae ein hymgyrchoedd yn hybu meddwl dyneiddiol ar faterion moesegol, hawliau dynol, a thriniaeth cyfartal i bawb.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
3 October, 2024
Humanists UK today welcomes the introduction of a private member’s bill on assisted dying by Kim Leadbeater MP, calling it a historic once in a generation opportunity for choice and dignity.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of Humanists UK, said:
‘Today marks the historic first step in a journey that should lead to one of the most consequential and compassionate reforms in our history, finally giving thousands of suffering people the choice and dignity they desire and deserve.
‘Parliamentarians will have in front of them vital questions about eligibility, process, and safeguards, that it will be the duty of all of society to help them address.
‘Drawing on our own decades of policy and research in this field, and on the best of the international experience of the 31 legal jurisdictions in the world that are ahead of us, we at Humanists UK look forward to supporting Kim and all legislators with this once-in-a-generation legislation.
‘Parliament owes it to the many courageous, suffering people who have fought for this change to make sure they consider as broad a range of options for the new law as possible.
‘Any assisted dying law needs to work for all the people who need it. Half of the Britons who have travelled to Switzerland for an assisted death would not have been helped by a law that is restricted to people with six months or fewer left to live.
‘Retaining such restriction, which has been a feature of previous Bills, would be a major error.’
Announcing her Bill, Kim Leadbeater MP said:
‘I know that life is precious. But no two people’s lives are the same. What is in the best interests of one person may not be right for another. I believe that we should all have the right to a good life and, where possible, a good death. Which is why this Bill is about individual choice and autonomy, something everyone one of us deserves.
‘Parliament should now be able to consider a change in the law that would offer reassurance and relief – and most importantly, dignity and choice – to people in the last months of their lives.
‘Having heard the testimonies of people who have lived through the reality of the current situation, I know what it would mean for so many to have the choice of what their final days look like. But in order to give people that choice, MPs themselves must now decide. It is a heavy responsibility and I feel that myself. But to do nothing would be a decision in itself. One that would leave too many people as they come to the end of their life continuing to suffer in often unbearable pain and fear of what is to come, denied the choice they deserve.’
Further information
Kim Leadbeater’s bill is expected to be formally introduced in the Commons on October 16 with the first full debate likely to take place later this year.
Humanists UK campaigns for the law to cover mentally competent adults who are terminally ill and also those who are suffering intolerably from incurable conditions which may not be terminal. Humanists UK also campaigns for strong safeguards to prevent abuse of any new law and make sure that only those with a genuine and settled determination for assistance are eligible.
Conditions that are incurable but may not be terminal and may lead someone to want an assisted death include those with multiple sclerosis, locked-in syndrome and Parkinson’s. Further, some terminal conditions see people suffering so much that they need an assisted death before they have six months or fewer to live, such as motor neurone disease, Huntingdon’s, and progressive supranuclear palsy. In some cases, people may lose mental capacity if forced to wait until they have six months or fewer to live before they can have an assisted death.
The Assisted Dying Bill will apply to England and Wales only. A private member’s bill in Scotland by Liam McArthur MSP has been introduced in the Scottish Parliament.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033. If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
1 October, 2024
Mary Lou is a humanist school speaker based in Northern Ireland. We caught up with her to find out more about how school speakers are making a positive impact on young people’s lives by enhancing their understanding of humanism as a lived, non-religious approach to life.
Hi Mary Lou! What motivated you to become a humanist school speaker?
My own experience of school in Northern Ireland was exclusively within one religion, and I really don’t recall any suggestion that any alternative beliefs should be considered. When I returned to Northern Ireland in the early 2000s, it seemed that the system had not changed. I became a humanist school speaker because I saw an opportunity to describe a way of life – humanism – in a way that could be helpful to young people. I’ve previously worked with young people from religious backgrounds who have had difficulties with their families, so it felt more important than ever.
What was training like? How did it prepare you?
I enjoy all of the training that I do with Humanist UK. It connects me to fellow humanists, and allows for an exchange of ideas and philosophy. It was practical; full of good examples of things that may occur in the classroom or assembly hall. It is always helpful in interactions with people – whether they are adults or children – to learn from other people’s experiences. I’ve still been asked a few questions I didn’t expect, but nonetheless, the training really helped a lot. Also, sometimes you have to say to a child ‘I don’t know the answer to that’, and I think the training gives you the confidence to do that, too. It certainly supported me. I did the training on my birthday – can’t think of a better way to celebrate!
What was your first school visit like?
As with most of my visits, it was to an ‘integrated’ primary school. It is a bit unsettling to be in front of maybe 100 children in the assembly hall. The children were very engaging, and I liked how they asked questions, and wanted to know things about humanism even though they were young.
There are always – even at integrated schools – children who come from probably quite fundamentalist Christian backgrounds. These children would say things like ‘god decided’ or ‘the Bible says’. So I learned very early on to say that everyone’s beliefs are important to them, and we’re all different. I came away wishing I’d done some things differently, such as trying to draw a Happy Human symbol [Editor’s note: You can download those resources for your classroom here]. which was interpreted by one child as an angel. You can’t argue with a 5-year-old who sees something like that. I also took away from that a great appreciation of integrated education, and a real sense of enjoyment in the company of children.
Do you think it’s particularly important for Northern Ireland to have humanist school speakers?
I think it is imperative that the service is provided to schools in Northern Ireland. We can be a somewhat insular people, and I believe that for young people to have exposure to ideas and thoughts and different ways of being is very important. We have a long history in some parts of our communities of bigotry. It’s therefore important to spread tolerance as far as possible. It is somewhat depressing that so few visits here are by humanist speakers. I hope that we can persuade teachers that this is a way for children to consider a broad range of beliefs. I would encourage other humanists to speak in schools. It is so satisfying to present an alternative to young people. Teachers love to have you and the students are a delight. You arrive home with a smile on your face – best way to start the day!
What resonates with you most about the humanist approach to life?
It is respectful of each human being and encourages self-reflection and the development of one‘s own approach to living. I have always held a strong belief in connection and that it underpins all human life, so I strongly appreciate the campaigning work of Humanists UK. All humans are important regardless of whether we can see them right in front of us or not, humanity depends on caring for one another. There’s also a joy in humanism which is appropriate given the odds against any of us being here at all.
Want to make a difference in your local schools? Become a humanist school speaker! Find our more here and join our introductory session on Tuesday 15 October 15. Sign up today.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
30 September, 2024
Discussions about assisted dying laws are full of jargon and technical phrases. Let’s try to explain two of them – perhaps the most important pair.
Generally speaking, assisted dying laws determine eligibility for patients based on either terminal illness or incurable suffering. And there are different definitions of these terms within different laws.
At Humanists UK, we believe that an adult of sound mind who is intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition and has a clear and settled wish to die should have the option of an assisted death. That is true whether someone is terminally ill or incurably suffering. Being able to die, with dignity, in a manner of our choosing should be understood as a fundamental human right.
Terminal illness
The meaning of ‘terminal illness’ varies between assisted dying bills/laws across the UK, USA, New Zealand, and Australia.
In the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill [HL], which has been proposed in the House of Lords, terminal illness refers to diagnosed conditions which will inevitably worsen but cannot be reversed by treatment. Assisted dying is only available for when such conditions are expected to cause the death of the patient within six months. This does not include any disabilities or mental illnesses. Even if treatment can relieve some symptoms of the condition, if it cannot cure the condition, then it is still considered terminal.
Scotland’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill uses ‘terminally ill’ slightly differently. According to this bill, an eligible patient must ‘have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.’ The Scottish approach is more compassionate for people suffering from conditions like Parkinson’s, Huntington’s and motor neurone disease because a doctor may not be sure that the person has less than six months left to live. In other cases, by the time a person does have six months left to live, that person may have lost mental capacity, or they may have suffered for months or even years beyond what they would wish.
There are different approaches to ‘terminal illness’ in other jurisdictions, for example, some require the condition to be expected to cause the patient’s death within twelve months rather than six. The crucial point is that a terminal illness is always an incurable condition that is expected to cause the patient’s death.
Incurable suffering
In many countries people are eligible for assisted dying if they are deemed to have intolerable and incurable suffering.
The Belgian Act defines incurable suffering as a ‘medically hopeless state of persistent and unbearable physical or psychological suffering which cannot be alleviated and which is the result of a serious and incurable condition’.
Canada’s Bill C-7 defines this as ‘grievous and irremediable’ diagnosed conditions.
The language we use is ‘intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition’.
Definitions vary but generally, incurable suffering refers to those patients with physical conditions that cause them constant unbearable mental or physical suffering and lack any likely chance of improvement. This includes conditions like locked-in syndrome and multiple sclerosis.
Humanists UK’s stance
We wholeheartedly support assisted dying for the terminally ill. We also support it for those who are incurably suffering because they have the most suffering ahead of them and therefore are some of those who most desperately need a change in the law.
We also support assisted dying for the incurably suffering. The legal battles of Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lambwere the most important in UK assisted dying law, yet neither Tony nor Paul would be eligible for an assisted death under the legislation that just focuses on the terminally ill. This is because their suffering, while unbearable, was not terminal.
Tony Nicklinson suffered from locked-in syndrome which meant he was paralysed below the neck and could not speak; he described his life as a ‘living nightmare’. Paul Lamb was in a car accident that left him paralysed below the neck and in chronic pain. Tony took his right-to-die case to the High Court, but died shortly after he lost. Paul continued Tony’s legacy of activism and, along with Tony’s wife Jane, took their case to the Court of Appeal and eventually the Supreme Court. They lost their legal battles because the courts determined it to be an issue for Parliament.
It is time for politicians to act. A compassionate change in the law should not discriminate against people like Tony Nicklinson and Paul Lamb, it should rectify the injustice they faced and grant the incurably suffering autonomy and dignity in their deaths.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Assisted Dying Campaigner Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456 200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
27 September, 2024
Pictured: Faith Minister Lord Khan speaking at Humanists UK’s World Humanist Day celebration, US Embassy, London.
Humanists UK welcomes the Government’s recent clarification that the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for British Muslims’ proposed definition of Islamophobia is ‘not in line’ with the Equality Act 2010. This important statement was made by Faith Minister Lord Khan in a letter to the Network of Sikh Organisations (NSO).
Humanists UK had previously expressed concern about the definition for its failure to distinguish between prejudice against people and legitimate criticism of beliefs. The Government’s statement, confirming that the definition ‘is not in line with the Equality Act 2010, which defines race in terms of colour, nationality, and national or ethnic origins’ addresses a key issue Humanists UK has highlighted. The letter also emphasises the importance of free speech, asserting that the Government’s approach to combating religious hatred ‘would never inhibit the lawful right to freedom of expression’, including the freedom to discuss and critique religion.
The definition proposed by the APPG for British Muslims states that ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.’ However, Humanists UK believes that this definition (and in particular the tests proposed alongside it) requires improvement because it does not sufficiently differentiate between (i) prejudice and discriminatory actions against people who identify or are identified as Muslim, and (ii) criticism of the beliefs, ideas, and practices that might fall under the umbrella of Islam. It poses a risk to legitimate freedom of speech and thought and of religion or belief and it also threatens to give inadvertent succour to extreme Islamic groups abroad, including some Islamic states at the UN who use accusations of Islamophobia to silence criticisms of the human rights abuses they perpetrate.
It also fails to consider the impact upon former Muslims, for whom being able to question, criticise, and openly oppose Quranic teachings and expressions of Muslimness can be an important aspect of their identity, help them to come to terms with religious abuse they may have experienced, and is a legitimate expression of their new religion or belief. Humanists UK provides a dedicated helpline for people who have experienced violence, shunning, or ostracism for questioning or leaving a religion.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
‘We are concerned that the proposed definition of Islamophobia fails to protect individuals from discrimination while also safeguarding the right to critique harmful beliefs and practices. We are pleased that the Government has recognised this and opted for an approach more consistent with the principles of free speech and equality.’
Prejudice against Muslims in the UK is widespread and must be addressed. Humanists UK has worked to tackle such prejudice by supporting the introduction of the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 and the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006; by conducting extensive dialogue work with Muslim groups; and by speaking out repeatedly against atrocities experienced by Muslims on grounds of their identity around the world, including in relation to the recent riots.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
24 September, 2024
Humanists UK and Labour Humanists hosted a packed-out fringe event at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool on Monday night, with the reception room overflowing with delegates wanting to hear from Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson and a panel of humanist MPs and peers.
The tone of the evening was upbeat but uncomplacent – encouraging delegates at the party conference to get involved as members, volunteers, and campaigners, or by writing to their local MP, as a number of opportunities in the King’s Speech and elsewhere had given MPs renewed confidence that a number of longstanding humanist reforms could be addressed in the current parliamentary term.
Rachel Hopkins MP, chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG), spoke first. She came over buoyant and optimistic, citing the many possible opportunities in the new Parliament to affect positive social and legal change, and the swelling numbers of the APPHG following an election which returned a historic number of non-religious MPs (40%). She told delegates that she would continue to champion urgent action onhumanist marriage in England and Wales, given Labour’s repeated promises in Opposition to grant legal recognition if elected, the court case pointing to a human rights breach here, and a lack of practical or financial barriers to doing so.
Next to speak was Lord Alf Dubs, who chose to focus his remarks on the importance of an upcoming Private Member’s Bill on assisted dying, which the Prime Minister has promised to give enough time to potentially pass through both Houses of Parliament. ‘Although we have a large number of MPs,’ he said, ‘it doesn’t mean they all agree with us. The opposition is vocal, and it’s up to us to make sure the truth is heard.’
Immigration Minister Angela EagleMP then spoke about the ongoing work of humanists inside and outside of Parliament in relation to a number of campaigns, and the historic opportunity now before parliamentarians to realise several long-standing humanist ambitions. Praising Humanists UK’s policy team for their diligent campaigning and high-quality briefings, she finished by saying ‘It’s important for humanists to continue asserting that we can contribute to society without a belief in a higher power. We respect religious people, even if we don’t share their beliefs. More power to your elbow!’
Ruth Cadbury MP, who identifies as a Quaker and a humanist, also emphasised the importance of rallying around the upcoming Private Member’s Bill. She also touched on the possibilities offered by the newly founded House of Commons Modernisation Committee, which will look at archaic practices in the Commons. She pointed out how the outdated practice of using attendance at Anglican parliamentary prayers to reserve limited seats in the House of Commons was seen as an increasingly big problem, given Labour’s large new intake of non-religious MPs who naturally want to take part in debates, only to find they cannot claim a seat and therefore cannot be called to speak.
Closing the panel was Wales Office Minister Dame Nia Griffith MP,who gave a rousing speech on the various prospects in the next few years to achieve humanist campaign aims, including possibly removing bishops from the House of Lordsvia Labour’s promised consultation on wide-reaching Lords reform. She said the Government was also committed to curriculum reform and to a full and enforceable ban on harmful anti-LGBT conversion practices. She closed her remarks by saying that, after years of intensifying divisive rhetoric in politics and society, humanists had a special role in conducting themselves respectfully and bringing the country together: ‘Our message of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion is so important.’
Across the conference, Humanists UK spoke to dozens of MPs as well as peers, councillors, Assembly Members, Members of the Senedd, and Members of the Scottish Parliament, receiving enthusiastic support from across the party on its two key issues at this year’s conference – humanist marriage and the right to die for the incurably suffering.
Labour Humanists, the party-political humanist group within Labour affiliated to Humanists UK, co-hosted Monday night’s reception and received a surge in new supporters, eager to take up the challenge of promoting humanism within the new party of government.
Humanists UK attends all the major party conferences to meet with parliamentarians, to advocate for humanist issues, and to engage with our party-political members and supporters. We were also at the Lib Dem and Green conferences and will be at the Conservative Conference.
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
19 September, 2024
Pictured: Pragna Patel [top left], Zara Kay [top right], Dr Kristin Aune [middle right], bottom row left to right: Alexander Barnes-Ross, Yehudis Fletcher, Rachael Reign, Dr James Murphy
Leading experts in the impact of religious abuse and religious trauma will convene in October for a specially organised conference from Humanists UK – the Faith to Faithless Apostasy Conference 2024: The Systemic Nature of Religious Abuse.
The conference offers a unique opportunity to learn about the mechanisms of religious abuse and its lasting impact. The assembled experts will specifically look at the trauma suffered by so-called ‘apostates’ – people who leave high-control religious communities – which can result from abusive behaviours which range from shunning, domestic violence, and coercive control through to so-called ‘honour-based’ violence, which can include sexual violence and attempted murder.
The event has been organised by the expert team behind Faith to Faithless, Humanists UK’s specialist service supporting ex-religious people coping with religious trauma and loss of community. This year’s event will be live-streamed on Wednesday 9 October from 10:00 to 16:00.
‘The high prevalence and varied forms of religious abuse in the UK today, not just sexual abuse, is not widely known or appreciated. It is weekly that we hear from survivors of domestic abuse for example, who are told by religious leaders that the solution for their suffering is that they need to be ‘more submissive’ or ‘better wives’. Former members who speak out have too often been ignored or labelled as ‘bitter’ in the past.’
‘And it isn’t just within the small ‘cult-like’ religions, we are seeing various forms of abuse and cover-up, we often see this within more established faith groups too. Therefore, I’m excited that at last we have so many experts speaking out, not just about the abuse itself, but also the systemic nature of the abuse and how sadly some UK state structures can sometimes cover-up, or even promote it.
Terri O’Sullivan – Humanists UK’s Apostate Services Development Officer
Conference overview
Renowned feminist activist and founder of Southall Black Sisters Pragna Patel will deliver the conference’s keynote address, bringing her extensive knowledge of issues of justice, equality, women’s rights, and religious fundamentalism, and her particular expertise on these issues in a South Asian context. Her insights are expected to shed light on the pervasive and often hidden forms of religious abuse in the UK.
Other speakers include former Scientologist Alexander Barnes-Ross, Nahamu founder Yehudis Fletcher, researcher Dr Kristin Aune from the Centre for Peace and Security at Coventry University, researcher Dr James Murphy from the Open University, Rachel Reign from Survivors Universal UK, which advocates for leavers of the ‘cult-like’ Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG), and Zara Kay founder of Faithless Hijabi which provides mental health support for ex-Muslims around the world.
Expert research and first-hand testimony
The conference will explore how some religious systems not only create environments conducive to abuse but also promote it, using religious doctrines and leadership to shield these practices from accountability. Abuse – sometimes framed as morally right in certain religious contexts – is often normalised and covered up in ways that harm individuals and communities.
The event will be divided into two subthemes:
Religions and rape culture – This theme will focus on how some religious doctrines and leadership create and promote ‘rape culture’ and the far-reaching impacts this may have on those who leave those religions.
Failures of the state – This second theme will investigate how UK state policies may obscure or even facilitate various forms of religious abuse in ways that push vulnerable people further away from the support agencies they may need.
This conference is designed for academics, activists, therapists, human services professionals, such as those working in charities or social services, and policymakers. Those working in relevant fields can count their attendance towards their continued professional development (CPD) requirements.
It is also open to anyone in the general public with an interest in understanding (and addressing) the issue of religious abuse, or in supporting vulnerable individuals leaving high-control religious environments.
Tickets are available for £10 for the general public or professional service providers, with free admission for people who have left high-control religions. Book your place now.
An online conference for academics and practitioners who care about the needs of apostates. The theme of the Apostasy Conference 2024 is ‘The Systemic Nature of Religious Abuse’
Notes
About Faith to Faithless
Faith to Faithless is the Humanists UK programme dedicated to providing specialist support to apostates. As well as providing a national helpline, it supports apostates through a programme of peer support facilitated by trained specialist volunteers, and provides awareness training to public services, including NHS divisions and police forces.
Faith to Faithless operates under a stringent safeguarding policy, prioritising the safety and wellbeing of all those reaching out for support.
Contact information
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 020 3675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 130,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International has warned UN human rights investigators of the challenges of traditional, historical, religious and cultural attitudes
The statement was delivered by Humanists International’s European Advocacy Officer, Tania Giacomuzzi Mota by video. The statement was made at the Annual Panel Discussion on the integration of a gender perspective throughout the work of the Human Rights Council and that of its mechanisms. The topic this year was “enhancing gender integration in human rights investigations: a victim-centred perspective. “Previous topics have included “gender-responsive initiatives to accelerate gender equality” and “gender digital divide in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The statement noted that one of the drivers of human rights abuses against women, and the subsequent lack of self-reporting of such abuses, is the instrumentalization of the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). Traditional, historical, religious and cultural attitudes often stand in the way of women’s self-reporting of the abuse they suffer.
In Humanists International’s work protecting humanists-at-risk, this phenomenon is often seen, with many women who reach out to the organization citing control in the home as a major risk. They often lack independent access to the internet and they face stigma and taboo depending on the nature of the abuse.
The statement called on the United Nation’s human rights investigators to be aware of this challenge. Those conducting investigations should make themselves aware of the right to FoRB, and what it does and doesn’t cover, the statement urged. The panelists, all of whom have been members of United Nations investigations, discussed the barriers they have faced in their work, as well as strategies to strengthen the integration of a victim-centered approach through the conduct of trauma-informed interviews.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
In a joint statement made at the UN Human Rights Council, the Humanists International and ETHOS Slovakia have called for the protection of reproductive rights, LGBTI+ rights, and children’s rights
The statement was delivered by Andrej Lúčny, Chairman of ETHOS, an Associate organization of Humanists International. Lúčny made the intervention via video at the 57th session of the Human Rights Council during the adoption of Slovakia’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)* report. The organizations called attention to numerous human rights issues within Slovakia.
A portion of the statement also focused on abuses committed by members of the Catholic Church, which have only been recognized in Slovakia recently. While there is a Children’s Ombudsman in Slovakia, with the mandate to protect children’s rights, the current office-holder has links to religious groups, which Lúčny called attention to, as well as his comments on corporal punishment and LGBTI+ individuals. ETHOS have previously written to the Ombudsman, and in reply, he noted his office’s limited competencies.
Lúčny concluded by noting the range of issues in Slovakia which are undermining democracy and the rule of law, including corruption, changes to the criminal code, and the abolition of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, as well as crackdowns on press freedom. The statement jointly delivered by ETHOS and Humanists International was one of only two statements delivered at the UPR Adoption by non-governmental organizations.
*The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a UN process which involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States, by each other. It is a unique human rights mechanism in so far as it addresses all countries and all human rights. The Working Group on the UPR, which is composed of the Human Rights Council’s 47 Member States and chaired by the Human Rights Council President, conducts country reviews. Humanists International supports its members in engagement with the process.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
In a joint statement made at the UN Human Rights Council, the Humanist Society of New Zealand, the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists, and Humanists International have commended progress on human rights issues in New Zealand, while warning against risks to advancements
The statement was delivered by Mark Honeychurch, Vice President of the Humanists Society of New Zealand, a member organisation of Humanists International. Honeychurch made the intervention via video at the 57th session of the Human Rights Council during the adoption of New Zealand’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR)* report. The organizations welcomed New Zealand’s stated intention to strengthen migrant’s rights and to improve legislation on gender-based violence.
While the statement noted the important areas of progress committed to by New Zealand, it also highlighted some recent moves by the Government which could put its stated commitments at risk. These include the reduction in function of Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People, and of the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. Honeychurch added, “The Government’s commitment in the UPR to achieving equity in health outcomes should not leave behind Māori or those with disabilities.”
Mark Honeychurch delivers the statement by video
Much of the statement focused on the need to enumerate rights in order to protect them. There is currently an ongoing Law Commission review in New Zealand, looking at sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, as prohibited grounds of discrimination. The organizations called for the explicit inclusion of these characteristics as protected under the Human Rights Act. They also called on the State to be open to dialogue on the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in the Bill of Rights Act, in order to safeguard them from rollback.
Finally, the statement called on the Government to safeguard Māori rights by considering a review of the legal status of the Treaty of Waitangi and recommitting to ratifying the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There has been little movement on this since 2022.
*The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a UN process which involves a periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States, by each other. It is a unique human rights mechanism in so far as it addresses all countries and all human rights. The Working Group on the UPR, which is composed of the Human Rights Council’s 47 Member States and chaired by the Human Rights Council President, conducts country reviews. Humanists International supports its members in engagement with the process.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have called for investigations into killings and protections for secular bloggers and religious minorities
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Ahmedur Tutul Chowdhury, on behalf of Humanists International, called on the interim government of Bangladesh to investigate human rights abuses and to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. His statement, delivered during a General Debate, focused on the killing of protestors and the persecution of secular bloggers and religious minorities.
The statement highlighted the need for accountability following the deaths of hundreds of protestors, many of whom were allegedly killed by police in extrajudicial actions. He urged the interim government to investigate these human rights violations and hold the perpetrators accountable.
Tutul delivers the statement by video
As Bangladesh faces a period of political transition, the statement emphasized the importance of including diverse voices in governmental reforms. This is a critical moment for Bangladesh to ensure that the rights of all its citizens are protected. Key among these rights, he noted, is freedom of expression, which includes the right to criticize political parties and policies without fear of retribution.
Tutul’s statement noted the increasing persecution being faced by religious minorities, and called for Bangladesh to ensure it did not return to an era of violence which saw state persecution and extrajudicial killings of secular blogger. Tutul, himself, fled Bangladesh in 2016, after attempts were made on his life.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned Burundi’s persecution of women, LGBTI+ individuals, and restrictions on press freedom as the country seeks a seat on the UN Human Rights Council
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International voiced serious concerns about the state of human rights in Burundi. In a statement delivered by Peter Dankwa of the Humanist Association of Ghana, they called for immediate action to address violations, particularly regarding women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights, and freedom of expression. The intervention followed a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Burundi, which documented widespread human rights abuses.
Dankwa’s statement highlighted the worrying use of religion to justify discriminatory laws and rhetoric in the country. The statement condemned the instrumentalization of Christianity in shaping state policies that curtail the rights of marginalized communities, particularly LGBTI+ individuals. One of the most egregious examples cited was the dehumanizing language used by President Évariste Ndayishimiye, who called for the stoning of LGBTI+ people.
Peter Dankwa delivers the statement by video
In addition to targeting LGBTI+ individuals, Burundi has seen a renewed crackdown on so-called “cohabitation laws”, which criminalize informal living arrangements between unmarried couples. Dankwa reported that this has resulted in the forced displacement of at least 900 women and 3,600 children from their homes, primarily in the north of the country. This policy has been linked to a broader governmental push for moral purity, which has seen an increase in human rights violations perpetrated by state authorities.
Finally, Dankwa concluded his statement by urging the Special Rapporteur to address the role of religious fundamentalism in Burundi’s legal system. He questioned how the international community can ensure that religious ideologies do not shape laws that violate human rights, especially in a country facing political instability and a multidimensional humanitarian crisis.
Delivery of this statement followed the signing of a joint letter alongside over 35 other Non-Governmental Organizations which raised some of the same issues, and called for the exetention of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned Venezuela’s crackdown on activists and called for international scrutiny of the country’s elections
Humanists International has raised alarm over the escalating repression of civil society and political activists in Venezuela. Leon Langdon, the organization’s Advocacy Officer, delivered a statement during the Interactive Dialogue with the International Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela at the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. His statement criticized the Venezuelan government’s increasingly harsh tactics, including the harassment, criminalization, and arrest of activists and human rights defenders.
The Fact-Finding Mission’s report documented a severe crackdown on civilian protestors following the contested elections, revealing that police and military forces have played a key role in suppressing demonstrations. This suppression is part of what the Mission has termed the “repressive apparatus” of the Venezuelan state, which has been activated to silence opposition. The election results, widely regarded as fraudulent, have been condemned by several international organizations, including the Organization of American States (OAS), while the opposition leader has been forced into exile.
The statement also called attention to the documentation of the use of sexual violence as a method of repression and torture in Venezuela. Given all of the outlined abuses, Humanists International also called for a renewal of the mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission.
This statement followed a Resolution of the Humanists International General Assembly, passed at the beginning of September 2024. The Resolution was passed on an emergency basis due to the recent elections in the country, and the subsequent violence, and expressed concern about the human rights abuses reported in the country.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Among the key proposals outlined in the letter is the development of a European Civil Society Strategy as part of a broader European Democracy Agenda. Such a strategy is necessary to ensure a coherent policy framework that recognises and supports the diverse roles of civil society in fostering democratic engagement and promoting human rights. Furthermore, it calls for the appointment of a dedicated Commission Vice President for democracy, civic space, and dialogue with civil society, with the authority to lead the implementation of the strategy and respond swiftly to attacks on civic actors.
Additionally, the letter advocates for the establishment of a Civil Dialogue Agreement between EU institutions and civil society, ensuring permanent and meaningful interaction between policymakers and CSOs.
Another central demand is the improvement of EU funding policies for civil society, calling for a reduction in administrative burdens and an increase in the budget for the Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values Programme (CERV).
Finally, the letter highlights the need for a stronger role for the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) as a key European human rights institution, with the capacity to issue opinions on EU policies and play a more central role in policy impact assessments.
Tania Giacomuzzi Mota, European Advocacy Officer at Humanists International affirmed:
Humanists International stands firmly with fellow civil society organisations in urging the EU to adopt these recommendations and create a more robust framework for supporting civil society.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned the systematic rollback of women’s rights and called for global action on gender persecution in Afghanistan
Humanists International called on the international community to continue applying pressure on the Taliban to reverse discriminatory laws and practices targeting women and girls in Afghanistan. Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer for Humanists International, delivered the statement during the General Debate at the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the severe human rights violations that have occurred since the Taliban’s takeover in 2021.
The statement responded to the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and supported numerous requests contained therein, including the call on the Taliban to respect international human rights law and the rights of women and girls. Humanists International, however, lamented the fact that the term “gender apartheid” was not used in the High Commissioner’s Report. This language was used in a report by the Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls.
In spite of the deteriorating human rights situation, Humanists International called for continued two-way engagement on the humanitarian front. The Taliban have routinely curtailed access to outside actors since its takeover in 2021, while the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that in 2024, 23.7 million people, including 5.9 million women and 5.4 million men, require humanitarian aid. Continued humanitarian funding and access is critical.
This statement followed a vote of Humanists International’s General Assembly in Singapore at the beginning of the month, which called on the Taliban to respect international human rights law, allow access to outside human rights and humanitarian monitors, and to safeguard the rights of women and girls.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International have condemned the systematic rollback of women’s rights and called for global action on gender persecution in Afghanistan
Humanists International called on the international community to continue applying pressure on the Taliban to reverse discriminatory laws and practices targeting women and girls in Afghanistan. Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer for Humanists International, delivered the statement during the General Debate at the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, addressing the severe human rights violations that have occurred since the Taliban’s takeover in 2021.
The statement responded to the Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and supported numerous requests contained therein, including the call on the Taliban to respect international human rights law and the rights of women and girls. Humanists International, however, lamented the fact that the term “gender apartheid” was not used in the High Commissioner’s Report. This language was used in a report by the Working Group on Discrimination against Women and Girls.
In spite of the deteriorating human rights situation, Humanists International called for continued two-way engagement on the humanitarian front. The Taliban have routinely curtailed access to outside actors since its takeover in 2021, while the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that in 2024, 23.7 million people, including 5.9 million women and 5.4 million men, require humanitarian aid. Continued humanitarian funding and access is critical.
This statement followed a vote of Humanists International’s General Assembly in Singapore at the beginning of the month, which called on the Taliban to respect international human rights law, allow access to outside human rights and humanitarian monitors, and to safeguard the rights of women and girls.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
At the 57th Session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists International has delivered a statement outlining the increasing intolerance toward the non-religious
Humanists International called attention to the deteriorating human rights situation in Sri Lanka, focusing on the increasing intolerance toward religious minorities, including the non-religious. The statement was delivered by Leon Langdon, the organization’s Advocacy Officer, during the Interactive Dialogue on the Written Update by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in Sri Lanka.
The statement highlighted several concerning legislative measures employed by the Sri Lankan government to suppress dissent. He noted the misuse of laws like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and the Online Safety Act. These laws grant the government broad enforcement powers, which can be used with minimal judicial oversight. The statement also pointed to the troubling establishment of a special police task force on religious freedom, citing arrests made for “insulting” religion, in violation of international standards on freedom of religion or belief.
Humanists International Advocacy Officer, Leon Langdon, delivers the statement by video.
In recent years, Sri Lanka has seen a rise in nationalist and fundamentalist rhetoric from political leaders, exacerbating the climate of intolerance. The Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), originally enacted to combat insurgencies, has been criticized internationally for allowing indefinite detention without trial. Amendments proposed to the PTA have not alleviated concerns regarding its sweeping and potentially abusive provisions.
Humanists International last highlighted the human rights situation in Sri Lanka as part of the country’s Universal Periodic Review in 2023.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Explore This Week’s Dispatch
This week’s Unbelief Brief looks at an attack on secularism in India, how a Pakistani cleric gets a taste of his own medicine and examines yet another police killing of a suspected blasphemer in Pakistan.
EXMNA Insights covers the importance of recognizing International Blasphemy Day for ex-Muslims.
The Unbelief Brief
India is reminding us once again that Islamic countries are not the only places with budding would-be theocracies—an issue that has become increasingly more common through the years. RN Ravi, governor of the state of Tamil Nadu, has flatly stated that India has “no need” for secularism. While these remarks have proven controversial and been met with backlash, they are a reminder of the very strong Hindu nationalist movement inculcated under Prime Minister Modi which has been fervently trying to impose its own mirror image of Islamic theocracy on the country.
In neighboring Pakistan, meanwhile, one cleric who has enthusiastically expressed his support for the execution of blasphemers—even when the suspected blasphemer apologizes—has discovered that theocracy can place the shoe on the other foot. After remarking that the Prophet was illiterate, did not actually write the Qur’an himself, and relied on others to write it for him, leading to imperfections (!) such as grammatical mistakes, Mufti Tariq Masood has been forced into hiding. He has since apologized; presumably, his old stance on what should be done with blasphemers does not apply in this special instance. One does wonder how such an apparently well-educated man came to the conclusion that it was okay to suggest that the infallible, incorruptible Qur’an contains flaws of any kind. All the best to the beleaguered cleric…
Finally, yet another blasphemy killing in Pakistan—but this one is noteworthy in that the state is taking a modicum of responsibility for its injustice, especially considering it was perpetrated by police officers, the second such incident in a week. The state has even made clear that the family of the victim, a doctor by the name of Shah Nawaz Kumbhar, may file charges against the officers responsible for his death. Prior to the family leveling the accusation of murder against the police, later confirmed as truthful by authorities, police had concocted a story of a “shootout” in order to cover it up. Perhaps owing to the overt and offensive abuse of power laying the injustice bare, protestors numbering in the thousands have taken to the streets to demand justice for the doctor. We join those calls and reiterate that justice for every single victim of Islamic countries’ barbaric blasphemy laws is imperative.
EXMNA Insights
Yesterday marked International Blasphemy Day. In countries with harsh penalties for religious critique, anti-blasphemy laws are dangerous and oppressive tools used against dissenters like ex-Muslims. These laws reveal an insecurity within religious authorities who treat any criticism as a direct threat to their dominance. In countries like Pakistan, where blasphemy is punishable by death, individuals like Asia Bibi have spent years facing the prospect of execution for alleged offenses, often based on weak or fabricated evidence. Blasphemy laws in Pakistan are also infamous for being misused to settle personal scores or silence minorities, a natural consequence of implementing criminal charges on such arbitrary offenses.
Iran is another prime example of extreme blasphemy punishments, where in 2023, two men were executed for running online accounts promoting atheism. Their crime? Daring to challenge the state’s religious narrative. This trend extends to Saudi Arabia, where blasphemy is often treated as apostasy, with death as a possible sentence for those who question or criticize Islam.
Even in Indonesia, where democracy is more robust, blasphemy laws are used to stifle dissent. In one instance, a high school religious teacher was sentenced to prison for merely whistling during prayers, considered a deviant act by local authorities. Similarly, Malaysia enforces strict penalties for those who diverge from the official religious doctrine, with punishments including caning and imprisonment for so-called “deviant” beliefs.
Blasphemy laws are not about protecting religious sensibilities—they are about maintaining religious and political control. When a religion needs laws to punish dissenters with fines, imprisonment, or death, it speaks volumes about its fragility. These inhumane laws create a climate of fear, silencing not just critics but also those who might consider thinking differently. They crush any possibility of pluralism or diversity of thought, essential ingredients for a vibrant, just society. Instead of fostering dialogue, they criminalize ideas, turning religion into an untouchable institution that cannot be questioned, let alone reformed. The global community must urgently call for the abolition of these archaic laws to protect human rights and ensure freedom of thought.
Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA) stands firmly against these oppressive laws, advocating for the right to religious dissent. EXMNA supports the freedom to critique, question, and even mock religion, viewing it as essential to human rights and freedom of expression. Religious beliefs, like any other ideology, should be open to scrutiny, and EXMNA fights to protect that right for all.
Persecution Tracker Updates
Read our full entry on the police killing of Dr. Shah Nawaz Kumbhar here. Also: another “arrested for insulting the Prophet” case has been logged in Pakistan here—this one directed against a former employee of the Pakistan Senate.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
The Dispatch Returns with New Insights
This week’s Unbelief Brief exposes the harsh realities faced by women and dissenters in the Netherlands, Iran and Malaysia.
The Unbelief Brief
In the Netherlands, police have noted an increase in “honor violence” over the last decade. Reports of honor-based violence peaked at 619 incidents in 2023, which is an increase of 35% from the previous ten years when there were a reported 460 incidents. Victims are overwhelmingly women but members of the LGBT+ communities are also disproportionately affected. A quarter of all incidents of honor-based violence involved victims or perpetrators from Syria, with others from Turkey, Morocco and Afghanistan. It goes without saying that Muslimsare not inherently or intrinsically more likely to be violent or misogynistic. This is a result of a religious culture rooted in archaic doctrines that crystallize violence against women and the queer community. As a result of these social mores, almost two women per day— Muslim victims of their own religion—are subject to violence in the Netherlands for attempting to exercise greater autonomy than conservative Islam idealizes for them.
Over in Iran: some journalists and students are reporting that the government is apparently deactivating their cell phones’ SIM cards. This seems to be in response to engaging in any form of political dissent, such as simply posting “political content,” which the regime deems propagandistic. One journalist reported contacting the government and being told that due to “political activity” in his past, he would need to go through a bureaucratic process which would include the signing of a pledge to cease all such activities—and only then could his service be restored. The theocracy continues to display open contempt for its people, still hounded by the shadow of Mahsa Amini’s death and the cries for change she evoked from the Iranian people.
Finally, in Malaysia, a grave development: yet another customer insulted Islam on a fast food receipt. This disturbing incident comes on the heels of a similar case that occurred in May of this year, where blasphemous comments appeared on a Domino’s receipt. That case resulted in the arrest of four “foreigners” suspected of committing the heinous offense, which is perhaps becoming common enough to warrant its own designation: “receipt blasphemy.” As was previously the case, the Malaysian police are pressing ahead with an aggressive investigation, showing their priorities are laser-focused on the “crimes” that really matter.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
World Teachers Day is celebrated on October 5th. “Yay! But, I don’t know any teachers, have children, or work in education.” It can feel daunting, listening to the pleas of millions of teachers across the country begging for respect and support but not knowing where to begin. This article will give a brief overview of some struggles of classroom teachers and then outline three ways that any humanist can support teachers for World Teachers Day.
Teaching is an incredibly difficult jobs. There are infinite tasks, expectations, and distractions to compete with. Additionally, teachers are required to coordinate and collaborate with students, peers, administration, and parents to meet the needs of everyone, but often aren’t trusted as professionals in their own space. Aside from caring about teachers because they are people, we as a community should celebrate and support them because they are the foundation of the future. They plant educational seeds in students whose careers will blossom years without teachers ever seeing the fruits of their labor.
The first and perhaps most direct way that any humanist can support teachers is by volunteering. The easiest way to sign up to volunteer is by searching the school district’s homepage and looking for the volunteer sign-up. This will likely require a content form to complete a background check. If everything works out, you may be given a list of volunteer tasks: tasks like speaking to students about your career path, becoming a reading buddy, assisting a teacher in the classroom, doing campus clean-up projects, or tutoring, for example. Additionally, you may want to volunteer for specific events like fundraisers, sporting events, and chaperoning for field trips.
Another direct way that humanists can support teachers is through donations. Just like volunteering, there are a plethora of ways to donate. If you know a teacher or there is a school near you, you may want to reach out to the teacher you have in mind or to office support staff to donate things like deodorant, toothpaste, book bags, canned food, water bottles, or educational school supplies. Some districts may also have a free educational resource center for teachers. If you prefer virtual donations, try DonorsChoose, Adopt A Teacher, or search for #ClearTheList on social media.
Lastly, use your voice and vote to advocate for teachers. Often, many of the frustrations that teachers have cannot be fixed by one person. Instead, unified advocates must stand together and work toward legislative change. Teachers most commonly ask for higher salaries, lower student-teacher ratios, and more control over their classroom content. This election year is important for teachers because of Project 2025 (read our article about Project 2025’s treatment of public education) and with a former teacher running for Vice President. While you are at the polls standing with teachers federally, please do not forget to vote locally, as well, for elected officials important to teachers, including school board candidates.
It is so important to help support teachers this World Teachers Day. I listed off just three ways to do it: volunteer, donate, and advocate. There are many more ways to make effective changes over time. However, the most important way is to start somewhere. When we support our teachers, the whole world benefits.
Jessica Brooks is a Black, queer, humanist who is passionate about the history and celebration of marginalized peoples. She currently is a middle school Social Studies teacher in North Carolina.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
The American Humanist Association is proud to announce the launch of its largest voter engagement campaign ever: the Democracy Not Theocracy campaign. The campaign will educate voters about the threat of Project 2025 and encourage them to register and make a plan to vote.
Democracy Not Theocracy is composed of a few major components:
hiring current and recently-graduated Democracy Defense Fellows who will organize on campus and in their communities.
Project 2025 is the far-right plan to reshape democracy, seize and consolidate executive powers, and completely upend separation of church and state, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ equality, racial justice, free speech, and many other democratic institutions and freedoms. The comprehensive plan would touch every department of the federal government and fundamentally reshape the lives of the American people.
Fish Stark, the AHA’s new Executive Director, announced the Democracy Not Theocracy campaign on the first evening of the AHA’s 83rd Annual Conference this past weekend:
“Project 2025 threatens our fundamental freedoms, so we’re giving humanists everywhere the tools to fight back. Buckle up – we’ve got a democracy to save. We’re humanists. We believe everyone has the freedom to seek their own truth and no one should be forced to live according to someone else’s religion. We believe in respecting the equal worth of every person. And we believe in challenging the powerful to speak up for what’s right. White Christian Nationalists are trying to divide our country and convince people to choose theocracy over democracy. But we know which side we’re on. So today, we’re launching our Democracy, Not Theocracy campaign, a national effort to empower humanists to resist Project 2025.
“…Let’s show the world just how much humanists value democracy, not theocracy. How much we value treating everyone equally, not demonizing people who are different. How much we value freedom for all people, not forcing people to live under religious law. This is a stance that we know a majority of Americans can unite behind. Because Project 2025 is about more than politics—it’s about control. Control over your body, your family, your education, your life. Here’s the thing—this November, YOU hold the power. The power to vote, the power to speak out, the power to stop this.”
The AHA has created a step-by-step guide for anyone interested in hosting Postcarding Parties (or parties of one!) that raise awareness about Project 2025. Specifically, participants will be provided with postcards with anti-Project-2025 messaging and provided with contacts who have not registered to vote. Anyone can participate in postcarding, and it’s all free and easy – the AHA will ship right to you.
One of the most exciting parts of the campaign includes the launch of the AHA’s largest ever program to provide funding to local groups that want to take action.
“The AHA is providing local humanist groups across the country with resources to educate the public about the dangers of Project 2025, the actions needed to stop it, and the importance of participating in democracy by voting,” said AHA Senior Education Coordinator Emily Newman. “We’re running our largest-ever grant program to support chapters and affiliates as they throw Postcard Parties, host speaker and discussion events, advertise to increase awareness, and develop other creative actions.”
With support from the Secular Student Alliance (SSA), the AHA is hiring four Democracy Defense Fellows (DDFs) who will organize on their campus and in their communities to raise the awareness of the dangers of the tenets of Project 2025. DDFs will manage a grassroots campaign that both educates voters about the dangers of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and encourages people to register to vote and vote. They will be paid a competitive wage and supported by AHA staff.
“By empowering local youth into leadership roles, a new generation is supported and equipped to face the challenges created by Christian Nationalism and identify where and how it presents itself”, said Isabella Russian, Policy Manager at the AHA. “This is exactly the kind of opportunity young and passionate activists seek early in their advocacy experience, as they will have the support and guidance of the AHA every step of the way. We’re excited to work with these young leaders as they become trained to go forth and make a real difference.”
The American Humanist Association is committed to strengthening the secular nature of our government for all. Those who wish to support this effort can donate to the American Humanist Association here.
Tags: Project 2025Isabella Russian is the Policy Manager at the American Humanist Association.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
This past weekend, hundreds of humanists gathered online for the American Humanist Association’s 83rd Annual Conference, The Future is Humanist: Shaping Tomorrow Together.
Attendees joined exciting sessions on topics including Humanism and AI, Hidden Disabilities, Threats to Public Education, Re-Imagining Relationships, Reproductive Rights, Humanism and Science, Humanist Professionals, Secular Elected Officials, and Progressive Parenting. They also gathered in networking sessions and discussion boards to discuss these ideas further.
In addition, participants had the opportunity to meet the AHA’s new Executive Director, Fish Stark. Fish is an organizer, educator, social entrepreneur, and lifelong humanist who has spent his career turning big ideas into bold action in service of belonging, flourishing, and social justice for all people. In keeping with the conference theme, Fish presented his vibrant vision for the future of the AHA, with ample opportunities for the audience to ask questions and get to know him. He also introduced an vital new project to combat Project 2025, Democracy Not Theocracy, which you can read about elsewhere in this newsletter.
The AHA also presented awards to several deserving individuals. The Religious Freedom Award was given jointly to Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-2) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (MD-8) for their work protecting separation of church and state, especially through their co-founding of the Congressional Freethought Caucus.
Karen Hao
Journalist Karen Hao accepted the Humanist Media Award for her work covering artificial intelligence. She was the first journalist to ever profile OpenAI and is now working on a book about the company and the AI industry to be published in 2025. She is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and leads The AI Spotlight Series, a program she designed to train journalists on covering AI. Previously, she was a foreign correspondent at The Wall Street Journal and a senior editor at MIT Technology Review. She has been a fellow with the Harvard Technology and Public Purpose Project, the MIT Knight Science Journalism Program, and the Pulitzer Center’s AI Accountability Network.
The Inquiry and Innovation Award was presented to Ted Chiang, renowned science fiction writer. His fiction has won four Hugo, four Nebula, and six Locus Awards, and has been reprinted in Best American Short Stories. His first collection, Stories of Your Life and Others, has been translated into twenty-one languages, and the title story was the basis for the Oscar-nominated film Arrival. His second collection Exhalation was chosen by The New York Timesas one of the 10 Best Books of 2019.
Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman was named the 2024 Humanist of the Year. Ms. Goodman is a broadcast journalist and serves as the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 1,400 public television and radio stations worldwide. The New York Times has written that Democracy Now!, “distinguishes itself by documenting social movements, struggles for justice and the effects of American foreign policy, along with the rest of the day’s developments.” Ms. Goodman has reported on violent conflicts around the world, on unrest here at home, and has been arrested covering protests at The White House and the Republican Convention. Her journalism has been recognized with a host of awards.
If you were able to attend our 83rd annual conference, we hope you enjoyed these thought-provoking discussions, were inspired by our impactful awardees, and found virtual community with fellow humanists around the world. Mark your calendars – the 84th annual conference will be held in person in Chicago on June 27th – 29th, 2025.
Tags: AHA Annual ConferenceNicole Carr is the Deputy Director of the American Humanist Association, Editor of the Humanist magazine, and Senior Editor of TheHumanist.com. Prior to joining the staff at the AHA, she worked in development and communications for arts and education non-profit organizations in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE bids farewell to Lin Andrews. Joining NCSE in 2019 after teaching high school biology for 18 years, she expanded the breadth and depth of NCSE’s Supporting Teachers program.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked with NCSE’s Teacher Ambassadors to develop three misconception-based curricula on climate change, evolution, and the nature of science and with former Executive Director Ann Reid to develop a series of educational essays to help teachers understand the science of the pandemic throughout the crisis.
As program director, she worked extensively with the science teacher community, coordinating NCSE’s outreach efforts, representing NCSE at conferences, and contributing to journals such as The American Biology Teacher, District Administrator, and In the Trenches, the newsletter of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers.
Additionally, along with the NCSE Supporting Teachers team, Andrews developed and executed a two-year longitudinal study with over 30 curriculum field-test (CFT) teachers, looking at the supports and barriers teachers face when implementing NGSS storyline curricula. The results of that study were described in Research Issues in Contemporary Education.
In her final year at NCSE, Andrews oversaw the development of the new NCSE Story Shorts and Teacher Toolkit, which resulted from the knowledge gained during the CFT study. All of us at NCSE wish her the best in her new endeavors.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Bill 3142 — which would have codified the California Center for Climate Change at West Los Angeles College in the Los Angeles Community College District and establish the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education — was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 27, 2024.
In his veto message (PDF), Governor Newsom wrote, “Although establishing and operating the California Mobile Unit for Climate Education is a laudable goal, this bill could create significant Proposition 98 General Fund cost pressures that are not reflected in the state’s current fiscal plan. … For this reason, I cannot sign this bill.”
As passed, Assembly Bill 3142 would have amended the state’s education code to include a description of the center’s mission (“to promote climate change education at the California Community Colleges and establish opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and other learning opportunities”), activities, and responsibilities.
The bill would also have established the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education to aid the center in its provision of opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and the like. Originally a further $1.5 million would have been allocated for the purpose, but the bill was amended to make the allocation conditional on a separate approval by the legislature.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE’s annual report for 2023 is now available (PDF) on NCSE’s website. The report briefly describes the efforts of NCSE’s Supporting Teachers, Catalyzing Action, and Investigating Science Education programs through the year, lists a handful of reports in the media about NCSE’s activities and by NCSE’s staff, and includes a brief financial report — especially useful for those considering donating to NCSE!
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE Executive Director Amanda L. Townley.
NCSE Executive Director Amanda L. Townley discussed NCSE and its work on the Science Book Club podcast (September 15, 2024). After describing her own background and the route that took her to helm NCSE, she explained NCSE’s main activities and the continuing need for them with regard to evolution, climate change, and the nature of science. Among NCSE’s current projects, she highlighted the My Coast teacher education program (the subject of a short video from NCSE). Among NCSE’s past triumphs, she emphasized the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the 20th anniversary of which is upcoming in 2025. Science Book Club selected NCSE as the beneficiary of its current fundraiser.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
Photo of Clarence Darrow (left) and William Jennings Bryan (right) during the Scopes Trial in 1925.
NCSE deputy director Glenn Branch reviewed Brenda Wineapple’s new book about the Scopes trial, Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial that Riveted a Nation, for The Humanist (September 4, 2024), following up on his recent review of Gregg Jarrett’s The Trial of the Century for Free Inquiry.
“Well-researched, well-paced, and well-written, there is a lot to like about Keeping the Faith,” Branch concluded his review. “[A]t a time when attacks on evolution education seem to be sadly resurgent, it is good to be presented with such a spirited chronicle of the fabulous monkey trial of a century ago.”
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
A lawsuit in Indiana alleging that the teaching of evolution in public schools is unconstitutional was dismissed by a U.S. District Court on August 30, 2024, reports WISHTV (August 30, 2024).
Jennifer and Jason Reinoehl, parents of five children who attended the Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation, a school district headquartered in Mishawaka, Indiana, and one of their children initially sued the district, the Indiana state board of education, and Katie Jenner, the Indiana Secretary of Education, in May 2023.
The plaintiffs contended that the district schools teach “the state-sponsored, atheistic, religious Theory of Evolution … under the guise that that it is ‘science,'” that what they regard as various components of evolutionary theory have been scientifically disproven, and that “the atheistic Theory of Evolution specially attacks the Judeo-Christian origin story.”
Accordingly, they sought a declaration that the teaching of evolution in Indiana’s public schools violates the federal and the Indiana constitutions, an injunction prohibiting the defendants from teaching evolution in the future and requiring them to remove all relevant instructional materials, and a monetary award of damages.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege an Establishment Clause violation because, in the words of McLean v. Arkansas (1982), “it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.”
Noting that the plaintiffs apparently sought to invoke a federal statute as a basis for their claim that teaching evolution violates the Indiana constitution, the court dismissed the claim without prejudice, meaning that the plaintiffs could amend the complaint and try again. But the court suggested that doing so would be “futile.”
The case is Reinoehl et al. v. Penn-Harris-Madison School Corporation et al., No. 1:23-cv-00889-SEB-MG (2024 S.D. Ind.)
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE is seeking to hire a part-time development associate to manage ongoing membership efforts and oversee a new membership acquisition project. This is a part-time (24 hours/week) and fully remote position, beginning January 1, 2025; applications will be accepted until September 27, 2024. Further information about duties, qualifications, salary, and the application process is available from NCSE’s job page.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Bill 3051 — which would, if enacted, have allowed the state’s taxpayers donate funds to the K–12 Climate Change Education Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund while filing their state taxes — died in committee on August 31, 2024, when the legislature adjourned.
Donated funds would have been used to “award grants to school districts, county offices of education, resource conservation districts, district and county office of education partnerships with higher education institutions, and community-based nongovernmental organizations focused on environmental and climate change education.”
The bill was introduced by Al Muratsuchi (D-District 66) on February 16, 2024, and was amended twice thereafter; it was passed by the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee but then was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it received no vote.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Concurrent Resolution 162 died in the Senate Rules Committee when the California legislature adjourned on August 31, 2024. The resolution passed the Assembly on a 65-0 vote on May 9, 2024, as NCSE previously reported.
If adopted, the resolution would have established California Youth Action Climate Day, “to honor and support the efforts of young people in their pursuit of environmental sustainability, climate justice, and the preservation of biodiversity.”
The resolution notes that climate change “is a consequence of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels” and recognizes “the importance of educating and engaging young people in environmental stewardship and climate action.”
If adopted, the resolution would have encouraged institutions, including schools, and individuals to observe California Youth Climate Action Day every September 20 with appropriate activities, including activities that promote awareness of climate change.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch was featured in the Naperville Sun‘s story (August 23, 2024) on Illinois’s new climate change education law.
Signed into law on August 9, 2024, the new law requires “every public school shall provide instruction on climate change, which shall include, but not be limited to, identifying the environmental and ecological impacts of climate change on individuals and communities and evaluating solutions for addressing and mitigating the impact of climate change,” as NCSE previously reported.
The law also provides, “The State Board of Education shall, subject to appropriation, prepare and make available multi-disciplinary instructional resources and professional learning opportunities for educators that may be used to meet the requirements of this subsection.” In the original version of the bill, such instructional resources and learning opportunities were not contingent on further appropriations.
Branch put the law in national context, noting that although practically all states now include climate change in their state science standards, Illinois is now the third state, after Connecticut and California, to require climate change education as a matter of statute. Such laws are “really powerful symbolism,” he suggested. “It shows that the legislature has recognized that there’s a need for climate change education.”
He added, “I really hope the legislature follows up by making those appropriations … to make these resources and training opportunities available to their teachers.”
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
“The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia has launched an online tool for students and their parents to make reports on attempts by teachers to push religious ideology under the guise of science as the new school year begins,” reports WDTV (August 23, 2024).
The tool was prompted by the enactment of Senate Bill 280 on March 22, 2024. The new law provides that “[n]o public school board, school superintendent, or school principal may prohibit a public school classroom teacher from discussing or answering questions from students about scientific theories of how the universe and/or life came to exist.”
“It’s entirely unclear what exactly the final version of this bill seeks to permit, because it was already lawful for teachers to answer questions about scientific theories,” ACLU-WV Legal Director Aubrey Sparks told WDTV. But she expressed concern that misguided teachers might believe that it licenses teachers to present their religious views as science.
As originally introduced, Senate Bill 280 provided that “[t]eachers in public schools, including public charter schools, that include any one or more of grades kindergarten through 12, may teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or humanity came to exist,” as NCSE previously reported.
Teaching “intelligent design” in the public schools was found to be unconstitutional in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. Although Senate Bill 280 was revised to remove any reference to “intelligent design,” the bill’s lead sponsor, Amy Grady (R-District 4), declared that it still would protect the teaching of “intelligent design,” according to West Virginia Watch (January 23, 2024).
“If a teacher is pushing religion in your classroom or your child’s classroom,” the tool explains, “we want to hear from you.” Sparks told WDTV that ACLU-WV will closely monitor the situation and that a member of the legal team will personally review every complaint received.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
“A state-developed reading curriculum for public elementary schools in Texas is infused with lessons that overwhelmingly emphasize the Bible over sacred texts of other religions and subtly portray Christian faith claims as true in ways that verge on proselytizing students,” according to the Texas Freedom Network (August 15, 2024) — and endorsement of the creation and flood stories of Genesis is involved.
Controversy surrounded the proposed curriculum as soon as it was released in May 2024, not long after the Texas Republican party adopted a platform that called on the legislature and the state board of education to require instruction on the Bible in the state’s public schools. The 74 (May 29, 2024) reported that conservative organizations, including the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Hillsdale College, were involved in the development of the curriculum.
Of particular concern was a kindergarten unit entitled “Exploring Art,” which devotes a lesson to the creation and flood stories from Genesis. Creation stories from the ancient Maya, Aztec, and Greek cultures are mentioned but not described in detail, while four pages, including artwork, are devoted to Genesis. Moreover, students are expected to answer questions about the details of the events recounted in Genesis.
The proposed curriculum was criticized as “designed to instill religion and promote Christianity and the Bible, in violation of the Constitution” by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (August 20, 2024). Americans United described “Exploring Art” in particular as the “most egregious example,” explaining, “this lesson is purely devotional and has no secular purpose — it is no different from a Sunday School lesson.”
Similarly, in a report (PDF) prepared for the Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, David R. Brockman, a religious studies scholar and Christian theologian, wrote, “It is difficult to avoid concluding that this … unit is being used as an excuse to smuggle in what is effectively Bible study,” and noted that “kindergarteners are likely to come away … believing that the biblical story is the creation account and that it alone is worth their attention” (emphasis in original).
According to the Texas Freedom Network, “The State Board of Education will hold a public hearing on the OER reading curriculum for Kindergarten through Grade 5 as well as other materials submitted for approval in September. The board is expected to take a final vote on approval in November.” Information on the board’s upcoming meetings and public testimony registration is available on the board’s website.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
California’s Assembly Bill 3142 — which would, if enacted, codify the California Center for Climate Change at West Los Angeles College in the Los Angeles Community College District and establish the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education — was passed by the Senate on a 36-0 vote on August 20, 2024, and now proceeds to the governor’s desk.
In 2022, Assembly Bill 1913 sought to establish the California Center for Climate Change with a $5 million appropriation, as NCSE previously reported. Although the bill died in committee, the center was nevertheless established in 2023, with the aid of a $5 million allocation in the 2022 state budget and a further $1.3 million of federal funding.
Like Assembly Bill 1913, Assembly Bill 3142 would amend the state’s education code to include a description of the center’s mission (“to promote climate change education at the California Community Colleges and establish opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and other learning opportunities”), activities, and responsibilities.
The bill would also establish the California Mobile Unit for Climate Change Education to aid the center in its provision of opportunities for students to engage in hands-on internships and the like. Originally a further $1.5 million would have been allocated for the purpose, but the bill was amended to make the allocation conditional on a separate approval by the legislature.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
House Bill 4895, Illinois’s first climate change education bill to pass the legislature, was signed into law by Governor J. B. Pritzker on August 9, 2024.
As passed, the bill provides that, “Beginning with the 2026-2027 school year, every public school shall provide instruction on climate change, which shall include, but not be limited to, identifying the environmental and ecological impacts of climate change on individuals and communities and evaluating solutions for addressing and mitigating the impact of climate change and shall be in alignment with State learning standards, as appropriate. The State Board of Education shall, subject to appropriation, prepare and make available multi-disciplinary instructional resources and professional learning opportunities for educators that may be used to meet the requirements of this subsection.”
The provisions of the bill as passed are substantially less ambitious than the bill as introduced. As introduced, the bill would have required every public high school in Illinois to “include in its curriculum a unit of instruction addressing climate change in either a required science class or a required social studies class.” It would also have required instruction on climate change to be included in all high school courses in science, agriculture, social science, and relevant career and technical education courses. The state superintendent of education would have been charged with preparing appropriate instructional materials and professional development training for educators.
Before the bill was signed, Northern Public Radio (July 12, 2024) interviewed Grace Brady, a recent high school graduate from Naperville, Illinois, who “created and helped write” the bill. “I felt unsatisfied with the amount of education on climate change,” Brady explained. In researching possible remedies, she added, “I found that most people want climate change education, most students do. And I found that it was important that climate change education is integrated in different courses.” Pursuing the project required “quite a bit of persistence, being flexible, and working with the different stakeholders.” She advised her fellow students concerned about climate change education to “stay persistent, stay curious, ask questions, and just keep going on whatever you’re passionate about.”
Two other climate change education bills, Senate Bill 3644 and House Bill 4319, died in committee when the legislature adjourned.
Organization: National Center for Science Education
Organization Description: The National Center for Science Education promotes and defends accurate and effective science education because everyone deserves to engage with the evidence. One day, students of all ages will be scientifically literate, teachers will be prepared and empowered to teach accurate science, and scientific thinking and decision-making will ensure that all life can thrive and overcome challenges to our shared future.
By Glenn Branch
NCSE Deputy Director Glenn Branch discussed the ongoing challenges for climate change education in a ten-minute video posted on the YouTube channel The Wonderful Truth (August 13, 2024). Beginning by describing the recent censorship of climate change in Florida’s science textbooks, Branch pivoted to discuss “Climate change education in U.S. middle schools: Changes over five pivotal years,” a recent publication from NCSE’s Investigating Science Education program that documented promising improvements in middle school climate education. “It is certainly encouraging that when pollsters ask people whether they support schools teaching about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming, about three in four of them say that they strongly or somewhat support it,” Branch concluded. “That’s true even in Florida.”
Safa Ahmed: Yes, sure. What this new survey reveals is that 80% of Indian American Muslims are reporting experiences of discrimination and exclusion, particularly by a political version of another religion, Hinduism, in the form of Hindu nationalism, often from their American peers.
For some background on where the idea for this survey came from, the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) has existed for around 20 years. It was founded in 2002, right after Modi became the prime minister of Gujarat, a state in Northern India. In 2002, he was the chief minister of that state. Under his watch, and as reported by the BBC, many people claim, with his explicit permission, a pogrom was carried out against Indian Muslims.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 1: Manahel Thabet for being the first in this series and giving a gauge on the feasibility of this project, and to Evangelos Katsioulis, Jason Betts, Marco Ripà, Paul Cooijmans, Rick Rosner; in spite of far more men in these communities, it, interview-wise, started with a woman, even the Leo Jung Mensa article arose from the generosity of a woman friend, Jade.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 2: Claus Volko, Deb Stone, Erik Haereid, Hasan Zuberi, Ivan Ivec, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Monika Orski, and Rick Rosner.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 3: Andreas Gunnarsson, Anja Jaenicke, Christian Sorensen, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Florian Schröder, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Graham Powell, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Krystal Volney, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Owen Cosby, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Sandra Schlick, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Thomas Wolf, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Jørgensen.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4: Björn Liljeqvist, Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, DSandra Schlick, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Justin Duplantis, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick G. Rosner, Thomas Wolf, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Arne Jørgensen.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 5: Anthony Sepulveda, Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, Heinrich Siemens, Hindemburg Melão Jr., Jason Robert, Julien Garrett Arpin, Justin Duplantis, Marios Sophia Prodromou, Matthew Scillitani, Mhedi Banafshei, Rick Rosner, Tiberiu Sammak, Tor Arne Jørgensen, and Veronica Palladino.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6: Anas El-Husseini, Andrew Watters, Anthony Sepulveda, Arturo Escorza Pedraza, Beatrice Rescazzi, Bob Williams, Byunghyun Ban (반병현), Casper Tvede Busk, Charles Peden, Craig Shelton, Christian Sorensen, Claus Volko, Erik Haereid, Gareth Rees, Giuseppe Corrente, Justin Duplantis, Krystal Volney, Mhedi Banafshei, Paul Cooijmans, Richard May (“May-Tzu”/”MayTzu”/”Mayzi”), Richard Sheen, Shalom Dickson, Thor Fabian Pettersen, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Tor Arne Jørgensen, and Anonymous Canadian High-IQ Community Member.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by Retired Nuclear Physicist Bob Williams
With numerous large volumes of interviews, conducted by Scott Jacobsen, now available, we have a valuable resource for the study of the lives and pursuits of very bright people. Despite the large impact of people from this group, intelligence research has been overwhelmingly directed towards the middle 98%, thereby leaving out the most important 1%. There have been only two important longitudinal studies of very bright people. The first was Terman’s study that showed the high level of productivity and life satisfaction among the cohorts who were known as “Termites.” This study was criticized for its selection process (heavily verbal weighted) and the involvement of Terman in the lives of some of the group. The second study was the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, started by Julian Stanley and presently maintained by Camilla Benbow and David Lubinski. The longitudinal study shifted from the SAT-M to the SAT math and verbal. Curiously, the cohorts in those studies give the impression of following different paths than a large number of the interviewed group. The important thing is that these interviews add to a sparse part of the spectrum of what is known about very bright people.
Detterman, D.K., 2016. Was Intelligence necessary?. Intelligence, 55, pp.v-viii.
From very early, I was convinced that intelligence was the most important thing of all to understand, more important than the origin of the universe, more important than climate change, more important than curing cancer, more important than anything else. That is because human intelligence is our major adaptive function and only by optimizing it will we be able to save ourselves and other living things from ultimate destruction. It is as simple as that.
[Douglas Detterman is the founder of the International Society for Intelligence Research and its journal, Intelligence.]
The volumes of interviews on In-Sight, while not research studies, give us multiple snapshots of very bright people, their beliefs, their experiences, and their life directions. These are things that are missed by Terman and Stanley.
I was surprised and pleased to see that some of the interviews in this volume are of people I have known — through the marvel of cyberspace — for a long time. If you are daunted by the number of interviews here and plan to read only a few samples, please take time to read the typically entertaining and thought provoking interview with Richard May, who continues to argue that he does not exist! Richard has the ability to be entertaining, abstract, and stimulating without being pedant.
One of the many insights we have from Charles Spearman is known as Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns. It tells us that the general factor (g, Spearman’s g, psychometric g) accounts for less and less of the differences seen in intelligence among increasingly bright people, shifting high level ability towards non-g factors and causing increased diversity of thought and interests. Although there are some mixed results in confirming SLODR, it is generally accepted by researchers as valid. In reading through this collection of interviews, the reality of this observation can be seen, as evidenced by the different interests and ways of thinking among this bright group.
Foreword by Gareth Rees
I’d like to take a moment to reflect on and appreciate the events that led to the compilation of these interviews. I extend my gratitude to all past and present test designers and candidates, regardless of the latent variables being measured. These individuals have played a key role in fostering communities that may endure for generations to come.
Intelligence is one of the most important traits. Through the contributions of the participants in this issue of Some Smart People, we catch a glimpse of its many facets.
In the distant future, we will eventually achieve superintelligence — a system where input from all intelligent beings is selected, processed, and integrated. Opposing views will create pathways for new insights when combined, and bias will be discarded in the pursuit of higher knowledge. While the world isn’t ready yet, when greater awareness emerges, we will have the opportunity to experience the true magic and harmony of elevated existence.
On a final note, we owe a huge thanks to Scott Douglas Jacobsen for his years of thoughtful dedication and persistence. So, THANK YOU, Scott!
Foreword by Author and Poet Krystal Volney
To introduce myself, my name is Krystal Volney and I’m a Sociologist, Computing and Public Relations graduate who has been the Co-Editor of the Phenomenon Magazine of the World Intelligence Network since 2019. The Author of Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6 Scott Douglas Jacobsen, is a brilliant writer and Interviewer who is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing. In this splendidly put together book, readers can view conversations between him and thirty-two High-IQ geniuses from interviews he conducted. The significance of the discussions is to demonstrate the opinions of those people on various matters in life in the fields of Philosophy, High-IQ societies & Intelligence Testing and I believe that this is a magnificent book to read.
To begin, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Philosophy is defined as ‘the use of reason and argument in seeking truth and knowledge of reality, esp. of the causes and nature of things and of the principles governing existence, the material universe, perception of physical phenomena, and human behavior’. Metaphysics (a branch of Philosophy to be more exact) is an interesting topic that is discussed with the Philosopher Christian Sorensen and Scott Douglas Jacobsen in this book. The interview underlined his views on what is ‘Real’, different types of Philosophy and various belief systems. Another interview where this is discussed is with Arturo Escorza Pedraza who is a member of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. The interviewee Charles Peden stated his views on ethical philosophy, theology and religion when asked. In the conversation between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dr. Giuseppe Corrente, life philosophy such as in the political and social realms was examined. Glia Society member Anas El-Husseini gave his views on ethical philosophy when asked by the Interviewer. Shalom Dickson, a member of the Glia Society as well, stated his beliefs in Kantian ethics when ethical philosophy was inquired. A member of the World Genius Directory, Casper Tvede Busk dictated his viewpoints in ethical philosophy, theology and religion in an interview with Scott. Thor Fabian Pettersen, another interviewee, gives the readers a profound understanding of his philosophical values. In the next two interviews with an anonymous Canadian High-IQ Community member and Richard May, philosophical interpretations were underscored. Therefore, it is valid to declare that in Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6, that Philosophy is importantly discussed between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and those selected geniuses, making it a spectacular book to read.
Additionally, High-IQ societies are groups for people that share top IQ scores to meet, socialize and share their interests. By way of example, Mensa International, the Mega Society, the Prometheus Society, the Giga Society and the World Intelligence Network (that has many High-IQ clubs for child prodigies, students, college graduates and the Elderly). In Scott Douglas Jacobsen’s book Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6, he conducted interviews with those in the Intelligence Quotient community about their High-IQ memberships such as Christian Sorensen, Arturo Escorza Pedraza, Justin Duplantis, Tor Arne Jørgensen, Mhedi Banafshei, Claus Volko and Beatrice Rescazzi. Consequently, this makes the book by Scott a great choice for any reader interested in or a member of the High-IQ societies.
Furthermore, Cambridge Dictionary defines an ‘Intelligence Test as a test that measures the ability of a person to understand and learn by comparing it with the ability of other people’. These tests begin when pupils are at kindergarten and continue all throughout life for most humans who value being educated in the schooling systems. There are those who choose to take IQ-tests to measure their intelligence by qualifying and becoming members of High-IQ clubs or pursuing undergraduate and/or graduate degrees or doing both IQ testing as well as testing in schools or homeschooling. In Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6 Scott Douglas Jacobsen’s interviews demonstrate the opinions of the geniuses Byunghyun Ban, Christian Sorensen, Justin Duplantis and an Anonymous Canadian High-IQ member with regards to Intelligence Testing, that proves that his book is something all in the High-IQ community would enjoy. As a result, it is valid to announce that this is magnificent work to read.
To conclude, the book Some Smart People: Views and Lives 6 authored by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is great for leisure reading for bibliophiles and those in the High-IQ clubs. It truly demonstrates the genius of ‘some intelligent people’ literally who are qualified through Intelligence Testing via I.Q. tests as well as constant learners with educational attainments. Great Job Scott!
Krystal Volney
(Poet and Author)
Foreword by TNS Former Editor Justin Duplantis
It is both an honor and a pleasure to introduce this insightful work by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, a distinguished author renowned for his explorations into the realms of intelligence and the human mind. Drawing upon expertise and a wealth of personal experiences, Jacobsen paints a comprehensive and vivid picture of what it means to belong to one of the most intellectually gifted segments of society, through his in-depth interviews.
As someone who has served as the Editor for the Triple Nine Society, an international High IQ society that prides itself on community, shared knowledge, and mutual support, I am deeply familiar with the unique challenges and incredible potential that high IQ individuals embody. My personal interviews with Jacobsen provided a platform to discuss these themes in detail, bringing light to the often underrepresented narratives of exceptionally bright children and their navigation through life.
In our conversations, we delved into topics ranging from educational strategies tailored to high IQ children, the importance of emotional intelligence alongside cognitive prowess, and the societal perceptions that often overshadow these young minds’ capabilities. The high IQ community at large, including organizations like the Triple Nine Society, plays a crucial role in fostering environments where brilliance is not only recognized but also nurtured — a core theme that this book captures so eloquently.
Jacobsen’s writing is accessible yet profound, offering both scholarly depth and practical insights for individuals, parents, educators, and anyone interested in the psychology of intelligence. His dedication to understanding and communicating the intricacies of high IQ individuals is evident on every page, making this book a valuable resource for those within and outside the high IQ community. It is my hope that readers will gain not only knowledge but also a greater appreciation for the extraordinary capabilities and needs of high IQ children and adults. May this book serve as a beacon of understanding and a call to action for a more inclusive and supportive society.
Sincerely, Justin Duplantis
Former Editor and Executive Committee Member, Triple Nine Society
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Paul Cooijmans founded GliaWebNews, Order of Thoth, Giga Society, Order of Imhotep, The Glia Society, and The Grail Society. His main high-IQ societies remain Giga Society and The Glia Society. Both devoted to the high-IQ world. Giga Society, founded 1996, remains among the world’s most exclusive high-IQ society with a theoretical cutoff of one in a billion individuals. The Glia Society, founded in 1997, is a “forum for the intelligent” to “encourage and facilitate research related to high mental ability.” Cooijmans earned credentials, two bachelor degrees, in composition and in guitar from Brabants Conservatorium. His interests lie in human “evolution, eugenics, exact sciences (theoretical physics, cosmology, artificial intelligence).” He continues administration of numerous societies, such as the aforementioned, to compose musical works for online consumption, to publish intelligence tests and associated statistics, and to write and publish on topics of interest to him. He can be contacted here. Cooijmans discusses: 1994; the realizations about the tests; g; common mistakes in trying to make high-range tests valid, reliable, and robust; the counterintuitive findings in the study of the high-range; the core abilities measured at the higher ranges of intelligence; skills and considerations; proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests; remove or minimize test constructor bias; listed norms; the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test; the structure of the data in high-range test results; homogeneous and heterogeneous tests; “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests; English-based bias; questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability; roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments; the intended age-range for high-range tests; sex differences; frauds and cheaters; identity verification; the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker; ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test; precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test; appropriate places for people to start; test constructors have you considered good; learned from making these tests and their variants; Mahir Wu; test item answers with ambiguity; sufficient clues for discovery and solution; a mere guessing logic; a test’s quality; the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors; issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another; scale and norm; Matthew Scillitani; a stigma around high-range tests; test construction and norming processes; the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test; tests–51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special; articles in Netherlandic on test design; some submitted questions anonymously; geniuses; yourself as a genius; others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence; most common mistake people make when submitting feedback; aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing; Marathon Test Numeric Section; creating high-range questions; books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics.
Keywords: Cooijmans intelligence tests development, counterintuitive findings in IQ testing, difficult intelligence tests creation, high-range intelligence measurement, early IQ test construction insights, intelligence scale development, guitarist talent assessment, high-range IQ test insights, IQ testing beyond mainstream limits, high-range IQ testing, IQ tests for Giga Society.
On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics
Paul Cooijmans: I have examined the sheets of paper on which I created the first test, as well as my agendas from that period, and it appears the interest started in the spring of 1994, like April or May.
Jacobsen: At the time, what were the realizations about the tests and the need to develop yours?
Cooijmans: The first test was meant to assess the progress of guitarists, and I had many guitar students then, even over a hundred, including those of jobs as a replacement teacher. I was astounded how well a guitarist’s level could be graded on this scale, and also noted that guitarists were not necessarily advancing, and that beginners were sometimes way ahead of some long-term students, which made me realize there was something like talent, and that only limited progress within one’s range of talent was possible. And I observed that the level of a guitarist on this scale seemed to reflect a more general property than just musicality or guitar-technical ability, which is why I called this instrument “Graduator for human and guitarist”. Later I realized that this general property was mostly intelligence, and that when you measure specific skills or abilities, you also catch in general intelligence, often even primarily so.
In this period (1990s) I was taking some mainstream intelligence tests myself. I tended to get the maximum scores they could (or would) report on tests like Cattell Culture Fair, the Netherlandic WAIS, and the entire Drenth test series (the last were the hardest and highest-level tests available in the Netherlands) and when I asked what my real level was and how far I was above the reported maximum, I was told it was not possible to measure intelligence beyond about the 99th centile and that they had no tests that gave meaningful scores in that range. I also asked a few giftedness researchers about this, with the same answer. This, and the success of the Graduator, gave me the idea to create difficult intelligence tests to find out whether it was possible after all to measure intelligence at those higher levels.
Cooijmans: For a large number of my tests, I computed the estimated “g” loadings separately for the bottom half and the upper half of scores, the separation point being the median of scores. The upper half loadings were not generally much lower than the bottom half ones, although they were somewhat lower. This is reported in more detail at https://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/statistics/differentiation_hypothesis.html
If the question is for the real reason behind this, I suppose it is so that when a test contains sufficiently difficult problems and is not purposely neutered to hide differences between people, it will not lose “g” loading in the high range as much as mainstream psychological I.Q. tests do.And, the limited amount of loading it does lose may be due to the statistical phenomenon of attenuation by restriction of range, in other words may be an artefact and not a real loss.
I should explain that “g” loading is computed from correlations, and that correlations rely on variance. If you consider a restricted range (like the high range, or even the upper half of it as meant above) you are obviously restricting the variance compared to the full range, and therefore you are restricting the possible correlations you may find, and thus also restricting the possible “g” loading. This is a statistical artefact, not a real decrease of “g”. There may be a real decrease going on as well, of course.
Cooijmans: I am not so certain if many other test creators are even trying to make their tests valid, reliable, and robust, but if so, mistakes are the following:
(1) Making the test too short. This is bad for reliability, which increases with test length, and therefore also bad for validity, because reliability (correlation of a test with itself) is the upper limit of a test’s validity (correlation of a test with what it was intended to measure, or with anything else outside the test). Something can not correlate higher with something else than it correlates with itself.
(2) Making a test one-sided, homogeneous, only containing one item type. This reduces validity with regard to general intelligence, and makes the test more vulnerable to fraud and to score inflation through increasing familiarity with the item type, so less robust.
(3) Making it likely that test answers will leak out in ways as follows: Publishing the test itself online, revealing answers to candidates after test-taking, publishing item analysis so that everyone can see how difficult each item is, allowing retests (which allows people to figure out what the intended answers to some problems are), giving feedback as to which problems a candidate had wrong, answering questions about the test to candidates who are taking the test, and possibly more.
(4) Subjective scoring of problems that do not have a single correct answer. This reduces the reliability and validity of the test; scores are not comparable between candidates.
(5) Relying on face validity regarding what a problem measures or how hard it is. This tends to be far off.
(6) Omitting verbal problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. This greatly limits a test’s validity with regard to general intelligence. Verbal problems span by far the widest range of abilities and hardness, and one should not throw that away. Of course it should never be about idioms or pronunciation, as those are localized and transient. Verbal problems should transcend language barriers and fashions or trends.
(7) Omitting knowledge-requiring problems, thinking they are biased or unfair. It is only trivial, transient knowledge that one should avoid. Fundamental, general knowledge that transcends barriers greatly adds to a test’s validity.
(8) Finally I have to include a mistake that I made myself on several occasions: helping or cooperating with the wrong persons, who later proved unreliable, deceitful, or otherwise misbehaving. Promoting tests by someone who later turned against me or denied my role, co-authoring a test with someone who then leaked out the answers, things like that. So, not being selective enough when deciding whether to cooperate with someone.
Cooijmans: The first counterintuive finding is that test problems are much harder for the candidate than for the test creator, and that a fair number of (in the eyes of the latter) ridiculously easy problems need to be included to obtain a score distribution with a discernible left tail. Going by one’s intuitive notion of item hardness, one gets a distribution with a mode at zero right or so, and a steeply tapering right tail from there.
The second counterintuitive finding is the huge sex difference in participation. I would never have guessed there would be 4.5 times more males as females taking high-range tests, and on the level of test submissions the ratio is even 10.5 because males take more tests per person. Because of this sex difference, I have recently started reporting the “proportion of high-range candidates outscored” within-sex.After all, sports like boxing have separate competitions per sex too, have they not?And nearer by, even mental sports like chess have women’s competitions, although the naive observer will have difficulty understanding the necessity for that.The sex difference in participation should be seen in the light of the general phenomenon that, on almost all types of psychological tests, the highest and lowest scores tend to come from males. This greater male spread may explain why a test focused on the high range receives more male participation.
The third counterintuitive finding concerns a small but significant negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with various indicators of psychiatric disorders and deviance, such as actual reported disorders, disorders in relatives, and personality test scores. I had not expected this, based on the popular notion of “giftedness” as a problem that requires “help”, and based on remarks of highly intelligent people who told me things like, “I am certain that those of very high intelligence are more inclined to depression”. I do not know why this correlation is negative; maybe a high I.Q. suppresses the expression of a disorder, or maybe the disorder depresses one’s I.Q.? My observation in communication with people of known I.Q. test scores over many years is consistent with the negative correlation: the higher the I.Q. of people, the more normal they behave in the psychosocial sense (even the ones who believe that their high I.Q. makes them more inclined to depression).
Cooijmans: Since high-range tests are typically unsupervised and untimed, certain types of tasks can not be included: working memory, concentration, working under time pressure, dexterity, motor coordination, clerical accuracy and such all require supervision. To our good fortune, most of those abilities are known to have relatively low “g” loadings compared to what can be included in unsupervised untimed tests: verbal, numerical, and spatial or visual-spatial problems. So a good indication of “g” is still possible via unsupervised testing.The factors known to have the highest “g” loadings are present.
The absence of tasks as meant in the first sentence of the previous paragraph might lead one to think that high-range tests have some bias in favour of theoretical, abstract-logical, clumsy, wooden bookworm types, but this should not be taken for granted, and is perhaps even contradicted by the negative correlation of high-range I.Q. with indicators of psychiatric disorders. Also, spatial and visual-spatial tasks, which are present, are known to correlate positively with practical, performance, hands-on tasks involving motor coordination and dexterity, so that part of the missing task types are more or less covered still. And visual reasoning or visual-spatial problems have no bias against persons of low verbal ability.
On a more general level, high-range tests can be said to demand strict reasoning, as well as the ability to recognize pattern of any kind. Pattern recognition may be related to what I have called “associative horizon”, and may include what others call “thinking outside the box” or “stepping out of the system”. The higher levels of pattern recognition, I think, require awareness, and that would imply that scores above a certain level be only possible for aware entities. Seeing the rise of artificial intelligence, this may become important. As long as artificial intelligence is not aware, constructors of high-range tests will need to try to limit new tests to types of problems that can not yet be solved by artificial intelligence, to avoid fraud by people consulting artificial intelligence for problem-solving. Once artificial intelligence acquires self-awareness, it should be able to solve any test problems that humans can solve.
Jacobsen: In an overview, what skills and considerations seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Cooijmans: I would say that if one is highly intelligent with a reasonably balanced profile as well as conscientious, almost any skill can be learnt. The primary skill is being an autodidact. I know some have a disdain for autodidacts and consider them crackpots. But if you are doing something original, anything that has not been done before, you had better be an autodidact because no one can tell you how to do it. There exists no path to where no one has gone before.A further handicap of autodidact originality is that often you can not refer to “sources” as is customary in mainstream science. If you are the first to think of something, you are yourself the source and there is nothing already extant to refer to.
Skills that may need to be learnt for constructing test items include expressing oneself properly through language so as to truly communicate, making positive use of comments from others, drawing, image editing, statistics, programming, organizing one’s time (days, weeks, months) in a disciplined way, getting out of bed daily, and more such obvious things.
Examples of habits to be urgently unlearnt are the use of idiomatic expressions and abbreviations, anonymity and pseudonymity, inappropriate communication while under the influence of substance abuse, and not responding punctually to bona fide work-related communication (as in regularly letting people wait for months). This paragraph may yield some angry “Do you mean me?” responses, but it has to be said.
There are also requirements that, unfortunately, can not be learnt, such as sincerity and sense of righteousness.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on proposals for dynamic or adaptive tests rather than–let’s call them–“static” tests consisting of a single item or set of items presented as a whole test, unchanging, instead of a collection of algorithmically variant or shifting items adapting to prior testee answers in a computer interface?
Cooijmans: Firstly it occurs to me that if one is going to use a computer interface and software to assess an individual’s intelligence, analysis of observed behaviour (including communication) and of the candidate’s responses to a computer-conducted interview should already provide a quite accurate estimation. Observation and interview are the primary means of gathering information in psychology. The interview could be made adaptive, with subsequent questions depending on prior answers, but a standard interview might work just as well. In the age of artificial intelligence, this is the way to go first.
Secondly, if one is going to use a computer interface and software anyway, the testing of elementary cognitive tasks like reaction time, decision time, perceptual threshold, and working memory capacity should probably be the next thing to do. After observation and interview, testing is the third method of collecting information. A practical problem is that one may need to use the same quality of hardware to get reliable results. When letting people use their own computer, the results may be affected by the quality and speed of one’s graphical processing unit, and whether or not one has a dedicated one, for instance.
Finally, adaptive psychometric testing might be tried. But there are problems; it is not for nothing that static psychometric tests are so much more common in practice. Adaptive testing relies on item-response theory, wherein statistical properties like difficulty and discrimination are first determined for each item by letting a group of people try to solve it. These values are later used to compute the score of the candidate being tested adaptively, the set of items used being different for different candidates.
One problem is that statistical properties of single items are not constant in my experience, but change depending on the context in which the item is presented, and depending on the group of people attempting the item. For instance, if an item is presented among other items that are somewhat similar to it, it will likely behave as an easier item than when it is presented among items that are more different from it. And if an item is attempted by a group of conscientious people, it will have higher discriminating power than when it is attempted by unconscientious people. So the values of these item properties used in adaptive testing may be off, or as already said, single items do not have constant statistical properties, and that undermines the idea of adaptive psychometric testing.
Also, adaptive psychometric testing as it is normally thought of requires timing and supervision in my opinion. But the worldwide high-range testing population is used to unsupervised untimed tests, and only a tiny fraction of them may be willing to travel to the hypothetical location where one has set up one’s million-euro adaptive testing system.
Jacobsen: How do you remove or minimize test constructor bias from tests?
Cooijmans: It is best to prevent such bias by creating a wide variety of item types and subject matter, and by trying to think of new such types and matter with every new test. Studying comments from candidates may also help to avoid item types and subject matter that have become familiar among test-takers and that they appear to expect from you. Statistical item analysis may also indicate that there are problems with particular items, and by looking into that one may in some cases discover that the problem lies in the item’s being too similar to other items one used before.
A few concrete methods to avoid bias are as follows: When creating knowledge-dependent items, consult a high-level thematic index of all the branches of human knowledge. One may find such in the Propaedia of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or in old-school web directories from before search engines dominated web search. Strive to make each knowledge-dependent item come from a different branch of knowledge. This prevents the inclusion of only fields of knowledge that the test creator happens to be acquainted with.
Vocabulary-dependent items may be constructed with the aid of dictionaries and use of a random element when choosing words to include.
One may look over one’s earlier tests when creating a new one to avoid repeating item types or patterns that were used before. Not that such repetition must be avoided totally, but it should remain limited, and a significant part of the new test should be novel.
Finally, to provide oneself with a broad pool of inspiration for possible test problems, one should expose oneself to a grand diversity of subject matter in the form of books and documentaries. This should also include materials that provide a basic understanding of fundamental sciences like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and so on. One should aim to understand nature, reality, the universe, and awareness at the deepest level. The desire to understand existence is behind all great works of art and science.
Jacobsen: How do we know with confidence listed norms are, in fact, reasonably accurate on many of these tests? What is the range of sample sizes on the tests, even approximately, now? Practically speaking, for good statistics, what is your ideal number of test-takers? You can’t say, “8,128,000,000.”
Cooijmans: For the norms that I have made, the norming method is explained in the statistical report of the test in question, and some further explanation is referred to from the report. The reports contain about all the statistics that can be revealed without violating candidates’ privacy and without damaging the security of the test. So if one understands the report, one knows how much confidence to have in the norms. In fact I have devised a measure of quality of norms, based on the number of score pairs used and on their correlation with the object test.
Since the norms are anchored to other tests and not based directly on the general population (as opposed to the high-range population, for which I do have direct norms) it remains a question how close the high-range norms would be to the general population norms in that range, if tests existed that were normed directly on the general population and extended into the high range. The best indication thereto that I know of is the Mega Test by Ronald K. Hoeflin, which was normed mainly on the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination, which did seem to give meaningful scores into the high range, and thus form an anchor point between the general United States population and the high-range population, albeit that the G.R.E. was administered to a clearly above-average sample of the population so that the S.A.T. is ultimately the true anchor point.
Hoeflin’s Titan and Ultra Tests were normed to be consistent with the Mega Test norms, I think. The same goes for my early tests, and over the years I have tried to keep the norms in accordance with that anchor point over many generations of norms. To facilitate this, I have invented protonorms, which form an extra layer between raw scores and I.Q.’s, so that adjustments can be made in the relation of protonorms to I.Q. without having to change the norms of every single test. So, the question as to how we know that the norms are reasonably accurate, in one sense, goes back to Hoeflin’s interpretation of reported Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination scores, and scores on possible other tests used in norming the Mega Test, such as Cattell Verbal (also called Cattell B).Someone once sent me the data from the “Omni sample” of Mega Test scores, with known scores on other tests and correlations, which is how I know that the two mentioned educational tests provided the bulk of the norming data. I assume that Hoeflin had the population percentiles of the S.A.T. scores and used those as the main source of the Mega Test norms.
But there is more. Over time I have come to understand that the high-range score distribution itself contains information that is likely of an absolute nature and may help to anchor the norms or keep them consistent over time: The mode or modal range of high-range scores (when many scores are aggregated, for instance by combining the scores from many tests) occurs in the I.Q. 130s by current norms; below it, scores taper off steeply, above it, shallowly. This mode seems to be the point below which people feel less or not attracted to take high-range tests, and as such it should represent an absolute intelligence level; the level from where people are interested in intellectual endeavours, one might say.
Also, the level reached by the very highest scorers seems about constant over time, and falls between I.Q. 180 and 195 with the current norms. I am even carefully evolving to the viewpoint that this may be the highest intelligence level possible for any brain. So one could say that the norms in the high range are also defined by these two absolute (though coarse-grained) indicators (mode and maximum), not just by equation to scores from other tests. And, the number of scores that occur at these respective ranges are such that the current norms appear to be correct, that is, roughly in accordance with what one would expect given the predicted rarity in the general population of those I.Q. levels in a normal distribution.In fact one could theoretically norm the high range using these two indicators as anchor points, not needing scores from mainstream tests at all. And one could extend those norms linearly downward to include the normal range of intelligence, and the resulting scale might be better than that of actual mainstream tests normed directly on the general population. This is so because the general population and its average intelligence are changing, and therefore the norms of mainstream tests adapt to this change and are merely relative to the current population, not absolute. The high-range norms are the real, absolute indicator of intelligence.
The sample sizes of high-range tests vary from 0 to about 400, but for those with good norms mostly from 36 to 225 or so. The ideal number of test-takers to norm a test is about 64. More is not necessarily better, because as the submissions keep coming in and go into the triple-digit range, the later scores may not be fully comparable to the earlier scores any more due to things like answer leakage and increased familiarity with item types, and the norms may be affected by that and become unfair to the earlier test-takers. This can be countered by replacing problems that have become too easy (have leaked answers) but that changes the test, which also makes later scores less comparable to earlier ones, and if you change more than a little bit, you have to call it a revision and start over at zero collecting statistics for that new version.
High-range tests that appear to have very large samples, like around 300 or more, have generally achieved this through undesirable manipulations like retesting under false names, or combining retests with first attempts in the same sample, and so on.
Jacobsen: What arethe most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and, potentially, a tendency in a restricted set of personality types? Dr. Ronald Hoeflin was claimed to have the largest sample size of the high-range test constructors. Do you have the largest legitimate sample size of any high-range test constructor at this time, now, based on over a quarter century conscientiously gathering data? You were the most recommended person to interview for this series.
Cooijmans: In my experience, the best way to norm a high-range test is to rank-equate its raw scores to normed scores of the candidates on other tests. The other tests to be used should be selected based on their correlations with the object test; one sets the correlation threshold such that one obtains enough pairs. I have recently begun to set the threshold so that it maximizes the quality of norms, as given by a mathematical expression that uses the number of pairs and the weighted mean correlation. Thus it is objective, avoiding human decision.The expression that represents quality of norms is operational and may be improved as insights advance; I mention this because I know some are inclined to take these statistics as final and absolute, but they are parameters or controls that one sets to tune the system.
I deny that high-range sample sizes are low. They are in the dozens to hundreds as I said above, and that is well into the range of mainstream test samples and more than enough for good statistics. Considering that the high range consists of only a fraction of the population, it is to be expected that the samples are smaller, and in fact they are not much smaller at all. The notion that mainstream I.Q. tests have enormous samples is mistaken. Typically they have several hundred per norm group. Norm groups exist for age ranges, but sometimes also for educational levels. In the Netherlands there are different levels of secondary schools, and mainstream I.Q. tests may have separate norms per level, sometimes even based on only a few dozen per level (like in a Netherlandic version of the WAIS some years ago). A test often used by Mensa was normed on 3000, but divided over five age groups from 13 to 16 years, so the actual norms were based on 600 per age group. In other words they used high school students. And such norms have often been used for decades, ignoring the inflation of scores called “Flynn effect”. But in the minds of some people, the illusion is persistent that these “standard tests” are normed on hundreds of thousands or even millions, and form a kind of gold standard of I.Q. testing.
The largest samples are found in educational tests, but not as large as some think. In the Netherlands, a test called Cito-toets has long been used in the last year of primary school, yearly taken by about 100 000 children. But not normed on that number! The norms were established by administering an anchor test to a sample of about 4500 shortly before the actual test, and then equating the anchor test scores to the actual test scores. This helped to keep the standard scores stable throughout the years (the contents of the anchor test would remain the same for a number of years, while that of the actual test changed per year).
My own Cito report from 1977 shows a percentile of 100, which is uncommon but probably means the actual value was above 99.95, as a later statistical report by Cito I got to study contained a table where percentiles were rounded to 100 if the actual value was above 99.95. I have asked Cito in the mid-1990s what the precise value was, but they could not tell me, they only had kept percentiles as whole numbers. Similarly, I inquired about my scores on a comprehensive test given to us in secondary school around 1980, something like the Differential Aptitude Test, but was told those scores had not been saved. We never got a score report for that test at the time, but I understood from teachers I had done extremely well, and on a parent’s evening (which my parents never attended) a teacher told the public that I was a one-off (“unicum” was the Netherlandic word used). This teacher died in 2013, incidentally.
On the whole, I believe that high-range psychometrics is much more careful than mainstream psychometrics when it comes to the quality of norms and handling of score inflation by causes like answer leakage or people becoming more familiar with particular item types.
I might have the largest sample size of current high-range test constructors. It includes over 3000 individuals, over 6500 scores on I.Q. tests scored by me, over 2900 reported scores on other tests, and over 22000 data points on personal details, including personality tests. But more importantly, I have organized that data in an accessible way and automated the processing of it. I did all the programming myself, including the statistical functions.
Regarding a potentially restricted set of personality types and self-selection, it is inevitable that persons in the high range of intelligence differ in personality from those in the normal range and from those in the low range. This does not invalidate the norms in the high range. In fact, intelligence itself is a major aspect of personality. Self-selection is less of a problem than it seems because in general, people like doing what they are good at, so those attracted to taking high-range tests will mostly be intelligent. This is also illustrated by the rareness of low scores; only 3.5 % of scores fall under I.Q. 120 and 15 % under 130 (and no, this is not because the norms are too high, as self-doubting candidates sometimes suggest). Precisely what is going on with intelligence, non-cognitive personality traits, and brain-related disorders in the high range, and how this leads to creativity and genius in some, is an interesting question and I hope to understand more of it later on.
Jacobsen: What is the structure of the data in high-range test results? Do homogeneous and heterogeneous tests change this?
Cooijmans: Data structure is so important that someone who starts out collecting data for some purpose should ideally think out the database design beforehand. Once you have collected a lot of data, it becomes hard to make big changes to the design. The data structure of high-range tests looks as follows:
At the top level there are five sections:
(1) Descriptive information records for each test or type of personal datum. Each test or datum has a record here, and each record contains fields that hold information such as the test name, its maximum score, its contents types, and whatever further descriptive information there is. Conceptually, one may even imagine the tests themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual tests in a database but think of the database as referring to tests that exist in a reality outside the database.
(2) Candidate records. Each candidate has a record here, and each record has fields that hold the personal data of the candidate, and the candidate’s scores on the respective tests. Notice that a record here has hundreds of fields, but most or all candidates have only part of those hundreds of fields filled, depending on how many tests they have taken (each test has a field). Conceptually, one may even imagine the candidates themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual candidates in a database but think of the database as referring to candidates that exist in a reality outside the database.
Technically speaking, the test scores stored here are redundant insofar as they are also available from section (3), but for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(3) Test submission records. In this complex section, each test has a table, and each table has one record for each submission to that test, and each record has fields that hold information like some personal details of the candidate (corresponding to a record in (2)), score and possibly subscores, and the item scores, so for each item typically 0 or 1 for wrong or right, but any range of item scores is possible. Conceptually, one may even imagine the submitted answers themselves residing here in their respective records, but in practice one will probably not store actual submitted answers in a database but think of the database as referring to submitted answers that exist in a reality outside the database.
Do make certain to understand the difference between “test” and “test submission”. Some say the first when they mean the latter, but the above paragraph illuminates the necessity to distinguish the one from the other.
In this section in particular there is some appropriate redundancy in the form of for instance sex and age of the candidate (also available from section (2)) and scores and subscores (can also be computed dynamically from the item scores). But for reasons like faster processing and reducing load on the processor, redundant fields are sometimes included in databases.
(4) Test norm records. This complex section has a table for each test, and each table has one record for each possible score on that test, and each record has fields that contain the raw score and the corresponding norm (in my case this is a protonorm).
(5) Norming scale records. This section has one record for each norm as may be contained in (4), and each record has fields that hold the norm and corresponding values on other scales for that norm, for instance percentiles, proportions outscored per sex, and I.Q. if the actual norm is not an I.Q. (such as in my case, where protonorms are the norms contained in (4)).
This structure has emerged over time as a natural reflection of the data itself. Someone who starts from scratch may well find that a completely different approach works too. Perhaps one would rather avoid any redundancy? As long as one has thought it over carefully.
Jacobsen: What should be done with homogeneous and heterogeneous tests?
Cooijmans: I consider only heterogeneous tests able to give a good enough indication of general intelligence, and use the term I.Q. only for heterogeneous tests, not for homogeneous tests. Also I refuse to administer homogeneous tests because I do not want to confront people with a score that is a less good indicator of their intelligence, and do not want to facilitate people who want to show such a less good indicator to others and thus give a misleading impression of themselves.
Heterogeneous tests are tests that contain at least two different items types out of verbal, numerical, and spatial (sometimes I use “logical” as a type too). If one wants to study the intercorrelations of different homogeneous tests, the best way to do so is to use a heterogeneous test that has different homogeneous sections or subtests. One can then do correlation analysis or even factor analysis within such a sectioned heterogeneous test. That is also how factor analysis is traditionally done. A great advantage of this approach is that the sections or subtests will always have been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, and that is required for proper factor analysis.
Some of my heterogeneous tests have homogeneous subtests that are normed in their own right to “standard scores” (on the same scale as I.Q.), and in that case one can also compute the correlations of such a subtest with homogeneous subtests that reside in other such compound heterogeneous tests. But I dislike this complication and am striving to move to having only non-compound heterogeneous tests; that is, with sections not normed in their own right, or without sections, just with different item types mingled throughout the test. Another disadvantage of correlations between the subtests from different heterogeneous tests is that those subtests have been taken by different groups of candidates, so that proper factor analysis will not be possible, if one was thinking of that.
Jacobsen: People take multiple tests. They crunch those numbers. An implied claim of a real I.Q. from this crunching of numbers between multiple tests. Is there such a “real I.Q.” computable from multiple tests?
Cooijmans: In theory there is, but in practice there are problems that hinder the computation of a real I.Q. across tests. In the high-range community of candidates, many have taken enormous numbers of tests, dozens at least, and sometimes more than a hundred. It is problematic to compute a real I.Q. in the usual way from all taken tests for reasons like the following: The intercorrelations of the tests are mostly unknown, and there are too many intercorrelations for them to ever be known in the first place. Some tests may have bad norms. Some scores may be fraudulent. If a selection is made from the taken tests to narrow it down, this may be a non-representative selection. For example, a candidate having taken thirty tests may like to have a real I.Q. computed from one’s top several scores, which are already way above the real level of the candidate, and then the computed I.Q. will be even higher than the average of those top several scores due to the formula used.
The formulas for computing a real I.Q., such as “Ferguson’s formula”, take the average of the input scores and add something based on the correlations between the tests. With a perfect correlation, the outcome is simply the average. The lower the correlation(s), the higher the outcome. With zero correlation, you get something like a full unit of spread on top of the average. This may be correct in theory, but in practice leads to inflated outcomes.Apart from using a non-representative selection from one’s scores, another cause of inflation with these formulas is the fact that the known correlations between the tests are often underestimations of the true correlations due to incompleteness of the data and restriction of range. The groups who have taken the respective tests have only limited overlap for any pair of tests, and this overlap may suffer from selective reporting, and all in all this depresses the correlations. And lower correlations mean that the formula will yield a higher outcome. Underestimated correlations inflate computed “real I.Q.’s”.
Also, when a person takes multiple tests, a learning effect may take place as a result of which the scores become somewhat higher. This increase then comes in addition to the compensation for imperfect correlation that is built into these formulas for “real I.Q.”
For tests scored by me, I have devised a “qualified average I.Q.”, which tries to avoid the problems with these “real I.Q.’s”. Since I always have the complete data, no selection bias can inflate the average. The problem of underestimated correlations inflating the outcome is avoided by not using the computed correlations but assuming perfect correlations. If it seems unfair not to compensate for imperfect correlations, one may imagine that the learning effect from taking multiple tests replaces this compensation, so to speak. Finally, the computation is resistant to outliers. This is not claimed to be someone’s real I.Q., but I believe it is better than something like “Ferguson’s formula”. The exact formula of the qualified average I.Q. is operational and may be perfected over time as needed.
Jacobsen: IsEnglish-based bias a prominent problem throughout tests? Could this be limiting the global spread of possible test-takers of these tests rather than limiting them to particular language spheres? Although, these tests are taken, to a limited degree, in many countries of the world in all/most regions of the world.
Cooijmans: Such bias is a problem, but how prominent it is depends on what one’s native language is and on whether one knows English. For other Germanic languages it is a smaller problem than for non-Germanic languages, and it is worst for east-Asian languages. The fact that reference aids are allowed solves a big part of it, but for a non-native English speaker there remains a disadvantage, which I have estimated at up to 5 I.Q. points. Without reference aids (on a verbal test that disallows reference aids) this would be more like 30 I.Q. points for this non-native English speaker, and for someone who does not know English altogether it is in my opinion better not to attempt the tests at all.
It certainly limits the global spread of test-takers, especially in the areas where few people know English and the local language is very different from Germanic languages. I have always thought that the best solution for this is that people in such areas create their own tests in their own languages.
In recent years it has become somewhat common for people to try tests in a language they do not know. Of course one has an unpredictable disadvantage then.
Jacobsen: When trying to develop questions capable of tapping a deeper reservoir of general cognitive ability, what is important for verbal, numeral, spatial, logical (and other) types of questions?
Cooijmans: That reservoir will likely be tapped almost regardless of the questions, as general intelligence expresses itself through virtually everything a person does or says. Important are things like having a wide diversity of questions and types of questions, and avoiding localized transient subject matter like idioms, abbreviations, pronunciation matters, and local or fashionable knowledge, as such does not transcend barriers of language, culture, and age. Fundamental knowledge that is the same for everyone in the world is good; knowledge that is bound to a geographic area, in-group, or period is bad. For these reasons, and contrary to what some think, high-brow vocabulary and subject matter are more culture-fair than low-brow vocabulary and subject matter.
One should also be aware that learnt skills have no “g” loading; it is novel tasks that have “g” loading. Candidates sometimes complain that they have no idea what is expected from them when taking a test, or how to tackle it; but that is exactly the intention, that is how intelligence testing works! And candidates may be happy when they see a type of problem they have solved before because they know what to do then; but that is where their intelligence is NOT being used. Those problems have lost their “g” loading for them. So one should try to create problems that are different from what has been seen before, to enforce the use of intelligence.
To illustrate that even esteemed test constructors not always understand the loss of “g” loading of learnt skills, here is an anecdote: Some years ago on a social medium, I saw a test author proudly mention that his young child had scored over I.Q. 160 or so on one of his father’s tests; after extensive coaching by the father/test creator, of course!
Another observation regarding tapping into general cognitive ability: Good test problems are such that solving them is similar to making discoveries in the real world, unravelling the laws of nature and the universe.
Jacobsen: What are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these tests? So, they get artificially low scores on high-range tests. Also, what is the confusion made by smart (and, potentially, not-smart) people about time taken for a test to get a score and the intrinsic intelligence to get said score? You noted the latter point in one of the recent videos answering questions onyour YouTube channel.
Cooijmans: The idiomatic use of “roadblocks” is an example of what should not be in an intelligence test. Such an idiom is only understood within a narrow linguistic region and a restricted time period. It can not be understood without already knowing what it means. It can not be understood from the word itself or its context. The avoidance of idioms requires high intelligence and an abstract-literal mind.
The test instructions state that there is no time limit. Yet some think that their score will be unrealistically high and invalid if they spend “too much” time. It has happened that someone said, “I have now been looking at this test for so long that I can not submit it any more, I found all the answers, it would not be fair”. But that is exactly the intention with untimed tests; that one continues until one finds no further solutions.
The confusion meant in the question is probably the notion that someone who uses less time is smarter than someone who uses more time to arrive at the same score. But the principle of untimed testing is that this is not so, and that “until one finds no further solutions” is the right amount of time, irrespective of how long that is. This principle is based on the finding that when the allowed time is increased on a timed test, the test’s “g” loading rises. With supervised tests one needs to have a time limit for practical reasons, but with unsupervised tests one can leave out the limit entirely.
I must add that I have nothing against supervised tests, provided they have a very broad time limit, something like three hours for a comprehensive test. But this is not feasible in the high-range testing practice. I can not get people from all over the world to travel to a place here where I can test them, and I can not set up testing locations worldwide in all countries. I tried, but the number of candidates willing to make use of such was negligible compared to regular unsupervised tests. So I stopped. And then there is always someone who says, “I would be willing to travel to you if you started with that again”. But one or two people is not enough to justify the significant effort and time put into such a project. If others wish to try it, go ahead.
Jacobsen: What is the intended age-range for high-range tests? How do these account for individuals younger and older than this range?
Cooijmans: From about 16 upward with no upper limit I would say. Older people do decline, but it is important that they participate in order to enable the study of this decline. Younger people are allowed to take the tests, and in practice, 12 years is about the lower limit. But they should be aware that they have not reached their adult level and will score lower than they will later be capable of. The steep increase of intelligence in childhood tapers off at about 16 and becomes shallow then, hence the idea that one enters one’s adult intelligence range at 16.
Another way to answer this would be “after puberty”. Individuals, sexes, and ethnic groups differ in their childhood development, then puberty messes everything up, and after puberty things have mostly settled. That is why childhood studies of mental ability are so misleading; they misrepresent possible sex and ethnic differences. Puberty has normally completed by or before age 16-17. Age of onset of puberty varies greatly per individual, sex, and population, and tends to be one to two years earlier for girls than for boys.
There are no separate norms per age group as that would hide the development of intelligence with age. And one wants to reveal that development, not hide it. Also, all candidates are treated and addressed as mentally mature adults, regardless of age.
Jacobsen: A modestly common/uncommon knowledge of sex differences in the measurement of intelligence: Men do better at visuo-spatial subcomponents and women do better at verbal-emotional processing. What is important in constructing and norming a test if these and other differences exist? What similarities exist to not change this process?
Cooijmans: There are indeed sex differences in aspects of mental ability. In constructing unsupervised high-range tests, it is not possible or meaningful to take these into account. One should just include the widest variety of item types usable in unsupervised tests and focus on high mental ability regardless of sex.
Women have the bad fortune that the aspects on which they are known to outscore men mostly require supervision and timing, and can therefore mostly not be included in unsupervised tests. According to Arthur Jensen in chapter 13 of his book “The g factor”, these aspects are simple arithmetic, short-term memory, fluency (for instance, naming as many as possible words starting with a given letter within a limited time), reading, writing, grammar, spelling, perceptual speed (for instance, matching figures), clerical checking (both speed and accuracy, things like underlining certain letters in a text, or digit/symbol coding), motor coordination, and finger and manual dexterity. This problem is less serious than it seems because these are mostly lowly g-loaded tasks (not by anyone’s decision but because it happens to be so) so that the overall score will not be affected much by their absence, but it may be affected somewhat. This is related to what was observed in my answer to “What are the core abilities…”
In norming, the proportion of high-range candidates outscored should be provided within-sex for reasons of transparency. I.Q. norms should be sex-combined as is usual.
Jacobsen: Cheaters exist. Frauds exist. How do you a) deal with frauds and cheaters on tests and b) prevent fraud and cheating on those tests? Have reference texts been a problem in this? Does artificial intelligence complicate matters more? (If so, how?)
Cooijmans: When I discover that someone committed fraud I will discard the fraudulent score in the database and make a note so that I can exclude that person from further testing and from society admission. This is sometimes complicated by the use of multiple false identities by such a person. If the person is a member of a society I am an administrator of, I will expel the person. In communication with other test creators or societies I may reveal what I know about the person if that seems appropriate. I do not believe there exists an organized system for sharing information about frauds between test creators, perhaps there should.
Attempting to prevent fraud is done, for instance, by not publishing the test itself, letting people prepay, not sending tests to known frauds and so on. And if I find out that answers to particular test items are published or spread somehow, I will do something about it; mostly it comes down to replacing the items, sometimes leading to a revised version of the test. Sometimes a test is withdrawn entirely.
I am not aware of reference texts that were involved in fraud. Artificial intelligence complicates things because frauds might consult it to solve test problems, which is not allowed as the test instructions state not to obtain answers from external sources but only use answers that one thought of by oneself. To reduce this complication I try to create problems for new tests so that current artificial intelligence, insofar as I apprehend it, can not solve them. I try to make the problems so that, once artificial intelligence becomes able to solve them, it will also be able to take tests and join societies on its own accord. I believe that will happen one day, but fear this day lies quite far into the future. If I had to guess I would say half a century.
Jacobsen: It helps to have other data from other tests and personal data for identity verification. What information from other tests is helpful/necessary for research purposes of high-range tests? What is an efficient and appropriate format to provide this score information? What personal data is necessary from candidates, if any? What information would be helpful for research purposes from candidates?
Cooijmans: Scores on other tests should best be reported in a format as follows, insofar as known:
[Test author or issuing organization] [Test name] [Raw score] [I.Q.] [Standard deviation of I.Q. scale used] [Percentile]
Scores should best be grouped by the first field (Test author), of course starting a new line for each score.Nowadays there exist hundreds of tests, and I can not know from the top of my head which test is from which author or organization, so if that first field is left out when reporting scores, which is common, this causes many minutes of extra work in processing that information.
Concerning personal information, at least name, sex, year of birth, country of origin, and highest achieved educational level. Some further information I collect is the educational levels of the biological parents, the presence of a psychiatric disorder, and the presence of such disorders among parents or siblings.
Notice that I find the exact date of birth not strictly needed. It is about studying the development of raw intelligence with age, and with adults, year of birth suffices. In childhood testing, one would want it to the month.
Regarding psychiatric disorders, I do not ask for the particular disorder as that would require too much detail, too many options, too much complication in the statistical processing of it.
And country of origin is a pragmatic imperfect proxy of origin. One might consider asking for race or ethnicity, but such categorization is logistically problematic when one looks into it, has many complications, may be considered unethical by some, and some may refuse to reveal their status.
Other data that might be useful to collect include religiousness and femininity/masculinity (independent of sex). The possible correlation between religiousness and high-range I.Q. could then be established, which many are wondering about. And one could verify the anecdotal observation that intelligent men are more feminine than average men, and intelligent women more masculine than average women. In other words, that there is more gender diffusion in the high range, which would point to an optimum for intelligence somewhere between the average male and female positions on the femininity/masculinity dimension. Notice that the term “gender” is for once used correctly here. I am uncertain whether people would be able to simply report their own position on femininity/masculinity, or whether this would require a test or questionnaire.
Jacobsen: What is the level of the least intelligent high-range test-taker now? What is the level of the most intelligent candidate now? What is the mean, median, and mode, of the scores of test-takers’ data gathered so far? Within a range of I.Q. 10 to 190 on an S.D. of 15, when should a candidate consider taking, or in fact take, high-range tests?
Cooijmans: The least intelligent seems to be in the I.Q. 80s. The frequency of such is one in thousands of high-range candidates. The most intelligent is plausibly between 185 and 195. One can not be certain yet about the accuracy of the norms there. And with candidates apparently far below the general population average, a problem is that they tend not to report usable information, so one has to resort to observation, life history facts they happen to mention, and aids like an online writing-to-I.Q. estimator.
The median is protonorm 401 (I.Q. 139) according to the latest computation I did of high-range quantiles. I never compute the mean, but that should be several I.Q. points higher because the distribution is skewed to the high side. The mode is protonorm 387 (I.Q. 137), but one could also say there is a modal range in the 130s. A mode always depends on how wide or narrow one chooses the classes of the frequency table.
People should consider taking high-range tests if they score above the 98th centile on some mainstream test, which is I.Q. 131 (or 130 on some tests that round differently). Below I.Q. 120 there is no reason to try high-range tests, but there is no objection to doing so anyway. There is a grey area from 120 to 130 because one does not score the same on different tests.
Jacobsen: What is efficient means by which to ballpark the general factor loading of a high-range test?
Cooijmans: I have always used the square root of the weighted mean correlation of the test with other I.Q. tests as an estimation of the “g” loading. This works well for comparing different high-range tests. It is not a true “g” loading because the tests have not all been taken by the same group of candidates, but by different groups with limited overlaps, correlations obviously being computed for those overlaps. Also, when reported scores from other tests are involved, those may suffer from selective reporting, which depresses the correlations. If all the involved tests had been taken by exactly the same group of candidates, one would be close to a true “g” loading.
Another thing to consider is that high-range tests as I use them are almost all heterogeneous tests, so combining different item types within the test. But, in classical factor analysis, one uses a set of different homogeneous tests that have each been taken by each individual from a group. Typically, these are school exams for the various subjects administered to a school class, or subtests of a comprehensive psychological test like Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales. Via factor analysis, one then computes “g” and other factor loadings per subtest or exam, and these “g” loadings vary greatly and may be very low for some subtests. So this kind of analysis is not so much done with a set of heterogeneous tests; computing correlations between heterogeneous tests is more something seen in high-range psychometrics. In classical factor analysis, wide-range heterogeneous tests are considered pure indicators of “g”, and it is the loadings of the various subtests or exams that one is interested in.
Jacobsen: What is the most precise or comprehensive method to measure the general factor loading of a high-range test, a superset of tests, or a subset of such a superset?
Cooijmans: The first is answered in the previous question. For a superset of tests it is not needed to compute such a loading, the superset can be safely considered a near-perfect indicator of “g”.
Jacobsen: What seem like the most appropriate places for people to start when taking your tests–taking into account their own skill sets, or others’ tests for that matter?
Cooijmans: I would recommend the privacy of one’s home. If “places” is meant non-literally – as one sees, I am not one of those pedants who take everything literally – then a real computer to view the test is best, or at the very least a decent laptop (although I am really against the unneeded use of battery-powered devices). A smart telephone is no place to start.
In case the non-literalness is even more remote, always start with the easiest tests. It is bizarre how it can occur to people to start out with the hardest tests, and how they subsequently can not understand what a score of zero means and keep asking for years thereafter what their I.Q. was on that test and if it means they are “gifted”. By looking at the test norms one can know how hard a test is. Nevertheless, I have recently ordered the list of available tests by difficulty to accommodate this.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Cooijmans: Constructors:Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, a Netherlandic person who withdrew from the I.Q. societies so I can better not name him, Edward Vanhove, Hans Eysenck, Bill Bultas, Laurent Dubois.
Tests: Mega Test, Magma Test, tests from the self-test books by Eysenck, Chimera Test, 916 Test.
Regarding Langdon, studying his tests and statistical reports was instructive, if only because it told me which approaches were not so successful in measuring high-range intelligence. This includes attempting to make it more or less culture-fair, using multiple-choice with a small number of options, item weighting based on item analysis (gives too much weight to a small number of items, and also the fact that single items do not have constant statistical properties undermines the idea of item weighting based on those properties), selecting items for a shorter test based on their statistical behaviour in an earlier longer test (the items’ behaviour is different in different tests), and norming that shorter test based on statistics from the earlier longer test (norms become mostly too high then). Also, that statistics from classical psychometrics, such as the reliability coefficient, are woefully inadequate to assess the quality of a high-range test.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from making these tests and their variants?
Cooijmans: I assume this is about my tests, not the tests by others from the previous question. The main points have already been mentioned in the questions about counterintuitive findings and about “g” not diminishing much in the high range. I could add the observation that intelligence expresses itself in almost everything a person does or says. I did not know that when I started.
In case the question is about the tests from the previous question, I already answered it there for Langdon’s tests. With Hoeflin’s tests, I learnt the norming method of rank equation, and the destructive effects of fraud through retesting, false names, and cooperation. In correspondence with others in the 1990s, I was appalled when people proudly told me they were collaborating in a group to “crack” the Mega Test. When they told me they had retested under their own name or another name (the instructions said the test could be taken only once but Hoeflin allowed retests in practice). When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests under his own name, then his sister’s name, then the son of his sister’s name, with ever-increasing scores. When someone told me he had first taken all of Hoeflin’s tests with rather low scores, then had some friendly correspondence with the person from the previous sentence, then took the tests again with the same scores as the highest scores of that person. When someone told me he had missed the Mega Society pass level by half a standard deviation, then retested and qualified. With “retest” I always mean “to take the same test again”.
Several of those meant in the previous paragraph showed me their answers (unasked) and suggested I use them to get into the Mega Society. I had rarely been so shocked and insulted as by the suggestion that I would be capable of such fraud. I do not understand how those types can live with themselves. Having said that, two of them committed suicide in that period.
And of course, such people publicly display or mention their highest (fraudulent) scores, not their honest scores. I remember a phone call with a Netherlandic Mensa member as if it was yesterday; “Yeah, the ‘Mega Test’, I am working on it with some people in Spain and east Asia. Yeah, we have it mostly figured out now, that ‘Mega Test’, ha ha ha…” This person killed himself not long thereafter. Not the “Beheaded Man”, incidentally; the history of I.Q. societies is riddled with suicides, and some of them appear to have made the right decision for once in doing so. That is one thing that gives hope then; that some can indeed not live with themselves in the end.
Jacobsen: I received some decent points about high-range tests from Mahir Wu. Credit to him for the raw materials and permission to reframe those points as questions here. He raises foundational points. First point: item answers should be rigorously unique. Why?
Cooijmans: If multiple answers to a problem are correct, this has disadvantages: The one answer may be easier to find than the other, so that candidates with the same credit may not really be of the same level because they found different answers. And candidates who see more than one possible answer may be confused and not know which is the “right” one. Also, there may be subjectivity in scoring those answers. With only one correct answer, these problems are mostly avoided.
Of course, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, once people start taking the test, it may sometimes occur that alternative valid answers are found still, and then one has to solve this, for instance by revising, replacing, or removing the item. Sometimes this can be done “in place”, especially early on when there have not been many submissions yet, and otherwise this may be done later in a revised version of the test.
And, no matter how hard the test creator tries to make items with unique answers, there will always be people who “see” alternative answers through apophenia when they can not find the real answer. The apophenic delusions stick rigidly in their minds and they become convinced they have solved the problem, although the logical flaws are obvious to an objective observer. In popular artificial-intelligence speak, people “hallucinate” when unable to find the real solution. But that is inherent to intelligence testing; escaping this delusional rigidity is part of high intelligence, or rather, is an aspect of having a wide associative horizon. You will need that mental flexibility too when solving real-world problems. Sometimes, you have to take a step back and make a fresh start to eventually find the real solution.
To illustrate that apophenic delusions are very real and persistent, I want to give some examples: I have a Test for Extrasensory Perception, which is exactly what it says. It is not an intelligence test, I did not hide any clues or patterns in it. Still, some years ago an otherwise normal person sent me a document of many pages, describing his decoding and solutions for it in long association chains. He was convinced he had found patterns that I had deliberately put there. Since this was explicitly not the case, this example proves that candidates may suffer from apophenic delusions all by themselves, and that this is not caused by ambiguity of the test items.
And long ago someone published articles in I.Q. society journals, explaining how he had found references to the appearances of particular comets hidden in poems of certain literary authors.
And another one produced a long series of essays, analysing the dates of events related to the Roman Catholic church by counting the days separating the events, finding numerical patterns therein, and concluding that the Vatican was conducting a dirty scheme that would culminate in some horrific project (I am not allowed to disclose it I think) of which he predicted the exact date in the near future.
I am not naming these examples to ridicule people, but to show that such delusions can be extremely strong in apparently sane people. When taking high-range tests, it occurs often. If it happens to you, rest assured, for only in a small minority of cases does it lead to full-blown psychosis.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, the test item answers with ambiguity should be disallowed. Why should these not be allowed, if agreeing with Wu? If disagreeing with Wu, why?
Cooijmans: I agree for the reasons given in my previous answer. But as said, sometimes you only discover ambiguity as test submissions are coming in, when studying comments by candidates.
Jacobsen: Why should test items give sufficient clues for discovery and solution by a test-taker?
Cooijmans: Because otherwise it is impossible to solve the items, obviously.
Jacobsen: Following the last question, why would permission of a mere guessing logic spoil a test?
Cooijmans: Because correct answers that result from guessing do not stem from the candidate’s mental ability being used. Such answers are random variance and thus reduce the test’s reliability, and therefore also its validity. Test items should be made so that the probability of getting them right by accident is so small that, on average, candidates will gain less than one raw score point in the total score by guessing. This does permit multiple-choice items, but they should be cleverly constructed so that the likelihood of a correct guess is very small. For instance, by letting the candidate choose several options from a list instead of just one.
Incidentally, I have heard people suggest that multiple-choice items that can be answered correctly by guessing reveal intuition and/or psychic ability, but even if that is true, I believe that intelligence tests should not measure intuition or psychic ability. I am also not a fan of penalties for wrong answers with multiple-choice; supposedly, this corrects for guessing, but of course, a candidate who chooses a wrong answer, thinking it is right and not guessing, is then penalized for the wrong reason. The penalty does not distinguish between guessing and being simply wrong, and in the latter case, no penalty should apply. For clarity, a penalty constitutes a negative item score, typically a subtraction of a fraction of a point, depending on the number of answering options for that item.
An anecdotal experience regarding multiple-choice tests: Once, the instructions to one of my multiple-choice tests said, “There are no penalties for wrong answers”. After a while I removed that instruction because some candidates demanded a perfect score based on it. They took it as, “You will always get a perfect score no matter what you answer”. Of course they were wrong, because one starts out with zero points at the beginning of the test, not with the maximum, so “no penalties for wrong answers” in no way implies a perfect score. But if people are so willingly and stubbornly taking it the wrong way, I am not going to pain my brain trying to formulate it even better than it already was.
Jacobsen: How can the sufficiency of each test item’s uniqueness become integrated into the overall test (even test schema) to prevent the identical pattern from emerging too much in a single test (or test schema)?
Cooijmans: If I understand the question correctly, I would say that a test should consist of a broad diversity of items with mostly different patterns. They need not be all completely different; maybe two or three of a similar looking pattern are acceptable, provided the implementation of the pattern is different every time, so that the candidate is forced to recognize what is going on in each case.
In some of my tests, like “Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree”, I had series of about ten problems of the same kind in ascending difficulty, and that did not work well. Many candidates were able to solve all the problems in such a series. The items work as examples for each other and become too easy. So I concluded that it is better not to have more than 1 to 3 items of a similar kind in a test, and even those should differ sufficiently in implementation.
Jacobsen: How can the inspiration from, even addition of, other authors’ test items degrade a test’s quality by giving more clues to test-takers to test items otherwise unsolved without them?
Cooijmans: If a test contains an item that is similar to an item in another test by another author, the one item may function as an example to the other and thus make it easier. I have experienced a few times that a difficult problem in one of my tests appeared to have become much easier. Eventually, a candidate told me that a test by another test creator had a very similar but easier problem, and that made my difficult problem suddenly solvable. I then replaced that item.
And, if a candidate is familiar with a particular item variant from other tests and is thus better able to solve such items, those items also lose their “g” loading for that candidate. It becomes a learnt skill, and learnt skills have no “g” loading.
Jacobsen: Following from the previous question, what about the reduction of the references to specific test items used by other test authors?
Cooijmans: If the question is about references inside a test to specific test items by other test authors, I am not aware of such references, possibly because I never look at tests by others. If such references exist, they probably help the candidate, which one may not want. But it is better not to have test items that resemble items by other authors altogether.
Jacobsen: In some sense, is it truly difficult to avoid this issue of test logic and design schema close-but-imperfect replication from one author by another inspired–by the former–author, especially as more high-range tests are constructed? Wu references his latest test, “[Mystery],” as an example of an adherence to the close application of this principle, where the evidentiary effects of others’ tests become hard to apply to it. Consequently, results for “[Mystery]” are submitted much less.
Cooijmans: With so many high-range tests in existence, it will be getting harder to avoid similarities between tests by different authors indeed. I myself never look at tests by others and create problems independently. In an earlier question about avoiding or minimizing test constructor bias I name some independent sources of inspiration. These do not include tests by others. One should never look at tests by others for inspiration for new test items!
Jacobsen: Why should scale and norm not be overly subjective? Wu references T. Prousalis–link– and you–link, link. Also, why does a median score for many tests with a corresponding IQ of 145 (SD15), or higher, make little sense?
Cooijmans: Norms should be objective and correct, otherwise they are not comparable between tests. A few possible causes of incorrect norms are the following: When a beginning test scorer starts out administering tests, initially one will only have reported scores by candidates to base the norms on. Unfortunately, many candidates are dishonest in reporting scores, leaving out lower scores and reporting the higher ones, or even reporting retests or fraudulent scores. This gives an upward bias, and the norms based thereon may be ridiculously too high, even 10 to 20 I.Q. points too high on average. In the longer term, this may sort itself out as one acquires more, and more true, data about the candidates’ scores. Theoretically, this could also be solved by different test constructors sharing their candidate data to thus make the candidates’ true scores on other tests available, but I believe this might be unethical and a violation of privacy. I know some test designers are currently publishing candidate scores online, but that too seems unethical, and also I do not know if that published data is trustworthy and am hesitant to use it.
For information, a few test creators have sent me their complete data for a particular test of theirs, including candidate names, and I have scored a test by another author (Bill Bultas) myself in the past, so for those tests I have unbiased data.
Another cause of incorrect norms is megalomania by the test creator. There exist authors who delusionally reckon themselves to be profoundly intelligent, but really have much lower I.Q.’s, typically in the 130s to 140s at most. So when they receive test submissions by people whom they perceive as being at roughly their level of understanding, they feel compelled to give out much too high I.Q. scores, otherwise they would have to admit to themselves they are not really as intelligent as they believe.
A median of I.Q. 145 or higher is unrealistic. The high-range population is roughly the upper segment of the general population, cut off at about I.Q. 130. This is not a perfectly clean cut, but if it were, and for the sake of illustration, the following would be necessarily true: With a clean cut at 131 (98th centile) the median would be 135 (99th centile, so halfway the cut and the top). With a clean cut at 135 (99th centile) the median would be 139 (99.5th centile). A median of 145 (99.87th centile) would imply a clean cut at 142 (99.74). This is not consistent with the known population of high-range candidates; most of them are below 142, or at least I believe the evidence for that is more than sufficient.
My experience is that the median of many high-range scores is almost always between 136 and 141. The fundamental cause of this, I think, is that only from the low to mid-130s onward people are interested in intellectual endeavours like taking difficult tests. Below that, it tapers off steeply. Above that, it tapers shallowly, and that shallow curve reflects the actual distribution of those high I.Q.’s in the general population. And this distribution is apparently such that the median of people wanting to take high-range tests ends up around 136-141. The mode is several points lower than the median, the mean several points higher. The mode probably represents the point from whereon the high-range distribution follows the general population distribution (upward). The mode is, more or less, the cut-off point meant in the previous paragraph.
Jacobsen: The following are questions formulated based on input questions provided by Matthew Scillitani. What is the process of making preliminary norms before submissions have been given for a test?
Cooijmans: If it is a fully new test and no data exists for its contents at all, I estimate the minimum raw scores that a Glia Society member respectively a Giga Society should obtain. So for each problem, I look at it and ask myself, “Should a Glia/Giga Society member be able to solve this?” Then I interpolate between those two scores, and extrapolate outward until I reach the edges of the test, where I taper with 5 protonorm points per raw score point. The edges are each sized half the square root of the total possible raw score range.
Jacobsen: There seems to be a stigma around high-range tests. Is there a process to normalize taking them or having them exist in the first place?
Cooijmans: There are indeed many who do not take high-range tests seriously, and this includes prominent figures like the late Hans Eysenck. In one of his “test yourself” books, I remember he was skeptical about the possibility of measuring intelligence in the high range, and even ridiculed it. He provided a number of absurdly complex problems “for the super-intelligent”, which appeared to be a parody on high-range testing.
Much of the distrust and denial regarding high-range testing stems from the fear that one might not oneself belong to the most intelligent; it is comfortably reassuring to say to oneself, “Those tests are just puzzles by amateurs and their scores are meaningless, we can not measure intelligence beyond the 99th centile”. It is a way to protect one’s delusion that no one is verifiably smarter than oneself.
Another cause of the stigma is the inescapable fact that there are fewer women than men in the high range. This is such a taboo that denying the validity of high-range testing is imperative to the politically correct academic, if only for that reason.
A possible process to normalize high-range testing would be to establish it as a recognized branch of psychology at universities. I suspect this would require that we first reverse the decades-long neo-Marxist occupation of academia and make universities into places of genuine science practised by the most intelligent again. A concrete application of high-range psychometrics would be to devise proper admission procedures for universities to undo the dumbing-down that has taken place there over the past half century. The fact that the old Scholastic Aptitude Test and Graduate Record Examination were about the only mainstream tests with validity in the high range illustrates how appropriate high-range testing is in the context of college and university.
For completeness, it should be mentioned that psychologist Lewis Terman (1877-1955) has tried to measure intelligence in the high range with two forms of his “Concept Mastery Test”. These were applied to subjects selected as children based on childhood scores of 140 and higher, and followed up in adulthood with the two Concept Mastery Tests. These were verbal tests highly loaded on vocabulary, not permitting references aids. In an unsupervised situation (which was and is how they are typically administered) it is exceedingly easy to cheat on such a test by using dictionaries and thus score absurdly far above one’s real level. Also, non-natives of the English language have a large disadvantage, in the order of 30 I.Q. points. So while these tests were non-robust against cheating and strongly culture-dependent, at least he tried. Since Terman has also been criticized for his belief in eugenics, heredity of intelligence, and racial differences therein, he forms an intersection between high-range psychometricians and hereditarians, so to speak.
Having mentioned the Concept Mastery Tests, I should warn that the scores mostly quoted for them are raw scores, not I.Q.’s. Ronald K. Hoeflin has administered those tests for a while too, also unsupervised, so one should not rely too much on possible reported Concept Mastery scores from test candidates as they may be hugely inflated through fraud.
Jacobsen: Have test construction and norming processes evolved in the aggregate for you?
Cooijmans: Of course, when one has been doing something for decades, one has implemented improvements. If I have to give examples, I have become more concerned with locking in a unique answer and avoiding ambiguity and subjectivity in scoring, and am also inclining more to having tests contain a surplus of difficult problems and a minority of easier ones. Regarding norming, one of the first things I learnt was that z-score equation – equating means and standard deviations – results in incorrect norms because raw test scores tend not to behave linearly, which is required for z-score equation to make sense. So I went with rank equation. Over the years I automated ever more of the process, so that now I can norm a test in 10 to 30 minutes mostly, while originally this took several whole days.
I also learnt to formulate problems better to avoid misunderstanding. For instance, people skilled at mathematics may have a bizarre deformation that makes them interpret numbers differently from normal humans. If I say, “There are three apples on the table”, any sane person will understand that there are three apples on the table. But not mathematicians! The mathematician will understand that there are three OR MORE apples on the table. Because the mathematician thinks, “If there are four or five or six… apples on the table, there are three apples on the table too”. So to the mathematician you have say, “There are exactly three apples on the table”.
Jacobsen: What are the easiest and hardest parts of norming and constructing of a test?
Cooijmans: Easiest: Finishing off the eventual test once the problems have been conceived, and creating the database fields that will receive the incoming submissions. Also, norming is easy on the whole. Hardest: Creating the problems. This has got ever harder, the more tests I made. I try not to repeat myself too much, and try to take into account that the Internet as a search tool has become ever more powerful. The various types of fraud are hard to deal with. I have no sympathy or tolerance for the individuals behind it. The hardest nowadays is to create test problems that are robust against the developments that enable dishonest people to cheat. Those who have spread test answers should reveal the names of the recipients of the answers, so that we can clean up the statistics. And if they sold answers for money, they have to refund, and possible profit they made by investing the fraudulently acquired money should be donated to a good cause.
Jacobsen: Of your tests–51 in-use & 57 retired, which ones are special to you?
Cooijmans: To name a few, Test of the Beheaded Man, Cooijmans Intelligence Test (any form), Daedalus Test, The Nemesis Test, Test For Genius (any form), Only Idiots, The Gate, The Piper’s Test, Dicing with death, The Smell Test. Each in their own way, they demand the candidate to operate at the summit of cognition in ways that are not trivial but tie in to the essence of existence itself. That is what I have generally striven for.
Jacobsen: In pre-2000, you wrote some articles in Netherlandic on test design. Are there any insights from those articles not replicated here or elsewhere worth replicating, or reiterating, here?
Cooijmans: I looked through the articles, and the following points may be worth mentioning:
Marilyn vos Savant occurs briefly in one article; she is known for having “the world’s highest I.Q.” according to the Guinness book of world records. I would like to add here that someone once showed me a copy of a page from Megarian No. 6 (October 1982) where her actual scores on the Stanford-Binet and preliminary Mega tests are reported. “Megarian” was the journal of the Mega Society then.
Also nice is the early history of Mensa, as related by founder Victor Serebriakoff in one of his books, which was reviewed by David Gamon in the Mensa International Journal of January/February 1995. The founders at the time believed to be selecting members at the level of 1 in 3000 (some sources say 1 in 6000) but later discovered a mistake in the procedure, as a result of which they had been selecting at 1 in 50. Not wanting to send the bulk of members away again, they left it as it was.
Also mentioned somewhere is Kevin Langdon, creator of the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test (1977 I think) and founder of the Four Sigma society. If one is interested in high-range psychometrics, the statistical reports published by Langdon in the 1970s and later are worth looking at. Langdon’s approach differed from Hoeflin’s in that Langdon first expressed the candidate’s performance as “scaled score” (some conversion of the raw performance) and then equated means and mean deviations of scaled scores and scores on other tests, resulting in a linear relation between I.Q. and scaled score. Hoeflin, on the other hand, normed raw scores directly via rank equation, resulting in a non-linear relation that reveals the non-linear nature of simple raw scores.
This is a good time to explain there are different ways to arrive at a scaled score: The simplest way is to scale raw scores linearly from 0 to 100 or 0 to 1000, for instance. Some test constructors have done that (Alan Aax and Rijk Griffioen, I remember) but it brings no advantage compared to raw scores; the non-linearity of raw scores remains, obviously, when the relation between raw and scaled scores is linear.
If the goal is to obtain a more linear (intervallic) scale, there has to be some weighting or balancing, and a crude but solid method is to give a certain class of problems that appear harder or more important extra credit a priori, regardless of item statistics. This was done by Hoeflin with the Ultra Test, where non-verbal problems get two points. This is effective and without problems, but the resulting weighted scores are still far from linear, if one had any concerns about that.
A more refined way is to give items individual weights based on item analysis. In theory this should yield an intervallic scale, but there are serious disadvantages: (1) A small number of problems tend to carry most of the weight after weighting thus, which is always dangerous; (2) It adds an extra layer of sampling error because one relies on the correctness of the item statistics, and my experience is that item statistics are not constant but differ from sample to sample, so that one is building on quicksand as it were; (3) The intuitive simplicity of a raw score is lost; the candidate can not know the number of correct answers from the weighted score.
My preference is to use a simple raw score, or in cases where it seems appropriate a crude weighting that does not rely on item statistics, such as in the example of the Ultra Test. If these methods do not result in a meaningful ranking of candidates, that test is bad to begin with and no advanced item weighting will fix it. I accept that raw scores are non-linear, and the conversion to linearity takes place in the norming of raw score to I.Q.
That last sentence leads to the question, “How do we know that I.Q. is a linear scale?” The answer is that I.Q.’s are deviation scores; they denote a distance to the mean in a hypothetical normal distribution. Note the word “hypothetical”; it is not claimed that intelligence follows a normal distribution in the physical reality. But the tacit assumption in statistics is that when a distribution is normal (Gaussian), its underlying scale is linear (intervallic). So when you force test scores into a normal distribution, you create a linear scale, or that is the unspoken idea. This is expressed in the way we identify points on the scale in terms such as “2 standard deviations above the mean”. This implies an underlying linear scale; after all, if the scale were not linear, the one standard deviation would not be the same as the other, so it would make no sense to say “2 standard deviations above the mean”! In fact, the mere computation of an arithmetic mean assumes an underlying intervallic scale, as it involves summation.
So the bottom line is, if we take care that the frequencies of I.Q.’s beyond various points of the scale do not differ too much from their theoretical rarities in the normal distribution, we may assume that I.Q. is linear. I say this without claiming that deviation I.Q.’s are the best way to express intelligence; but I do not have a better way at the moment.
Jacobsen: Some submitted questions anonymously. These are the adaptations of those questions: Personally, do you know any geniuses? If you do not know any personally, where are all of the geniuses?
Cooijmans: I have to say that when it gets anonymous, the quality goes down. Imagine that I answered “no” to the first question! How insulting that would be to everyone I know! Since a genius is someone who exercises a lasting influence in any field, inherently it can only be known in hindsight who was one, like long after the genius’ death. It is well possible that several people I know will turn out to be geniuses, but we do not know yet who they are.
In history books you will find a lot of identified geniuses.
Jacobsen: Why refer to these individuals in this way, i.e., as geniuses? What traits characterise them?
Cooijmans: The word “genius” comes from the Latin “gignere”, meaning to conceive, to bring forth, to cause. Francis Galton used the word “eminence” for what is now mostly called genius.
The traits of genius, according to me, are intelligence, conscientiousness, and a wide associative horizon. Genius is not talent. It requires talent, but talent alone does not suffice. One will need to apply that talent in order to make a lasting contribution.
Jacobsen: Do you see yourself as a genius? If so, why? If not, why not?
Cooijmans: Naturally, someone of my enormous modesty and humility would never call oneself a genius. I leave that to the scores of future generations who will devote their lives to the study of my work.
Jacobsen: What do you think has been the contribution of your I.Q. Tests for the High Range? Is it a work for study by others or a hobby?
Cooijmans: The contribution lies in studying the measureability of intelligence in the high range, and some other questions related to that as stated at https://iq-tests-for-the-high-range.com/mission.html . It is certainly worthy of being studied by others, and others should also undertake such study independently. It is not just a hobby, except in the sense that one can make one’s hobby into one’s work.
Jacobsen: Who are others who you see like yourself in studying high ranges of intelligence?
Cooijmans: This can only be answered properly for people who were (already) working longer ago, before the current generation of high-range testers. That would be Lewis Terman, Kevin Langdon, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Xavier Jouve, and Laurent Dubois. For the ones who came after these, it is too soon to judge their merit.
In addition, there have been some people who created tests that looked truly good to me, but who only kept scoring their tests briefly and then withdrew from testing, so that little or no usable data resulted. These people exemplify what I said a few questions ago: that talent is not genius, but merely a requirement for genius. They had talent, but did not use it to make a lasting contribution to high-range testing.
Jacobsen: What is the most common mistake people make when submitting feedback about your tests?
Cooijmans: Assuming that they have understood a test item correctly, and then commenting on it from that assumption.
Jacobsen: What aspects of people’s test feedback seem confusing?
Cooijmans: It can be confusing if people send feedback before sending answers. I have to be careful not to help them by responding. Nevertheless, in case the feedback concerns a mistake in a test problem, it can be useful, especially when a test is very new.
Jacobsen: The most common Marathon Test Numeric Section score is a perfect 44 out of 44. What lessons have you learned from this high-end score saturation?
Cooijmans: That the problems are not hard enough. Also that a series of similar problems of increasing difficulty tends to be too easy on the whole. And that, to make a numerical test hard enough, either very difficult mathematics-biased problems are needed, or problems that implement a pattern that needs to recognized. The latter seem the most fair, the former seem to give an advantage to people skilled at mathematics.
Jacobsen: When creating high-range questions, is there a consideration of steering test takers toward wrong answers? Are extant questions ever modified in this way?
Cooijmans: Obviously, steering test-takers toward wrong answers is the whole point of creating good test items, not only in high-range testing but also in mainstream intelligence tests. There is even a word for it: distractors. Multiple-choice tests, omnipresent in mainstream psychological testing, contain answering options that are wrong but appear more plausible than the intended correct answer.
Thus, a candidate who really can not solve any problem at all will score below the chance guessing level, and this lower level is called the “pseudo-chance level”. For instance, if a test has 40 problems and 5 answering options per item, the chance guessing level is 8 correct, but the pseudo-chance level may be only 5 correct due to distractors.
Extant questions are not generally modified in this way.
Jacobsen: Which books or literature, even individual articles or academic papers, on psychometrics have provided helpful accurate understandings of psychological measurement, psychometric concepts, etc., for you? Others may find some fruitful plumbing there.
Cooijmans: The most specific sources regarding high-range testing are the various statistical or norming reports by Kevin Langdon and Ronald K. Hoeflin, as issued by them in the 1970s through 1990s (Hoeflin only started in the 1980s I think). These helped to see how high-range tests are normed, and also aided in the interpretation of scores on a lot of those old American tests like the Scholastic Aptitude Test, Miller Analogies Test, Army General Classification Test and more. The “Omni sample” of the Mega Test contains many scores of those versus Mega Test scores, and as such is an important anchor of high-range tests to the general population, especially so since those old tests in some cases did discriminate into the high range. This can not be said about the newer dumbed-down versions of the educational and military tests, whose validity tends to end at the 99th centile, and for whose interpretation one should consult the information provided by the relevant issuing organizations.
What one can see for instance in the Omni sample is that the old G.R.E., S.A.T., and Army General Classification Test correlated quite well with the Mega Test, while on the other hand the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales and Stanford-Binet, by many regarded as the gold standard of I.Q. testing, appeared to lack any validity in the high range. This observation holds true until today in data collected by myself, except for the old Army General Classification Test on which I have almost no data.
Then, an actual text book on psychometrics I have studied is the Netherlandic “Testtheorie” by P.J.D. Drenth and K. Sijtsma from 1990. This covers both classical psychometrics and the newer item-response theory.
Another useful book, a bit more general, is “Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences”, second edition, by Hinkle, Wiersma, and Jurs, from 1988.
An important book on intelligence testing is “The g factor” by Arthur Jensen, from 1998. While not intended as a psychometrics text book, it does contain a lot of advanced information on psychometrics, including some factor analysis, often in the footnotes.
As it happens, there is also an e-book called “The g factor” by Christopher Brand, from 1996, also containing information on psychometrics and some factor analysis.
A book on statistics in general (not psychometrics) I have studied is the Netherlandic “Statistiek in de praktijk” by David S. Moore and George P. McCabe. I see there is an English version too, “Introduction to the practice of statistics; 2nd edition” (1993).
A book dealing specifically with multivariate statistics such as correlation, regression, and factor analysis is “Using multivariate statistics” (third edition) by Barbara G. Tabachnick and Linda S. Fidell (1996).
I also still have my mathematics books from secondary school, one of which contains chapters on statistics and probability calculation. Occasionally I look through those to refresh these basics of my knowledge in this field.
Finally I want to add that the history of statistics and of mathematics is informative regarding psychometrics. Reading about such will teach you that statistics has been closely related to psychological testing since the 19th century, and that probability calculation was developed for the purposes of gambling and insurance.
The history of mathematics in general, found for instance in “A concise history of mathematics” by Dirk Jan Struik, tells us that mathematics originates in the early days of agriculture, cities, and large-scale administration. That is, within the past ten thousand years or so, the holocene, after the last glacial period. Computing the area of parcels of land required mathematics.
I suspect that the intelligence of the people coming out of the last glacial period was primarily of a visual-spatial nature, and as they became settled and practised agriculture, built cities, and administrated societies, they needed higher numerical ability as well as written language. I imagine that spoken language existed long before that, originally in the form of words without grammar some two million years ago to coordinate hunting in groups in early Homo, and later on with grammar, perhaps in the days of Homo sapiens.
Language is not unique to humans incidentally, but exists in other beings too, such as birds, primates, and whales. Animals like crows are likely at the intelligence level of early Homo, but I am uncertain if their physicality will allow a further development such as has taken place in Homo. Key points like the manufacturing of tools and mastery of the fire may require arms, hands, fingers, and thumbs such as humans have.
Visual-spatial ability is also not restricted to humans, but found in many animal species, in particular to enable predating. As such, visual-spatial ability should be a few hundred million years old, as that is when the first predators came.
The importance of this history of abilities is that when we test abilities now, the results we get, such as the intercorrelations of various abilities, are as it were a fossil record of this evolution. A development that I believe takes place in civilized societies is the erosion of the original visual-spatial ability in favour of verbal ability. A high level of verbal ability in the absence of the foundation of visual-spatial ability, I think, leads to dishonesty, deceit, evil, decadence, and societal collapse.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Paul.
Cooijmans: I never know what to respond to here.
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics. October 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, October 1). On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S. “On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (October 2024). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. On High-Range Test Construction 22: Paul Cooijmans on High-Range Tests and Statistics [Internet]. 2024 Sep; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/high-range-22.
Ms. Oleksandra Romantsova is the Executive Director (2018-present) of the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022 under her and others’ leadership in documenting war crimes. This will be a live series on human rights from a leading expert in an active context from Kyiv, Ukraine. Here, we talk about updates from April 17 to May 23.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there were political prisoners exchanged. Some names reported by the Associated Press include American Paul Whelan, journalist Evan Gershkovich, and Vladimir Kara-Murza, a dissident. When was the last time a political prisoner exchange like this occurred?
Oleksandra Romantsova: Most prisoners are politicians like Ilya Yashin or Vladimir Kara-Murza. For your understanding, Kara-Murza was poisoned twice, in 2015 and 2017, before he was sent to jail. He has criticized Putin from the beginning, long before it became mainstream. Among these prisoners are human rights defenders, journalists, and even an artist who started an anti-war campaign in her unique way. She changed price tags in the supermarket to include questions about the war.
These people have been sentenced to years in prison because they were accused of betraying the Russian Federation or criticizing the army. One of them is Oleg Orlov, a human rights defender. He was our partner in 2014 when we both conducted a field mission to document war crimes in Donbas until I lost access. We did this together when Ukrainian observers were cut off from that territory. Only Russian human rights defenders could collect information and bring it to us until 2016.
After that, access was completely denied to anyone. So, what this means is that Putin wants a specific individual who was arrested in Berlin—Vadim Krasikov, who assassinated a Chechen dissident. Krasikov is the main figure Putin wants in exchange, even though the USA hasn’t handed over anyone from their jails. Instead, they have exchanged hackers and spies who cooperated with Slovenia and Germany. Germany was the most difficult because they did not want to release Krasikov, who had publicly killed someone in broad daylight without any cover-up, making it clear it was an execution.
In exchange, Putin wants Krasikov and seven others so that he will give up twice as many people. All of these individuals have criticized Putin, and they will not only be victims but also witnesses to all the crimes. For Ukraine, this is positive news, but it doesn’t significantly change the situation regarding civilian detainees, war prisoners, or political prisoners from Ukraine who are currently held in Russian Federation jails. So, while it’s good news, it doesn’t change the overall situation for Ukraine. It is also noteworthy that Putin is upset because he had to release people he wanted to be silenced forever.
Jacobsen: The arrival of the F-16s to help Ukraine is significant because they are American-made. This is a major positive development for the Ukrainian side regarding air superiority.
Romantsova: Over the last three nights, the Russians have been trying to target infrastructure for these airplanes because it is about receiving them and the necessary infrastructure to house and maintain them. Where will we keep them? Where will we maintain them? Some of our pilots have taken special courses on how to use them. Interestingly, this marks an entirely new phase; it was less widely reported than other news. The call for F-16s was loud and constant, but we’ve finally received them.
This could have happened earlier; it is typically Ukrainian to persistently pursue something. However, it will greatlysupport our air defence system, particularly on the frontline. On the frontline, we call the bombs dropped by military airplanes “cops,” and right now, they are the biggest threat and cause of casualties for those on the frontline. So that’s important, and yes, we are glad.
Jacobsen: There has been further commentary from the Foreign Minister of Ukraine about the importance of having China help with talks or finding common ground to end the war. Former President Trump has been claiming that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in one day. The Russian UN ambassador says he cannot. However, at the same time, people might be surprised to learn that people are still living their lives in Ukraine. They are used to war at this point. The largest music festival returned despite the ongoing conflict. So, people continue to live their lives. It is an admirable cultural quality. What else?
Oleksandra: So, you mentioned that there is only a little news, but we do have this news that the Russians bombed and destroyed one of the buildings of a children’s hospital and a social center. Now, we are collecting money for the first step of rebuilding it. The old historical buildings will not try to rebuild; instead, they’ll build something that can serve the necessary functions.
Jacobsen: These events are periodic, as you will find in the news cycle. For instance, when Remus and I went to Ukraine, they launched their largest drone strike of the war during that period. I believe there were over 100 drones and missiles when we arrived in Odessa. Then, they had the largest snowstorm, a once-in-a-century snowstorm from Moscow. Trains and buses were shut down, and people got someone with a van to help them reach their destination. Russia has launched its largest barrage of drones in the last seven months, with 89 Shahed drones. The Ukrainian Olympic Chief celebrates Russia’s limited presence at the Paris Olympics. Do you have any cultural comments, specifically the limited presence at the Olympics?
Romantsova: Exactly. I hope Belarus and Russia will never have any team in the Olympics because it’s still strange for me. Russia uses sports and athletes to demonstrate the regime’s development and achievements.
These sportsmen fully support the war. They are part of the public campaign to support the war from the Russian side. So, that’s why I’m exactly against it. Is it fair that some sportsmen who don’t have a country can go to the Olympics? Yes, it is.
But you can check it. You can look at the specific athletes who have the registration. Look at their official page; they have no personal photographs, only official positions spread through the media. I’m terrified that the Olympic Committee doesn’t even want to consider it. These people support the aggression against Ukraine, and yet they’re welcome to the Olympic Games. Yes, there are fewer participants than from North Korea, but still.
Jacobsen: A Turkish corvette was delivered to Ukraine to help, and there was something more in your expertise. There was an investigation into the deaths of 50 Ukrainian POWs in a barrack two years ago. Do you have any insights for readers about that?
Romantsova: Yes, we do. Russia has taken war prisoners and civilians, and now, after two and a half years, they’ve started to accuse these people and bring them to court. Not all, but it’s becoming more common. It’s illegal because international humanitarian law states that war prisoners cannot be judged for doing their job as soldiers.
So, from one side, it’s legal. Conversely, these cases are completely falsified, creating false accusations. One example is Maksym Butkevych, a human rights defender.
In March 2022, he decided to stop his human rights work and join the army on the front line. That happened in March 2022. He first went to the training base and then to the front line. They fabricated a case against him, accusing him of shooting at civilians in a city in eastern Ukraine, even though he wasn’t on the front line at the time. He was at the training center when the alleged incident occurred.
So, they don’t even care about that. He received a 15-year sentence or something similar based on a falsified case. It’s occupied Luhansk, where this court or trial hearing surrounding the war prisoners is happening. It’s a mockery of justice. We already have 161 bodies returned in April this year, prisoners of war and illegally imprisoned civilians who died in the prisons of the Russian Federation
Jacobsen: The last time we talked, we discussed Shoigu’s potential replacement, which is now in. It’s a small change; someone was fired, and someone replaced them. So, when we speak about releasing people, we speak about such situations. I see. He died.
Romantsova: It’s common. You can find many examples of people being taken to prison. It’s important to understand that prisoner support is a special status given by International Humanitarian Law for protection. Russia’s declaration explicitly gives this status. They talk about their prisoner support.
After that, they don’t feed them, don’t provide medical support, don’t allow them to be in touch with their family, and they even start trial hearings around them. They completely violate the purpose of the status of war prisoners. So, it looks like this.
The cause of death is unknown. The conditions in these prisons are dire. If you’re 55 years old, as Alexander was, you’re not going to be resilient to food deprivation, water deprivation, and other hardships. The body is less resilient at that age.
Jacobsen: What are the human rights implications of Macron giving the green light for Ukraine to strike targets inside Russia with Western weapons?
Romantsova: It’s interesting—Macron doesn’t give us weapons but permits us. Thank you. So, it’s interesting. The information we have from the USA is significant because the USA provided permission. First of all, they discussed Crimea, emphasizing that Crimea is Ukraine. So, in Crimea, they can target anywhere.
Second, we have this situation where, before, the USA’s legislation regarding support and weapons excluded specific provisions. They excluded the possibility of using American weapons or missiles in connection with the Azov Regiment. This was a problem because Azov is a significant part of Ukraine’s military structure. However, Congress voted and changed it.
We think that’s why Azov had a small conflict here in Ukraine with one former deputy, not ex-PM, but a prominent member named Farion. I will find it. She was killed, and they tried to show that Azov did it.
She had criticized them, but it’s ridiculous in this situation. It brings us back to where we were before.
Jacobsen: So, regarding the living conditions now, what is the general morale of the people within Kyiv?
Romantsova: Now we have enough light. Before that, we had temperatures of 40 degrees Celsius. We use the metric system here. We didn’t have lights or electricity then, so you couldn’t turn on the air conditioning. Imagine, plus 40 degrees, even at night—you can’t relax because it’s so hot. But now, we’ve repaired part of our nuclear power station and seen in the last three days that we haven’t had a blackout. It’s so strange, and now you can use the air conditioner.
The temperature is coming down, so it’s becoming easier. Thinking about how your happiness and comfort improve as conditions become easier is interesting. So now, it’s starting to be easier here.
Jacobsen: I recall you mentioning no light during one of our calls. It was nighttime and pitch black while we were conducting the interview. This highlights the different contexts. What about the price of goods and services? How are people managing day-to-day despite the war?
Romantsova: It’s a question of whether you have light at all. For example, our office has a system that provides light even when the general power is cut off. But it’s still a problem for productivity. Here in Ukraine, we have an economy based on various types of production—food, technology, and more.
Production needs electricity all the time. Blackouts severely damage the economy. People need to find out if they can produce or trade anything. It’s a huge challenge because, in Ukraine, we have many resources to generate electricity, and we usually sell it. Our economy never had this problem of not having light or electricity before.
But now, all of this—the main goal of Putin’s decision to destroy electricity infrastructure—was to ruin our economy. People, for example, might leave or something. But until now, I don’t feel it’s that bad. We all understand that winter will be problematic because, right now, dealing with cooling is not as big of a problem. But heating will be crucial because it gets very cold here in the winter, and you cannot heat homes without a stable energy supply.
Or, in another way, people are moving from cities to villages where they can use fireplaces and other methods like this. So, it’s a huge dilemma for the future. It’s one of the consequences of the war that might become critical at some point.
Further Internal Resources (Chronological, yyyy/mm/dd):
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Raed Jarrar is an Arab-American political advocate based in Washington, DC. Since he immigrated to the U.S. in 2005, he has worked as a lobbyist on political issues pertaining to the U.S. engagement in the Arab world.
Widely recognized as an expert on political, social, and economic developments in the MENA region, he has testified in numerous Congressional hearings and briefings. He is a frequent guest on national and international media outlets in Arabic and English, including CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and Sky News Arabia. He has been published in the New York Times and quoted in media outlets including the Washington Post, Al Jazeera, the Hill, the Guardian, Newsweek, and more.
Raed was raised in countries all across the Middle East. He is a graduate of the University of Baghdad, where he received his Bachelor’s Degree, and the University of Jordan, where he received his Master’s Degree, both in architectural engineering. His Master’s thesis focused on post-war reconstruction. He is on the Advisory Board of the organization Airwars.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here to discuss the UAE and the States with Raed Jarrar, who is the Advocacy Director for DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now), an organization that focuses on promoting democracy, human rights, and justice in the Middle East and North Africa region. Thank you for sending this note to me regarding the visit of UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed to the United States on September 25th. I believe it’s an important topic. What is the motivation for this trip, and why is this particular issue urgent? People might be wondering, “There are so many conflict zones and crises around the world, why focus on this?”
I, myself, just returned from Ukraine a week ago, and there are certainly different conflicts happening globally.
Raed Jarrar: So, let me set the tone for the emphasis on this particular visit and its significance in highlighting some of the ongoing humanitarian crises, particularly in countries like Sudan and Yemen. Two key points make this visit significant.
First, this visit is unprecedented. The White House has never before invited a UAE president. This will be the first time a UAE president visits the White House, which is historically significant. The second key point is the timing.
Unfortunately, this visit signals that the White House is once again deprioritizing human rights in its foreign policy. For me, this trip marks the end — the final nail in the coffin — of President Biden’s promise to center human rights in U.S. foreign policy. This administration has failed to deliver on those promises. The fact that they are inviting the head of the UAE, while the UAE has been implicated in various regional conflicts, is revealing. Their forces are involved in Yemen’s civil war and Sudan’s conflict, and they are violating human rights domestically. They have also been linked to spyware companies, such as NSO Group, that have targeted dissidents and political activists globally. The level of human rights violations is astounding, yet the White House is willing to welcome them because of its strategic interests involving Israel, Palestine, and U.S. priorities in the region. That’s why this trip is significant — it’s not just about the UAE; it reflects President Biden’s decision to disregard his commitments to prioritizing human rights.
Jacobsen: There is a general perception in North American, particularly American, politics among dissidents and critics of any administration that politicians lie when necessary. So, this situation might seem typical of past administrations’ foreign policies. However, is this shift more influenced by individuals within Biden’s cabinet rather than Biden himself?
Jarrar: That’s a good question. But the real issue here isn’t simply that a politician has lied. It’s true that politicians lie, in America and around the world. However, what’s unexpected is for a president to campaign on a platform and then do the exact opposite, this doesn’t fall under the category of a necessary political lie; it’s more about breaking campaign promises. It’s a betrayal of the American people who voted for him, expecting him to uphold certain values in office. This is far beyond the typical dishonesty expected of politicians.
As for who is behind these decisions, the truth is that no one can say for sure. I don’t think even people within the administration know with certainty. What we do know is that this administration has shown, over the past couple of years, a lack of direction and leadership. There is no clear strategy or leadership to formulate and implement policies effectively.
We’re seeing this in Israel-Palestine, for example. The administration has said repeatedly that they will push Israel for a ceasefire, and they have failed time and time again. This is mind-boggling. We are the strongest country in the world, and we continue to provide Israel with weapons while they openly oppose what the White House claims to be a clear instruction for a ceasefire. That is truly baffling.
Jarrar: The White House has no capacity to exercise its political leverage to actually make Israel — and Prime Minister Netanyahu — abide by a ceasefire agreement that was endorsed by the Security Council and by President Biden himself. It feels like no one is behind the wheel. Look at what’s going on in Lebanon. The lack of a ceasefire agreement in Gaza is now spreading into a regional war. President Biden has repeatedly said that he won’t allow this to become a regional war.
Yet, Israel continues bombing thousands of targets in Lebanon, simply because it refuses to sign a ceasefire agreement. They are using U.S. weapons and political cover for these actions. This administration is unable to use its political leverage because there’s no one in control. So, the answer to your question is: we don’t know. We don’t know who is calling the shots.
There are no shots being called. It’s on autopilot, with decisions being made day by day. It’s all confusing, especially when you consider that on the same day the U.S. is training members of the Lebanese Armed Forces, we are also dropping U.S. bombs on Lebanon. It’s a deeply confused policy. What’s happening with the UAE isn’t part of any comprehensive plan. It’s just the administration reacting to immediate concerns. They think the UAE can help with some tactical issues in Gaza. They might help send troops to create the so-called Arab NATO or take another step toward normalization with Israel. Based on whatever is the “flavor of the week,” they invite Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ) to the White House. It’s pathetic to think about the lack of strategic vision and the administration’s inability to carry out any comprehensive policies.
Jacobsen: And from Mohammed bin Zayed’s perspective, why accept the invitation? If it’s such a new thing for a UAE president to receive this type of invitation, why would he say, “Yes”?
Jarrar: Well, of course, he would love that. For him, this is an opportunity to boost his political power. He can claim, “I am a leader who can get an official invitation to the White House. I am a mover and shaker, recognized by the United States as a legitimate authority in the region and the world.”
Naturally, he’s going to say, “Yes.” He will do whatever is required. Some people are now saying, “Oh, President Biden might bring up human rights issues with MBZ during his visit.” But what does that even mean?
It sounds like it will be nothing more than lip service. Maybe he’ll mention it briefly, saying, “Yes, we will pay attention to human rights.” But there’s no price for MBZ to pay, and there’s a lot for him to gain by showing up in the U.S. and portraying himself as a recognized and accepted leader on the international stage. He has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
The United States is giving him that platform. President Biden is providing him with legitimacy and, in the process, normalizing U.S. relationships with authoritarian regimes through this visit. So, there’s a lot at stake on our side, but nothing for him to lose.
Jacobsen: With regard to Yemen and the human rights violations attributed to the UAE, what is happening now? How are major human rights bodies like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others cataloging these violations?
Jarrar: Violations by the UAE outside its borders have been extensively documented by human rights organizations and even by the U.S. State Department. The violations committed by the UAE in Yemen are horrific. They include war crimes, the creation of torture black sites and prisons where Yemenis and others are tortured, and the provocation of civil unrest. The UAE has occupied parts of Yemen, including islands, to use them for its own interests.
The involvement of the UAE in human rights abuses in Sudan is equally shocking. Report after report shows that the UAE is arming and training some of the most notorious groups in Sudan, groups responsible for outrageous human rights violations in the country. We’re talking about extrajudicial killings, widespread rape used as a weapon of war, enforced disappearances, and torture. The level of documentation about what the UAE has done is unbelievable. Of course, this isn’t surprising to me because the UAE has been involved in similar actions in other countries in the region. They have supported illegal coups in Egypt and Tunisia and engaged in air strikes in Libya. Their human rights record across the region is horrific.
Within the UAE itself, it remains one of the most oppressive regimes in the region. The government tolerates no dissent and has imprisoned all human rights activists on false charges, often keeping people in prison even after they’ve served their sentences. The list goes on and on. But as I mentioned, the Biden administration, with its short-term and unstrategic thinking, is doing calculations based on the “flavor of the week.”
This week’s flavor is the UAE’s ability to provide the United States with some tactical support regarding Gaza or political support related to normalization efforts in the region. For that reason, the Biden administration is telling us, and the rest of the world, that they are willing to throw human rights under the bus and prioritize whatever they are thinking about tactically this week, because they don’t care about human rights. That’s the message the Biden administration is sending.
Jacobsen: Raed, I know you need to go to your kid.
Jarrar: Yes, I can see him walking out. Let’s not talk about human rights violations in front of a kid.
Jacobsen: That’s right. We’re going to talk about butter chicken, chocolate, and wine.
Jarrar: Keep the boy in the illusion that we live in a good world, okay?
Jacobsen: That’s right, you’re absolutely right.
Jarrar: Thank you so much for your time. I’ll see you later.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, in your opinion, what are the benefits of married life in your sixties?
Rosner: I can’t speak about it in general terms, but I don’t know about my situation.
Well, your body requires more maintenance, checkups, and sometimes more treatments as you age, and it’s good to have someone to go through that with you. My wife has taken on the role of caring for me in many ways. At some point, she has decided she’s the better cook, and she’s right. So she does close to 100% of the cooking, and she’s great at it, especially with baking and making bread.
Jacobsen: I can vouch for that.
Rosner: She’s constantly trying to develop new, healthy dishes. Her last two jobs were as an administrative assistant at several private high schools, but she left that at the end of the last school year to focus on writing. She’s already finished a book, which works well because I’m a good editor. I reviewed her manuscript, which is about 100,000 words, line by line. I mark her work in red on Microsoft Word, and she can accept the edits—it’s how editing works. She gets rid of typos, of course. Still, for other edits, she decides whether she likes my suggestion, prefers her original version or wants to come up with something new.
Her writing productivity motivates me to be more productive, which I need. COVID shut down many of our usual activities, and we haven’t resumed them fully. For example, we used to go to every movie in theatres, but over the past four and a half years, we’ve only seen a couple. Now, we have about five streaming services, and we’re happy with the selection of films that come to us. We watch a lot of T.V. I think it’s not just mindless stuff—we try to watch well-written shows. Broadcast network stuff like ABC, NBC, and CBS has become almost unwatchable for us because it’s overly explanatory, and the plots are too simplistic. It’s what gave T.V. a bad reputation for being lazy and easy, and it mostly just frustrates us now.
So we end up watching better-written shows, which is good for our writing. Watching work by good writers helps improve our writing, too. That’s our life at this point. We’re lucky. My wife had decent jobs for a while, and I had good jobs for quite a while, so we have some financial security that many others don’t have. We’re fortunate in that regard.
At this stage, we’re still trying to be productive. I’m 64, and my wife is 60, and we’re both trying to squeeze out a few more years of productivity and support each other. Because I have excellent medical coverage—a blessing many people don’t have—we’ve been able to attend couples counselling once a week for over 30 years. Our medical insurance covers most of the cost, a huge advantage. Counselling helps us check in on any issues with a neutral third party. We don’t have major problems, but showing your partner you’re doing the work is good. I call it “relationship push-ups.”
Rosner: All in all, we’re lucky to have each other.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there have been a lot of views from Germany on your website and content.
Rick Rosner: Do I know anyone from Germany? No. The only German I know is a guy named Bernd, who I haven’t talked to in years. He was a cameraman on Jimmy Kimmel.
Jacobsen: Oh, I see.
Rosner: Yeah, so Germany is interested in Rick Rosner—or it’s still unknown why right now. But thanks, Germany!
Jacobsen: And you like them back?
Rosner: Of course, Germans are great now, though their accent still makes me a little nervous, you know, because of what happened 80 or 90 years ago.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You wanted to talk about indeterminacy?
Rick Rosner: Yes, so what started me thinking about it was Shohei Ohtani. He’s with the Dodgers and has been setting records. He’s in what they used to call the 40-40 club, which means hitting 40 home runs and stealing 40 bases in one season. Only six people, including him, have done that in baseball history. But now, he’s in the 54 club—he’s hit 54 home runs and stolen 57 bases this season. I get excited when people set records because there are numbers involved, and, you know, it’s all about the stats.
He still has two more games left in the regular season. He could hit another homer or two and get to 55. But while this was happening, there was a gambling scandal involving his assistant at the beginning of the season. Gambling scandals are always bad for professional athletes because if they’re involved, it can lead to a lifetime ban. Sports maintain their integrity by avoiding any involvement in betting on games. Luckily, Ohtani wasn’t involved in the scandal. His assistant stole $16 million from him and gambled it away.
But thankfully, Ohtani has a massive contract with the Dodgers—something like $700 million over multiple years. So, while it’s a lot of money to lose, he’ll be fine. But it got me thinking about gambling and how hard it is to win consistently. Outcomes in sports, and most things you can gamble on, are indeterminate—you can’t predict them.
Bookies do their best to set the odds, but they’re still making educated guesses. Bookies take about 10% of the action, and for pari mutuel horse racing, where you place bets at the track or an off-track betting site, they take 20%. That’s a massive built-in advantage. Casino games have anywhere from a 1% to 5% or even 8% house edge, depending on the game. Slot machines, especially the crappy ones, can have even higher house advantages. Trying to beat odds like 10% or 20% is almost impossible. That’s what keeps bookies and casinos from going broke.
Plus, it’s their job to predict the outcomes and set the betting lines so they can balance the action on both sides. They want equal action on each side, or at least close to it, so they don’t take a huge hit no matter which side wins. If the bookies take too much action on one side and something unexpected happens, they risk a significant loss. That’s why they have the 10% or 20% “vig,” or house edge, to protect them from the unpredictability of events. But even bookies, whose job is to predict outcomes, need protection against the inherent unpredictability of things.
Some people have even developed technology to make certain games, like roulette, semi-predictable. Some devices, like mini-computers, can predict where the ball will land within a certain range of slots. But there’s nothing like that for dice games, though some people, after lots of practice, claim they can control how the dice land by throwing them in a specific orientation. Still, good luck consistently pulling that off in a casino.
With games like 21 (blackjack), casinos have made card counting much harder. In the early days, before card counting was popularized in the 1960s, casinos would deal from a single deck. Now, they deal out of a shoe with multiple decks—sometimes eight or even twelve—to make it harder for players to predict which cards are left.
So, for the most part, even casino games are unpredictable for the average person. But sports games, with all their variables, are even more unpredictable. Of course, the outcome would be predictable if a professional sports team played a junior high team. However, when two professional teams—formed through the same processes of drafting and training—go head-to-head, the outcome is far more uncertain.
That unpredictability is part of what drives sports betting and gambling. I wonder what percentage of people’s urge to gamble comes from thinking they can predict outcomes. Still, it must be significant, especially in sports. People often say that gambling makes watching a game more exciting because they have money riding on it.
I wonder how much of that attitude comes from an earlier time in history—like in the 19th century and earlier—when people thought the world was entirely deterministic. Before quantum mechanics, most people and scientists believed in a clockwork universe. They thought that if you knew the exact positions and velocities of every particle, you could predict everything that would happen in the future, down to the smallest detail. The universe was seen as entirely predetermined.
Then quantum mechanics came along in the 1920s and shook that view. It weirded out scientists at the time, including Einstein, who famously said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” He spent a lot of his career trying to find hidden variables that could explain quantum indeterminacy, hoping that, if discovered, they could make the universe predictable again. But here we are, 100 years later, and quantum mechanics is much less weird to us now.
We also have information theory, which Claude Shannon pioneered with his equations. Information theory gave us new tools to understand uncertainty and randomness in ways we hadn’t before.
There were probably people doing relevant theorizing about information before, but Claude Shannon was the first to call it “information theory” in 1948. Now, we deal with information all the time. However, I’d argue that we’re still unclear about information’s exact role in the universe. We’re so connected to our devices and used to thinking in terms of information, which means we’re accustomed to dealing with incomplete information.
Jacobsen: We’ve all experienced slow internet or limited bandwidth, where we get less information than we’d like or not as quickly as we’d prefer. Information, by its nature, is recursive and often incomplete. So, any information system, by definition, will always be incomplete. Yet, it forms the most basic structure of what we call “information.”
Rosner: Right. We’re much more at home with uncertainty than in the 19th century. For example, I’m not particularly weirded out by quantum mechanics. Maybe it’s because I don’t fully understand it, but I don’t think that’s the case—I think I understand it well enough. I believe certainty was such a bedrock concept for people more than 100 years ago that it took a while for society to let go of that idea.
They lived in a world of gears and machines back then. When we think of steampunk, it evokes images of iron and steel contraptions working deterministically. But nowadays, our machines—like smartphones—don’t have gears. Most people do not know what happens inside their phones or other devices. So, we’re more comfortable with uncertainty because we interact with technology we don’t fully understand.
Jacobsen: I think you’re right. It’s a marker of the modern mind not to be unsettled by a lack of absolutes. In a way, that’s closer to how humans felt in the wild before the modern era. This desire for certainty, this “magical thinking” about having definite answers for everything, is probably a relatively recent development in human history, maybe just an accident of progress or a consequence of certain types of development.
Rosner: That’s a good point.
Jacobsen: The old world—the jungle, the savannah—was ever-changing, constantly growing and decaying. The landscape was in flux, so a process-oriented view of the environment was probably more natural for humans. You’re suggesting that with all our current information, we can still have a somewhat unified view of the world, even if we don’t fully understand everything, like how our phones work.
Jacobsen: We may not understand all our devices’ inner workings, but we see the world as a unified, comprehensible system. We operate under the assumption that everything connects in some way, even if we don’t always articulate it. There’s a sense that everything requires some degree of guesswork.
Rosner: Right.
Jacobsen: Back in the savannah, people had much specific knowledge—like what was safe to eat, how to catch fish, and how to make shelter and clothing—but they also relied heavily on intuition, which was honed through experience. That guesswork was uncertain, but it was necessary.
Rosner: You could argue that, in some ways, the worldview of savannah-dwellers might have been more fragmented than ours. If they lived in a pre-literate, pre-language era, they could only pass on knowledge by acting it out.
Jacobsen: Their nutrition was probably worse, too, which impacted their cognition. So, we likely have much better brain development, given the quantity and quality of our food compared to people in the past. Back then, they had a more fragmented perspective of the world. They didn’t have as many facts or interconnected ideas as we do today. If you think about the amount of pseudoscience and bad beliefs we have now, can you imagine how much worse it was 20,000 years ago? They built frameworks to try and make sense of the world, and those frameworks often involved gods. It was their attempt at unifying their understanding of the universe.
Rosner: A couple of nights ago, I was ranting about how MAGAs hold so many contradictory beliefs. For example, I’d argue that Trump is the least godly president ever.
Jacobsen: By “godly,” do you mean traditional morals and ethics?
Rosner: Trump is a terrible guy with a ton of evidence showing that he doesn’t care about morals, ethics, or even the Ten Commandments. When he says he’s Christian, he’s just full of it. He famously referred to 2 Corinthians as “Two Corinthians,” which caught religious people off guard.
Jacobsen: Yeah, he’s said much nonsense. But I don’t want to cherry-pick his worst moments.
Rosner: True, but there are trends. For example, today, I argued with a pastor on Twitter. I pointed out that Trump is no King David. In the Bible, David did some horrible things, like murdering to get a woman. Still, he eventually embraced God and sought redemption. Trump has had eight years, and we’ve seen no sign of redemption.
Jacobsen: How did the pastor respond?
Rosner: People wrote back with things like, “How do you know? You’re not God,” and, “You won’t ever see Saint Peter because you’re going straight to hell.” Some were making excuses for Trump. The pastor himself jumped in, making extreme pro-life arguments, saying that our side drills holes in babies’ skulls and sucks out their brains.
Jacobsen: That’s a hard argument to counter if someone is extremely pro-life.
Rosner: Right, but even if that’s your main issue, it’s still contradictory to excuse all of Trump’s evils just because he appointed judges who overturned Roe v. Wade. I argued a few days ago, and I’ll argue again that MAGAs seem able to embrace or live with many contradictions. There’s a gap between Christian morality and Trump’s immorality, yet they find ways to justify it. They have an entire structure of excuses that lets them support Trump despite all the contradictions.
I’d say that MAGAs have more broken connections in their worldview than other people. I don’t know how many connections are super important, however. We’ve talked before about how people believed much nonsense in the Middle Ages but still managed to live functional lives. Their beliefs didn’t necessarily interfere with what they needed to do daily.
It didn’t affect their daily tasks or lead them back to the rituals that helped perpetuate their culture.
A shoemaker in the Middle Ages might have believed in all sorts of things we’d consider nonsense today, but that didn’t affect his deep understanding of shoemaking or his daily life. Similarly, many MAGAs live fairly functional lives despite holding some strange or contradictory beliefs.
Some of those viral clips of MAGAs make them look extremely dysfunctional, but those are often cherry-picked by people who want to paint them in the worst light.
Most MAGAs hold down jobs, build families, and live effectively. The evangelicals, especially, have a social and moral framework that Trump might disrupt. Still, they likely maintain conceptual consistency within their close relationships—churches, congregations, and families.
They may still adhere to consistent values within their communities. It’s hard to say for sure.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the weirdest physics fact that you find interesting?
Rick Rosner: The thing I find most consistently weird in physics is how you can make objects float in mid-air in a superconductor field or a magnetic field. That floating effect—where something just hovers—if you wanted to show someone how strange physics can be, that’s an easy one, especially if you’re talking to an unjaded 8-year-old. Show them something floating, and it would blow their mind for a moment.
What about those liquids that have a lot of iron in them and form spiky patterns? Have you seen those?
Jacobsen: No, I haven’t.
Rosner: They’re called ferrofluids. In a magnetic field, they form these spiky structures. If you start with a floating object that’s magnetic or conductive enough, you can coat it with this ferrofluid, and it creates these porcupine-like shapes in the magnetic field. It makes the floating object look even more bizarre.
But beyond that, what’s even weirder is my theory about IC (information collapse), where the impetus for the formation of universes is information pressure. It’s kind of like how the pressure that makes degenerate matter is gravitational collapse. The idea is that when matter gravitationally collapses, it generates information within its system by forming a new information space and making the degenerate matter non-degenerate. That process, in turn, drives time and the Big Bang in the early universe. Essentially, universes are formed from matter being collapsed into degeneracy in extreme gravitational fields. It’s like the Ouroboros—the snake eating its own tail.
Jacobsen: In our current definitions, one thing that’s pretty strange is how we arbitrarily define life versus non-life and conscious versus non-conscious. Schrodinger wrote What Is Life?, but we still don’t have a concrete, modern, quantifiable definition of life. There’s no formula for it.
Rosner: Yeah, it’s crazy that 100 years later, we still don’t have one.
Jacobsen: Everyone has a general idea of what constitutes life and non-life, partly because of discipline-based conceptual frameworks. But we still don’t have a mathematical form to make the concept concrete.
Rosner: And it’s only going to get foggier with AI and information processing. We’ll start seeing things that might as well be alive, but aren’t technically alive. The line between inorganic and “might as well be alive” is going to blur.
Another weird thing would be if we found out there’s 10 or 50 times more gold in the universe than there should be in a Big Bang universe. That would be a major contradiction to regular Big Bang theory.
Jacobsen: That’s a cool idea we haven’t fully explored. What should the ratio distribution of elements be in a Big Bang universe versus an IC universe?
Rosner: There shouldn’t be much gold at all, because to get gold, you need either a supernova explosion or two collapsed stars colliding.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you see the post from September 24th about Elon Musk? After seeing an AP post tweet that read, “Judge orders auction of Alex Jones’s Infowars to pay for legal damages to Sandy Hook families,” a parody account tweeted, “I have the opportunity to do the funniest thing possible. Should I?”
Rick Rosner: That’s a good one. So you’re saying it wasn’t Musk himself but a parody account?
Jacobsen: Yeah, it was a parody account with about 1.5 million followers.
Rosner: Musk tweets out jokes, but they’re usually not as clever as that one. This joke shows self-awareness, though it’s not Musk himself being self-aware; it’s whoever is running the parody account.
Jacobsen: Do you think Musk is generally self-aware?
Rosner: I think he’s fairly aware of his public image, but maybe not to the degree people expect. His jokes don’t always land, and not everyone has a high batting average regarding humour.
He’s funny sometimes, but like everyone else, myself included, some of his humour doesn’t land. That was a funny joke, however. But I’d also like to say that I’m genuinely delighted that Alex Jones’s empire, built on lies and exploiting people, is crumbling. He made the Sandy Hook families miserable by lying about the tragedy for a decade, leading to not just harassment but real threats. People went after these families, showing up at their doorsteps and vandalizing their homes—all because of Alex Jones, who made millions selling supplements and pushing conspiracy theories to angry, gullible followers.
I’m delighted to see him lose his empire, built on something toxic and harmful. It feels extreme to talk about evil in the context of politics, but in this case, it seems appropriate. Alex Jones is an evil guy.
Trump is an evil guy, too. I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that. Trump’s actions led to the unnecessary deaths of more Americans than any other president in history. You could argue that Lincoln was complicit in the deaths of around 750,000 people during the Civil War. Still, that war was inevitable by the time he became president. His greatness was in preserving the Union.
But it raises the question of whether Lincoln is responsible for those deaths. The Civil War claimed about 3% of the U.S. population, which is massive. But Trump, by comparison, has around 1.4 million COVID deaths tied to his presidency, though more died under Biden simply because the pandemic outlasted Trump’s term. Trump only had one year of COVID, while Biden has dealt with it for three and a half years.
Still, Trump set up the country for these unnecessary deaths, even though he wasn’t in office for most of the pandemic. He politicized COVID. Had he not done that, fewer people would have died. It’s between Trump and Lincoln in terms of complicity in the deaths of most Americans. However, Trump’s case is even more striking when you consider that in 2018, he disbanded the U.S. pandemic response team. That team wasn’t just sitting in some office; they were working globally with other governments to prepare for pandemics, which often originate outside the U.S.
Could they have stopped COVID? Could we have been better prepared? That’s hard to say, but there’s a chance the pandemic might have played out differently. Even if COVID was inevitable, epidemiologists and immunologists I’ve spoken to estimate that about 400,000 of America’s COVID deaths were entirely preventable. These were people who refused vaccines after being misled by propaganda. Florida alone likely accounts for 60,000 of those deaths.
So yes, I’d argue that Trump is complicit in hundreds of thousands of deaths. His refusal to promote mask-wearing for over a month at the height of the pandemic is part of that. I’ve heard he avoided masks because he didn’t want to mess up his facial bronzer. Shockingly, someone would let vanity get in the way of saving lives. At the start of the pandemic, Trump and Jared Kushner reportedly withheld aid because they thought it would harm liberal states more than conservative ones. That level of negligence, vanity, and political cruelty is pretty evil.
Rick Rosner: Yesterday, I began by criticizing the generalizations people make about the intelligence of various demographics, which I think is unfounded. Then, I moved on to discuss how unintelligent some MAGA supporters seem. I wanted to go into the specifics of that.
Twitter, now called X, has become chaotic, with users posting unchecked and almost anything allowed. It’s filled with previously banned individuals now gleefully posting offensive, racist, dishonest, and inaccurate content. The algorithm is also problematic.
My traffic is down 95% because most of my friends have left, and as mentioned, the algorithm could be better. You can’t even track your traffic without paying. Twitter used to have an Analytics feature showing post engagement, but now you have to pay $8 a month for it.
While $8 isn’t much, many, including myself, dislike paying for a worse platform. Most of my posts now reach fewer than a thousand people. However, one tweet about Ivanka from a month ago still circulates, especially among MAGA supporters. It has 56,000 views. The tweet says, “Your guy had seven infrastructure weeks but didn’t get any infrastructure spending passed. But he did get to drive a truck,” with a picture of Trump making a “vroom vroom” face behind the wheel of a truck on the White House lawn.
I’ve been getting steady responses from MAGA supporters for a month. A common one is, “Well, you got your infrastructure, didn’t you?” referring to Biden’s infrastructure bill passed in November 2021. Their follow-up is often, “What’s he done with it? I don’t see any new bridges.”
Although billions have been appropriated for thousands of infrastructure projects, only a few have been completed, and some are under construction near my gym. Their argument is always, “Where’s the infrastructure?”
Between 40,000 and 60,000 projects have been initiated or funded, but these things take time. Now, shifting topics, I recently tweeted about Trump threatening a 200% tariff on John Deere if it moved jobs to Mexico. I checked, and tariffs typically get passed on to the consumer. A John Deere combine harvester costs around $900,000 to $1,000,000. If Trump imposed a 200% tariff, it would cost around $2.5 million, which is unaffordable for most farmers.
Most farmers rent these machines for harvest, and renting a combine can cost $40,000 to $50,000. Even renting is expensive. Some responses to the tweet said, “They shouldn’t have moved jobs to Mexico,” which hasn’t happened, or, “People should just buy Kubota.”
Farm machinery is amazing today, fully computerized and capable of incredible work. You might be familiar with this since you worked on a horse ranch in Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We had two tractors, and even the smaller John Deere was automatic. That’s the one I could drive.
Rosner: The advanced models require coding knowledge. They’re super complex but do amazing things. People are also upset with John Deere because they have repair locks, meaning you can only get repairs at licensed dealers. The machinery’s chips are locked, angering many farmers.
One response was, “Just build the stuff here, and there’s no need for a tariff.” Most farmers rent equipment for harvest. Another response mentioned a farmer who received $2 million from the government during COVID, and it went straight into his pocket.
In response to a thread about small farmers claiming crop losses and collecting government subsidies, someone sarcastically added, “Those rich farmers and their Ferraris. I’m tired of it.” Another person reiterated, “I know a farmer who pocketed $2 million during COVID.” This logic is flawed, though. I should also read out my actual tweet.
A John Deere combine harvester costs about $900,000. With a 200% tariff, it would be $2.5 million. How many small farmers can afford that? Small farm bankruptcies increased by 24% under Trump, and farmer suicides also rose significantly.
“Vote Trump if you hate farmers.” I won’t read the rest of that; it’s just junk. Here’s another comment: someone said that if the tariff forces people to buy non-John Deere equipment or keeps John Deere jobs in the U.S., it’s a win-win. It’s not a strong point, but at least it’s plausible.
The argument is that farmers won’t buy John Deere equipment, and that’s the point. They’ll switch brands, or John Deere will keep jobs in the U.S. That’s the take. Let me find a good response.
Here’s a comment from someone named Glockout: “Most farmers today are trust fund babies. Most people can’t afford 500 acres.” Then another comment asks, “Why does John Deere import their harvesters?” One more claims, “John Deere didn’t bend the knee.”
I haven’t found great examples, but MAGA responses are often inconsistent. For example, they claim Biden is part of sophisticated conspiracies with his family to take millions in bribes, yet also say he’s too feeble to know he’s president.
That’s not a great example because you don’t have to be completely crazy to believe both things or at least tweet about them. People often tweet contradictory things about politicians they don’t like.
But what I’ve noticed is that there are huge gaps in logic with MAGA people, even if there are some in me, too. A contradiction often doesn’t add up between the claims they make and what they believe.
I should’ve collected better examples to make this a solid topic. It makes me think of what F. Scott Fitzgerald said: “The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I get that, but I also think that the mark of a poorly developed mind is holding many contradictory positions without seeing any problem.
Cooijmans has this theory of intelligence where one of the components is—and I always forget the name. Still, you’re always able to supply it. I like associative breadth, but what does he call it?
Jacobsen: Yes, it’s called the width of the associative horizon.
Rosner: This refers to when presented with a tough mental problem or challenge. You can pull in analogies and associations from all areas of your experience to see if they offer a useful angle on the problem.
We talked about Einstein a few days ago and his struggles with general relativity. He relied on his friends’ associative horizon to solve the problem because he wasn’t as strong in mathematics. He was constantly complaining about how difficult the problem was to his friends, many of whom were math professors. One suggested he try using a 4×4 matrix system, which worked. So, he used his friendship network instead of just his mental network to overcome that hurdle.
Some of the most creative work comes from people with wide associative horizons. They can pull in analogies from all over the place. James Joyce does this so extensively that his work is nearly unreadable. He uses rebuses, riddles, and bizarre associations in Finnegans Wake. You need a guide to understand all the associations and metaphors he’s drawing on. The guide would be as thick as the book itself.
I would say that someone who’s been deranged by MAGA propaganda or has schizophrenia, or even someone dreaming, has a broken or very short associative horizon. When you’re dreaming, you can believe all sorts of absurd things from moment to moment, and none of it makes you wake up. You rarely realize, “This is absurd; it doesn’t make any sense—I must be dreaming,” and wake yourself up.
People who believe a bunch of contradictory things, whether because they have schizophrenia, are heavily propagandized, or cognitively declining, likely have a compromised ability to find meaningful associations. Their brain’s ability to link ideas together has either been shortened or was weak in the first place. Would you agree?
Jacobsen: Absolutely. Their ability to make useful connections in their mind has deteriorated.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What happened with your colonoscopy?
Rick Rosner: Well, for those who don’t know, a colonoscopy is a procedure where, once you hit a certain age, doctors stick a camera up your butthole to look inside your colon and remove any polyps that have developed. Polyps aren’t cancerous, but if you don’t take them out, they could turn cancerous.
Jacobsen: Right, and you have to prep for it.
Rosner: Yeah. They give you these powerful salts—sodium, magnesium, and potassium salts. You drink this awful solution, then more water, and your body wants to get rid of it, so it pulls all the liquid and poop out of your system. You end up with horrible diarrhea, but by the time you’re done, you’re supposed to be passing clear liquid. This was my fourth colonoscopy, so I know how to prep. I go in, they stick the camera up my butt while I’m lying on my side, and they give me fentanyl to put me in twilight sleep—where you’re not fully unconscious but relaxed and sedated.
Jacobsen: Did you remember it?
Rosner: Last time, I was awake enough to watch it on the screen, but this time I fell asleep. They got a third of the way through my colon. There’s the descending colon, the transverse colon, which runs across your abdomen, and the ascending colon, which connects to your large intestine. They got through the descending colon, but when they hit the transverse colon, there was still poop there. It didn’t wreck the view, but it was lying in pools and blocked some of the views underneath. They ran the camera down to my ascending colon, then pulled it out.
Jacobsen: So what went wrong?
Rosner: The doctor was pissed because they didn’t get all the way through. The nurse came in afterward and said they only got a third of the way because they ran into feces. I saw pictures—they take snapshots of every section, and yeah, there was some poop in the pictures. I assume the doctor was annoyed and frustrated, and now I have to return for another one.
Rosner: I felt like I wasted everyone’s time because there was still shit in me. I’m probably going to have to go back for another colonoscopy, this time with a two-day prep instead of one day, which means two days of shitting water out of my butt, maybe in six months or a year. This was my fourth colonoscopy—what the hell happened?
Jacobsen: What’s your theory?
Rosner: Well, two months ago, they froze a tiny tumour out of my kidney, and it was successful. They used liquid nitrogen to freeze this one-centimetre tumour, turning it into an ice ball and killing it. But the tumour was near the outside of my kidney, and when they froze that part, they also froze one of the nerves coming off my spine that runs to one of my horizontal abdominal muscles.
It turns out we have two layers of abs—the vertical ones that make up the six-pack and another layer underneath that wraps around your gut like a belt. They knocked out half of one of those belts. So now I have what they call a “pseudo-hernia,” which means there’s a little bulge where that part of the belt isn’t working. If I’m lucky, the nerve will regenerate, and the muscle will return. But right now, there’s this relaxed area.
Jacobsen: So, how does that connect to the colonoscopy?
Rosner: Well, Carole looked up why colonoscopy prep can fail, and one reason is a hernia—a real hernia, where there’s a tear between the muscles and the intestines can poke out, which can create pockets where poop hides out. So, my theory is, if a real hernia can do that, maybe my pseudo-hernia let some poop hide out too. If my transverse colon, which runs across the front of my gut, was poking into that gap in the muscle, some poop could’ve stayed hidden during the prep.
Jacobsen: That’s frustrating.
Rosner: Yeah, because the cleanout process is horrible—you end up shitting 20 times in 10 hours. And now, with this two-day prep, it will be even worse. I’m hoping the muscle comes back before I have to go through another colonoscopy. Anyway, there you go.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Next topic: Harris and Walz. How are they doing?
Rick Rosner: They’re doing well. We’re about 45, 44 days away from the election, and they haven’t made any major mistakes. It’s not October yet, but there haven’t been any October surprises so far. Trump, on the other hand, does things several times a week that would wreck any other candidate. Recently, he started his own cryptocurrency, which just shows he’s not serious about winning more votes.
Jacobsen: He’s still focused on gaining attention rather than voters.
Rosner: Exactly. A week ago, there was a focus on Laura Loomer—she’s a hate-monger and probably the craziest right-wing pundit out there. There are rumors that her dad had her locked in a mental institution twice. She’s been kicked off every social media platform for her awful comments. When she got kicked off Twitter five years ago, she handcuffed herself to the front door of Twitter HQ to protest. Just a completely unhinged person. But she’s been traveling on Trump’s plane—well, his ex-presidential plane.
Jacobsen: And despite all of that, Trump’s base doesn’t care.
Rosner: Exactly. He’s not going to win anyone new unless they’ve been completely out of the loop and have no idea what’s been happening. But Trump’s not losing any of his base either.
Rick Rosner: Just looking at the polls, which are tricky. He’s still being a piece of shit, saying crazy things, not campaigning hard, and not focusing on the right places. It’s like he doesn’t care about winning new voters. Harris has a small lead—around 3%—which puts her in a similar situation as Hillary Clinton. She’ll likely win the popular vote, but she still needs to win the electoral vote.
Jacobsen: Is Harris campaigning hard?
Rosner: As far as I can tell, yes. She’s being cautious, not making big mistakes. She’ll do interviews but limits them to avoid getting trapped or making errors. She’s also careful when it comes to talking about Gaza since there’s no right answer there—it’s a messy situation. She seems to be running a decent campaign, trying to navigate through it without alienating voters.
The betting markets have Harris with a better chance of winning than Trump. So, that’s where we are. Vance continues to give jerky responses. Mark Robinson, the GOP candidate for governor of North Carolina, has always been a controversial figure, but CNN just revealed a bunch of messages from a Black porn chat room where he calls himself a “Black Nazi” and talks about having piss-filled threesomes with his sister-in-law. He’s also indicated that some people need to be enslaved and that he would buy slaves if he could. Just overall, a gross mess, which is good for the Dems because it puts North Carolina in play. Robinson was already trailing the Democratic candidate, Josh Shapiro, by 4 to 14 points.
We haven’t seen any new poll results since this stuff came out, but it’s likely going to cost him another 5 points. That could make the presidential race in North Carolina more competitive. But the election is still far from determined. Most people give Harris about a 60% chance of winning and Trump a 40% chance.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on Ukraine? Go.
Rick Rosner: Your thoughts are probably better than mine since you just got back from there. Russia still holds 40,000 square miles of Ukraine, while Ukraine controls about 400 square miles of Russia. Ukraine’s been holding its own. Russia hasn’t taken any more territory, but Ukraine hasn’t regained Crimea either. What do you think?
Jacobsen: Everything’s tenuous. It’s tenuous for the Russians and the Ukrainians. Long term, it’s especially tough for Russia because they’re losing so many men, and the women don’t want to have children. Economically, demographically—it’s not a good situation for the future.
Russia just added another 180,000 troops, giving them the second-largest army in the world, but none of those troops are properly trained.
Rosner: They’re crap. Nobody wants to be there. Many, if they’re sent to Ukraine, want to surrender, and they can if they do it without getting shot. Ukrainians aren’t interested in slaughtering innocent soldiers who don’t want to be there.
Jacobsen: That sounds about right. Most people who go to war don’t want to be there. It takes a strange kind of person to actively want war.
Rosner: Exactly.
Jacobsen: There’s a phrase from H.L. Mencken, the American journalist: ‘War is like love. It’s easy to get into, hard to get out of.’ That fits. It’s the general impression I got from being there twice. I’m happy to be alive and back, but there were real chances of getting killed. Anytime you go to a war zone, that’s always a possibility. But let’s leave that topic for now.
Rosner: Yeah. I assume the Ukrainians are still determined to save their nation?
Jacobsen: Yes, definitely. I’ll end on this—my Ukrainian friend told me that if Zelensky started to waver in his defense of Ukraine, people would think he’s broken, and they’d look to replace him. That’s the mindset—they’re committed.
Rick Rosner: He’s the LA Dodger who just did something amazing. There’s a thing called the 40-40 club—only six players have hit 40 home runs and stolen 40 bases in a season. The best anyone had done was 42-42. This year, with six games to go, Ohtani hit 53 home runs and stole 53 bases. That’s a 25% increase over the previous record, which is insane.
Jacobsen: What’s his background?
Rosner: He’s from Japan. He’s a big guy, about 6’4”. People are calling him the greatest baseball player in history because he’s also a great pitcher. This year, he’s been a designated hitter (DH) while rehabbing from surgery, so he gets on base a lot without having to field. It’s a combination of being the best player ever and having to be a DH all season. The Dodgers, meanwhile, always seem to run out of pitchers by the end of the season. They’ve had the best record in baseball over the last 12 years, but by the time they make the playoffs, their pitchers are injured. They’ve only won one World Series in those 12 years.
Jacobsen: So they might need Ohtani as a pitcher, too?
Rosner: Yeah, they might. It’s crazy. People don’t pitch and play other parts of the game much anymore—that’s a throwback to the Babe Ruth era. It’s amazing to watch. The whole thing is built on this odd combination of stats—stealing bases and hitting home runs. It makes sense that someone would break the record by such a high percentage, but it’s still incredible to witness greatness in sports.
How much time do we have left?
Jacobsen: Two and a half minutes.
Rosner: I had a high-testosterone girlfriend in college who was angry and mean, but also delightful. We were bouncers in a bar together and fought a lot because she’d get mad if she thought some woman was looking at me. One time, I was talking to a couple of strippers who weren’t wearing underwear under their dresses, and she freaked out. It wasn’t like I was hitting on them—I was just being friendly. But we fought all the time, and it was miserable. The only thing that cheered me up was checking the newspaper in the morning to see how Wayne Gretzky had done. He was setting records all the time—212 points in one season, the all-time NHL record.
Jacobsen: Gretzky really did keep setting records.
Rosner: Today, I told my wife, “Ohtani joined the 53-53 club,” and she said, “You love numbers, like with Gretzky.” She’s right—I do love when athletes break records.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen What else can we talk about?
Rick Rosner: We could talk about P. Diddy.
Jacobsen: Okay. I’ll keep my AirPods in and lie down.
Rosner: But let’s make this the last topic since you still seem exhausted.
Jacobsen: Yeah, I’m not as bad as I was, but still tired. So, P. Diddy is in jail awaiting trial.
Rosner: No bail for him. What he did was horrible, and it’s well-substantiated—something that went on for decades. It wasn’t just one thing; there was sexual and other violence, coercion, and more.
Jacobsen:That’s insane.
Rosner: Yeah, he had an empire of evil for over 20 years, facilitated by the people around him. That happens with American celebrities, but also with world celebrities and politicians.
Rosner: Right, like Uday and Qusay Hussein—they were involved in sex, murder, and torture.
Jacobsen: Exactly. So, if you take a step back and look at American scandals, there’s a pattern. Think about P. Diddy, R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, and all the Hollywood predators.
Rosner: And of course, Trump.
Jacobsen: That American lawyer who got caught with his shirt off or whatever—what’s his name?
Rosner: Anthony Weiner.
Jacobsen: Yes, him. What do you make of this from a lay perspective? If you were to take a non-expert opinion on these people, especially in a place stereotyped as a narcissistic hotspot like Hollywood and LA, do you think a lot of them probably have personality disorders that lead them to not care about others?
Rosner: Yeah, sure. Most people don’t have the kind of agency that celebrities do—the ability to act on their desires without much restriction. Celebrities have more freedom to follow up on their impulses and wants, whereas most people are more constrained by social or financial limitations.
I’m sure with someone like Weiner, and like most of these people, it’s not what they originally desired. They get carried along into creepier and creepier behavior because they can. Elvis had a similar support structure as other celebrities who got into questionable stuff, but the things Elvis did were less creepy than what Diddy, R. Kelly, Weinstein, or Trump got up to. Elvis was basically a nice guy, not insane. However, his behavior became erratic—like the time he shot a TV. Much of this can be attributed to the enablers around him who didn’t set boundaries. He also had a preference for younger girlfriends, which, at times, crossed into creepiness.
When Elvis met Priscilla, she was 14. But he mostly had relationships with adult women. He had a “thing” for what he considered “good girls”—women who wore white underwear, which he associated with purity.
Apparently, once he had sex with someone, they were no longer seen as a “good girl,” and he tended to lose interest. Though, honestly, a lot of men with access to unlimited partners experience something similar, so it might not be unique to him.
Yeah, that could be exaggerated or even a myth. But you see the same kind of enablement with people like Michael Jackson, who was a pedophile. If he hadn’t been so enabled by the people around him, would he have acted on those urges? He was married two or three times—once to Lisa Marie Presley and to the mother of his children, though that situation was strange.
If Jackson hadn’t been a celebrity, would he have been an active pedophile? Or would he have even developed those tendencies in the first place? It’s possible, but who knows how much was nature versus the enabling structure of his fame.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yeah, let’s keep it short. What do you think Thomas Edison felt when he finally got the light bulb to work?
Rick Rosner: Well, Edison ran an invention factory. He had dozens of people working for him. He was great at PR, so the image we have of him personally working all the time is probably more of a myth. There’s that story of him taking short naps and standing up in a closet because he had no time to spare—maybe it’s true. But he had tons of assistants. Developing the light bulb was likely running electricity through many filaments, trying different materials to see what worked without burning out too quickly. He probably tried hundreds, if not thousands, of materials.
Jacobsen: Yeah, was he feeling lost, like he’d never find the right material? Or was it just another project among many that his assistants worked on?
Rosner: I don’t think it was like Einstein’s lonely search with general relativity, which took him years to develop. Einstein sometimes despaired, wondering if he’d ever devised the mathematical structure to describe how gravity worked. Eventually, a mathematician friend suggested a matrix structure, and it clicked; where you can’t distinguish between being pressed into the back of an accelerating train and standing in a gravitational field, the principle is that an accelerating frame and a gravitational field are essentially the same.
But I don’t think Edison had that same kind of despair. He had a lab, a team, and a reputation for inventing. They worked on ideas until something clicked—like the phonograph. They probably had a process of brainstorming, testing, and eliminating ideas that weren’t worth developing. Half the ideas probably got dropped early, and more would be scrapped because they couldn’t find the right technology. However, the ones that worked were what made Edison famous.
Jacobsen: So it was more like business as usual in his lab, right? Refining ideas until they worked.
Rosner: It must have been exhilarating once they realized something was finally working, but it was likely a process of refining materials to last longer. The first light bulbs didn’t last very long, after all.
You’d get about 6 or 8 hours out of the early bulbs. Then they had to work with materials that could last longer—maybe a year or two, depending on how many hours you kept them on. Plus, they needed cheap materials for mass production.
So, it wasn’t just about making it work—it was about scaling up, making it affordable. But Edison was also a vicious businessman. Books have been written, and movies have been made about the “war” between Tesla and him and Westinghouse over direct current (DC) versus alternating current (AC).
Jacobsen: Ironically, Elon Musk named his company Tesla because he acts more like Edison.
Rosner: He’s a ruthless bullshitter but a good administrator of companies—he gets the right people in place. Yeah, when you compare Musk and Edison, they have many similarities. You wonder if Musk’s excesses are as much a product of the time we live in as they are of his personality. If he’d lived 100 years ago, society might not have supported him being such a big asshole. The monstrousness of industrialists took different forms back then.
Rosner: There’s a book called The Psychopath Test that talks about the emergence of psychopaths in positions of leadership—in business and politics. Robert Hare was one of the pioneers of that research.
Jacobsen: Oh yeah, Hare came out of Canada, right? His research was based on the West Coast, maybe Vancouver. Robert Hare—like a rabbit. A lot of good research in the social sciences has come out of Canada.
Rosner: Definitely. Canada is overrepresented in certain areas, including entertainment. You’ve got people like Shatner and Trebek and many of the Second City people—plenty of Canadians in the spotlight.
Funny enough, on the first show I worked on, we had a category called “Dead or Canadian.” You’d name a famous person, and the contestants had to say if they were Canadian or dead. It was a hit.Jacobsen: That’s hilarious.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Quick question: are you a fan of boxers or briefs?
Rick Rosner: For most of my life, I wore tighty whities because I’ve got varicose veins and need support—my balls flop around otherwise. I could never wear old-school boxers where everything is just flapping. But tighty whities got creepy, so now I wear boxer briefs. They have longer legs than tighty whities but still give support. My balls don’t sag, and that’s important, especially as you get older. There are horror stories of older men sitting on their balls and popping them.
Rosner: I’ve seen videos of men being surprised when they accidentally sit on their balls. It’s rough. It would help if you had everything in place.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is more important: kindness, empathy, or intelligence?
Rick Rosner: It depends on the context, but kindness is the most important in building a decent society. If people are consistently kind to each other, society can function well. You don’t have to understand others fully to be kind to them. Empathy extends the reach of your kindness. If you can only understand people like you, that limits who you’ll be kind to. But if you can work on empathy, it broadens your range. Intelligence is probably the least important when it comes to holding society together. Intelligence is for finding solutions when there’s no obvious solution already in place.
Jacobsen: That makes sense. So, to use something like your personal example, maybe, if someone is mildly gifted and can create problems up to, say, three and a third standard deviations above the norm. Still, you’re four or five or more standard deviations above the norm; you might overthink the problem and see patterns that weren’t meant to be there. You’ve probably walked through life seeing this happen, where even the most complicated occupations don’t require that high of an intelligence—personality might matter more. There’s a dual factor here—intelligence and personality.
Rosner: Trump and many of his supporters aren’t morons, but their personality makes them effectively moronic. They’re the “do your own research” people who lazily look into things or accept crappy arguments because they lack the curiosity or energy to poke holes in those arguments. They embrace ideas that support their prejudices without critically engaging with them. They aren’t so dumb that they couldn’t be taught that their views are based on faulty information. They don’t care enough to change their minds.
That’s true in life strategies, too. You can have average or slightly above-average intelligence and still succeed by following the standard behaviours that society lays out. One place where I went wrong was spending too much effort on failed strategies—like trying to get a girlfriend before I was boyfriend material.
Jacobsen: That’s an interesting point. The marker of being “boyfriend material” is constantly shifting, however.
Rosner: True. But I remember being in 4th grade, and I was despairing because I had just learned how to jerk off, so I was still around nine and a half. I thought, “This is years away from being able to have sex with someone else!” It was way too early to be that concerned about it. But even then, I was worried about when and how I’d get a girlfriend. Other people around me didn’t seem worried, which confused me.
Jacobsen: That’s a lot of pressure at such a young age.
Rosner: It was. I went back to high school several times after graduating and saw a big difference. My class, the class of ’78, was horny. We bought into the idea that you shouldn’t leave high school with your virginity intact. But it was different when I saw the classes of ’79 and ’86. Many people didn’t seem to care as much about hooking up, which annoyed me. One guy in particular, who was cool, had a cool car and a decent personality. He wasn’t focused on hitting on girls at all. He spent his weekends hanging out in parking lots with his car buddies. When I asked him why he wasn’t worried about not having a girlfriend, he said, “You can’t worry about everything, man.” That attitude probably served him well later in life.
Jacobsen: It’s funny how sometimes simple advice like that can be exactly what we need to hear.
Rosner: If someone had told me back then, “You’ll be fine. Just do some basic things like lift weights, stay in shape, and be funny,” I probably would’ve been more chill. You’ll meet somebody. Just follow the path that most people follow—live your life, lower your standards, and meet someone perfectly acceptable. You don’t have to be brilliant to do that. It’s not a philosophy; it’s just about not worrying about stuff like that. It’s more of a passive strategy that people of all IQ levels follow.
And it has to work. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have 8 billion people on Earth. In my younger days, I’d spend at least 100 nights a year in bars—during the era when that’s where you went to hook up. I was mostly getting paid to work at bars, so I wasn’t just some sad case, spending two nights a week forlornly hanging out in a disco, hoping to hit on someone.
Jacobsen: At least you were getting paid to be there.
Rosner: Even if I didn’t meet someone, I was making money. And sometimes, I’d catch a fake ID or two, which I loved doing, or get involved in a brawl, which was usually fun.
Rick Rosner: We’ve discussed this a lot. You’re kind, empathetic, and not American, so you probably don’t subscribe to this view as much as I do. However, I see the 2024 election as one between people with reasonable intelligence—on the liberal side—and people suffering from Dunning-Kruger on the other. It doesn’t mean everyone who votes for Trump is an idiot. I know intelligent people who hold their noses and vote for him because they like the tax breaks he gives to the wealthy. They might be rich or think they will be someday.
You don’t have to be an idiot to vote for Trump, but it helps. Republicans figured out 50 years ago that it’s easier to manipulate idiots. The 2024 election feels like the culmination of 50-plus years of herding dumb people into the GOP.
And it gets worse with every election cycle. The 2024 election stands out because there are so many different flavours of idiots on the Trump side. One demographic is people with mild or early cognitive decline. At least 10 million Americans in their seventies and eighties still have agency, live independently, or are in senior living but aren’t as sharp as they used to be.
These people are particularly vulnerable to scams—charities that prey on them or scammers who call hoping for an older, feebler person to pick up. Carole and I still have a landline because we’re old and too lazy to give it up. Plus, our home alarm system requires a landline. So, we get a lot of trolling calls, fishing for victims.
We all get many hang-ups when we hear someone who doesn’t sound like an easy target for scamming. But if they hear someone who says “hello” with uncertainty, they might think they’ve found someone easier to scam.
And that’s the old strategy. Fox News is set up to appeal to the old and less critical-minded, with bright colours, pretty women, and manly, block-headed men. There are other flavours of this, too.
Crypto Bros seem susceptible, for example. And undereducated groups are often vulnerable. Trump’s most successful demographic is non-college-educated white males.
Rick Rosner: So, it’s fall, which was a time that everyone looked forward to—at least in America—when the new shows would debut on network TV. Now, with a gazillion channels, network TV is less appealing than the higher quality, more challenging shows available elsewhere.
But there are still shows on network TV premiering now, including High Potential, which is based on a French show and probably a million other shows where a high-IQ weirdo catches the attention of the police and gets hired as a consultant to help solve crimes. Carole and I watched an episode, and it feels like a show about a genius written by people who aren’t geniuses. The plot is ridiculous, and it requires all the cops to be complete idiots so that she can find the clues they missed. There’s another show, Brilliant Minds, a fictionalized version of Oliver Sacks—a great doctor and writer on medical issues, but done in a writerly, fictional way.
Zachary Quinto plays the Oliver Sacks character in Brilliant Minds, right? He solves medical mysteries by putting himself into the mindset of his patients.
And a few years ago on CBS, half their primetime lineup consisted of shows like that. You’ve got 20 hours a week of primetime programming, which means there’s room for 20 one-hour shows, or more if some are half-hour sitcoms, or fewer if reality shows are mixed in. But CBS’s lineup was filled with geniuses solving things—like NCIS had the quirky goth girl in the lab doing science stuff.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So why so many geniuses on CBS and other networks?
Rosner: Well, here’s the thing: network TV skews toward an older demographic—people who can’t afford streaming or cable or figure out how to use them. CBS has the oldest demographic of the major broadcast networks. The trends will be more pronounced for CBS because they cater to that audience. I’ve mentioned this before—older adults are often intimidated by how fast the world is changing, while their understanding of it isn’t. A lot of older people experience mild cognitive decline, which makes them feel like they aren’t as sharp as they used to be.
Jacobsen: Right, like the stereotype of the grandma who couldn’t figure out how to use the remote control or DVR back when that was still a thing.
Rosner: So, these murder shows on CBS have a clear structure: a murder happens, the charismatic team of detectives you like steps in, and they solve the mystery by the end of the hour. They make everything clear, with much exposition and explanation, so the viewer isn’t confused. There’s always at least one genius on the team, sometimes a whole team of them.
So, for older people watching the show, it rolls over them. There are a few false leads, and then the real culprit is found, and even though it took a genius to figure it out, the viewer feels like they understood it all, too.
As an older person, you’re watching this genius solve a crime, and since you understand everything, it makes you feel like you’re still sharp. It’s reassuring. You relate to the genius, so you feel like maybe you’re a genius yourself.
Jacobsen: It’s like how Richard Feynman was praised for explaining things in a way that made you feel smart while understanding him. Feynman had that balance of intellectual and emotional skill in explaining complex ideas. He used to say something like, “If you can’t explain something to a young child, you don’t truly understand it.”
Rosner: Exactly, and that’s the idea behind these shows—they make complex things seem simple enough that everyone can feel smart watching them.
Rosner: I’ve noticed this pattern in many of these network TV shows lately.
Jacobsen: If you keep seeing consistencies in the arguments or aphorisms of historically identified smart people, there might be something to them. John Cleese had something to say about this, too. He noted that some people lack sufficient intelligence or metacognitive awareness to recognize their ignorance or lack of intelligence. So, there’s a certain floor you need to be above to be aware of your shortcomings.
Rosner: Right, that’s the Dunning-Kruger effect, where you’re too dumb to understand you’re dumb, so you think you’re smart.
Jacobsen: Yes. But those effects are contextual and environmental. Historically, there were certain environments where the “floor” was much lower than in a highly technological and literate society like we have now.
Rosner: Sure, depending on the context, people of different ability levels can exhibit Dunning-Kruger. For example, in physics class in college, some people were much more confident in their understanding of the material than I was. Still, it took me a while to realize they didn’t understand it as well as they thought. And these weren’t idiots—the complexity of the subject just fooled them.
Jacobsen: You’ve always struck me as someone who makes jokes—dick jokes and poop jokes—but understands your level of bullshitting and is extremely honest. There’s a high level of intellectual honesty with you.
Rosner: Well, that got rewarded, which reinforced the behaviour. I couldn’t be cool or James Bond-like at Kimmel and other places. The only “coolness” I could achieve was by revealing my quirks, which often involve… poo. My asshole is competent now, I’d say super competent, but it used to be a disaster before I got hemorrhoid surgery. So yeah, there were some poo issues.
Jacobsen: That’s quite the segue.
Rosner: Speaking of disasters, the 2024 election feels like a Dunning-Kruger case study.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I interviewed with Steven Pinker. I had some correspondence with someone who is a dissenter from him. They cited people that Pinker has either been associated with or has referenced in his work and, therefore, concluded that Pinker is both a bad researcher and a bad person—or at least suspiciously so, something along those lines. I tried to convey to this person that the point of my interview with Pinker was about humanism and campuses. The focus was on that because I was highly time-constrained due to obligations in a war zone while conducting the interview.
It was a short interview, and that was not the primary topic. It’s an important topic, but it’s not necessarily appropriate to claim that their desired topic—calling out Pinker—was the focus of my interview with him. So, this person, who seemed to have some rather extreme views, snuck in under the radar. They studied some research, but I didn’t have time to dive into it. I work long days, and I have a lot of other projects on the go. I don’t have the time to do deep research for a passing interview just because someone claims that the person I interviewed turned out to be a bad guy. That’s their claim. But it sounds more like Pinker is doing good things in many areas, though he may have made some questionable statements here and there.
Rick Rosner: Let’s talk about one area I know quite a bit about.
Jacobsen: Yes, this is a segue into your perspective.
Rosner: Twitter, now called X, is in September 2024, and Musk has owned Twitter for a year and a half. Two years? He calls it free speech. I call it on not removing enough racists and antisemites from the platform.
In any case, I’ve been involved with IQ for 40 years now. And nothing good comes from people making claims or researching differences in national average IQs or differences in average IQs among racial groups. For one thing, there’s much bad work in that field. For another, 80% or more of the people interested in that field are racists looking to prove their claims. Third, IQ has never been the greatest measure, and it’s probably becoming obsolete as human knowledge and ability are increasingly augmented by easily accessible information and AI resources.
Now, when you Google something, I’m sure you’ve seen that most of the time, Google has AI write a short response to your query. It’s often the first thing that appears on the page, and the AI response is usually good enough to answer your question. This means that anyone with a phone, tablet, or laptop would be the smartest person in the world in 1978. Ask that person anything, and they’d have access to all the information in the world.
So, when people make claims about the average IQs of large groups, especially national or racial groups, they’re wading into dangerous territory. You’re associating with a lot of problematic ideas and people. What else?
Jacobsen: This is the point for me—my 2¢, quickly. My take is generally to give people space to express their honest opinions. That’s not to say they’re right or accurate, but it gives them a platform to express themselves. I trust the audience to make their judgments.
Rosner: That’s the argument about freedom of speech: if you bombard people with enough nonsense, can they still make their own decisions?
Jacobsen: It depends. But I don’t write for The New York Times or work for CNN as a lead correspondent. It’s a much different scale. And at the same time, I don’t think it’s worth researching racist pseudoscience—it’s a waste of time at a minimum, and racism is, of course, wrongheaded and stupid. The accusations against people by association or trying to change people’s minds with invective or personal attacks likely won’t work. It might make them more entrenched in their views.
Rosner: I agree. I don’t think you give that field oxygen. Another point, the Flynn Effect, which we’ve talked about a lot: In the half-century after World War II, the average IQ of the entire planet went up by 15 points, which is not insignificant. Flynn, who discovered this effect, says it’s just cultural literacy. When people learn the thinking that IQ tests measure, thanks to access to information from the rest of the world—particularly after World War II, when the world “lit up” informationally—it leads to these gains. Especially with the arrival of TV, I would say. The Flynn Effect occurred during the TV era, and by the time we get to the Internet and smartphone era, it has levelled off and even regressed a little. But somehow, TV, movies, books, and even regular telephones—not smartphones—gave people in the most remote parts of the world habits of mind that made them effectively smarter, as measured by IQ tests.
Jacobsen: Yes, and it’s an academic question, but also a cultural one, and offensive. That’s the danger of spreading racially oriented research into the public sphere because it taps into elements of society with a negative racial focus. At the same time, in an academic context, as far as I know—and I’m not an expert—biologists consider there to be only one human species. There have been arguments about subspecies or other categorizations, but we would have to change our minds if there were sufficient evidence for such distinctions. I think more evidence is needed.
Rosner: It never has been. You can’t just measure things and develop evidence for racial distinctions like that. For example, women are, on average, smaller than men; therefore, women have smaller brains than men. Does that mean women are less intelligent than men? No. You can get the same amount of brainpower in a skull that might be 5% smaller in diameter. The brain size doesn’t correlate directly to intelligence.
Jacobsen: Exactly, because then you’d critique the metric scientifically and look at things like encephalization—the proportion of brain size relative to body size. You’d get a more accurate assessment that’s not just looking at brain size in isolation but considering proportionality to body size.
Rosner: Right.
Jacobsen: That’s the methodology I’m talking about. The orientation of the framing and the precision of the evidence could, in theory, come up with some distinctions, but I don’t see it happening.
Rosner: No measuring stick is reliable or precise enough to support these arguments.
Jacobsen: We’re arguing the same thing from different angles. We don’t have sufficiently advanced tools to make these distinctions, even hypothetically right now.
Rosner: Exactly, and another point, it won’t even matter in 5, 10, or 15 years because AI will determine how smart you are by how effectively you can connect with it. The people who will excel are those who are good at prompting AI and utilizing it to its fullest potential. I’ve already seen people advertising services to train others to be “AI whisperers,” which is a racket. But eventually, the smartest people on Earth will be those most intimately linked with information processing, like through Neuralink, if it works. That’s Musk’s brain chip. But at some point, someone—since he’s not the only one working on it—will develop a super advanced interface between your brain and something that pipes information into your head more effectively. Or even something less science fiction-like, such as contact lenses or glasses that provide a steady stream of information floating in front of your eyes. We already had something like that with Google Glass about 15 years ago, but it was half-baked. Eventually, it won’t be.
And so, who cares how well someone performs on an IQ test in 2038 without devices? By then, everyone will be tied into tech that augments their thinking. How smart you are will depend on how good you are at interacting with that tech. I had an idea for a game show called Search Party during the writers’ strike before this one. It was sometime in the 2000s.
I had some spare time because production had shut down. The idea was to throw tough trivia questions at kids—something challenging. For example, “What kind of car was Sonny Corleone driving when assassinated in The Godfather?” Nowadays, you type “car Sonny Corleone Godfather,” and the answer pops up. When I was developing this show, retrieving information was a bit harder. It may have even been pre-Google.
But the whole idea was that retrieving information is a skill. Fifteen years later, that’s obvious. Everyone is reasonably good at it—well, most people. Some don’t care about information and go with their gut.
Jacobsen: However, the easier and more effective ways to increase this capacity are through Head Start programs, nutrition programs, proper education, and low-stress environments for kids. These improve cognitive and emotional capacity, giving kids a more well-rounded foundation because they have the energy and nutrition to develop fully.
Rosner:Exactly. When these people enter the adult world, those with the best technology to augment themselves will be smarter than those without or who can’t use the tech as efficiently. As an aside, we have a friend who’s an elementary school teacher, and she said that after COVID, her first graders are like babies because they missed out on preschool. They were homeschooled, so the first and second-graders have the social skills of kids a couple of years younger. That’s a real issue.
Jacobsen: Right, and that proves the point. But this connects to something we discussed yesterday or the day before. The floor for functioning in society was probably lower a few centuries ago, especially regarding literacy. With all this new technology, which extends cognitive capacities in magical ways, the floor for functionality might rise. Using these devices efficiently could raise the baseline for everyone. But at the same time, it could create a bigger barrier for a larger portion of the population who can’t access or use these technologies effectively. That’s the risk.
Rosner: Researching what nutrition does for brain development or what living in a language-rich environment can do makes sense. There’s an argument that kids do better growing up in two-parent households because they hear adults talking to each other. It’s not just kids watching TV or adults yelling at them—it’s conversations. I can see studies being done around things like that. But studies about whether people in Singapore are, on average, smarter than people in Sri Lanka or China or wherever are useless. Those studies are filled with bias and racist agendas.
Jacobsen: That’s an entirely different issue, though still significant—the issue of racist agendas. But that’s separate from two things. First, welfare programs and social safety nets that support people during crucial developmental years, and second, the academic question of whether people are trying to suppress open questioning and research in an academic environment. Then there’s the other side—the public policy and social commentary domain, where both of us are concerned about people with racist agendas harming those who are typically vulnerable in this cycle.
Rosner: Let me condense my argument into one simple point: Who wrote The Bell Curve? It’s two guys. Charles… it’s two.
Jacobsen: Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein.
Rosner: Or wait, Charles Murray is alive, and Richard Herrnstein, right?
Jacobsen: Yes, that’s right. Long day, I get it.
Rosner:The Bell Curve is the most well-known book arguing for racial differences in IQ, and it’s been around for almost 30 years now. It’s a classic in that problematic genre. If you see someone bringing it up on social media, 90-plus percent of the time, that person is a creepy racist.
Jacobsen: Yes, and it’s a two-way street. Are they citing the whole text? Or just a section? On the other hand, is the person countering that argument by rejecting the entire book without having read it? Or are they focusing on a particular passage and saying, “No, the evidence does not support this”? The truth is, social media isn’t that sophisticated.
Rosner: Right. Anybody bringing that stuff up on social media is likely doing so with bad intent. Like I said, 90-plus percent of the time, they’re just using it to push a racist agenda.
Jacobsen: I’ve seen this in email correspondence when I offer interviews. Despite my constrained time, with all the projects I have going on, I sometimes do limited interviews—like a 25-minute one on a specific topic, say topic A or A and B. Then someone comes back asking, “Why didn’t you talk about topic C?” Or, “Why didn’t you call out this person for their supposed racist associations with D?” It’s unfair.
Rosner: Exactly. It feels like falling into a trap.
Jacobsen: Just like on Twitter, where some people are full-on, proud white supremacists, there are also left-wing versions of that extremism.
Rosner: There are also subtler people on Twitter. Just like white supremacists who constantly post news about undocumented immigrants or Black people doing something terrible, there’s a subtler version of that—people who use academic studies to build an argument. They put together a series of studies, and it’s only after reading dozens of their posts that you see their real agenda. Without stating it outright, they’re pushing the idea that “whitey is better than non-whitey.” But they hide that agenda behind a veneer of intellectualism. They may even have other interests beyond their belief in white superiority, but the thread of their argument takes time to catch.
Jacobsen: Even if someone is center-left, we have to be careful not to engage in racist generalizations when countering these kinds of arguments.
Rosner: I’ve seen people on the center-left who are naïve and get taken in by white man’s burden arguments. They might believe we need to help people from other countries or backgrounds because they’re intellectually disadvantaged to catch.
Jacobsen: I’m not sure I’ve personally seen that flavour of awfulness, but I can imagine it exists.
Here’s a concrete example: Some parts of the so-called “woke” movement are doing good work addressing racism, sexism, and class-based injustices. But at the same time, they promote a hierarchy of oppression in society, and in doing so, they make generalized statements about men, white people, and so on. They’re engaging in the very thing they condemn. That kind of intellectual hypocrisy is untenable in the long term, though it is gaining traction in the short term.
And that’s a danger that, in the long term, could damage center-left, if not left-wing, movements. At least in terms of the rhetorical flourish, we’ve been seeing for the last 5 or 10 years. And not taking those categories as absolutes but rather as statistical inferences. You have to take everyone individually, but yes, you can generally understand why men, or people in North America, have been privileged in various ways over others—for example, basic things like the right to vote or access to certain positions and jobs. But in making these generalizations, you can fall into the same trap of stereotyping that you’re condemning. You make generalizations about white people, men, or people with more money, which follow the same logic you’re criticizing.
Rosner: I see that happening. And here’s my prejudice: I think MAGA supporters are, on average, less intelligent than the rest of the U.S. population. So, I’m guilty of demographic generalization, too. I don’t think it’s prejudiced to say that a significant percentage of older people—those in their seventies or eighties—experience mild or early cognitive decline, making them more gullible or less sharp. I’d stand by that. It’s an actual problem because people in cognitive decline are often targeted by politicians and scam artists with overly simple arguments. I’d say Fox News, for example, is designed for what they call “low-information voters,” which is a euphemism for less informed or less critical people.
Jacobsen: Yes, we’ve touched on this territory before.
Rosner: So why do I feel justified in thinking that while I argue that people who generalize about entire nations can’t do the same? It’s a tricky line. The moral paradigm and stereotyping seem wrong to me. But if you were to say MAGA ideas are stupid, wrong, or even evil, that’s a different claim than saying most MAGA people are. Still, I’d argue that to fall for those ideas, you either have to be dumb enough to believe them, or you’re pretending. It’s either a case of genuinely believing nonsense or conveniently buying into it because it fits your worldview.
In one case, you’re intellectually lazy or uninformed; in the other, you’re being cynical. So, am I doing the same thing I criticize when people make generalizations? Possibly. However, part of the argument is whether these people are genuinely less informed or intellectually lazy.
Are they letting social factors turn off their critical judgment? I might be overthinking this.
Jacobsen: Regarding public life, I’m taking too much of an academic approach. I want to be overly self-critical about having these prejudices—not in terms of the content but the underlying logic and how I’m applying it.We have two minutes left. Should we cut it here, or do you want to keep going?
Rosner: No, that’s fine. I got up on my high horse and then jumped into the muck. You tried to pull me out of the muck, but once you’re in it, you’re in it.
Jacobsen: All right, talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s going on with newer AI platforms for the Bay Area?
Rick Rosner: AI is like the Wild West in some ways, but in other ways, it’s not. Companies like Alphabet and Microsoft are pouring billions of dollars into developing powerful AI like ChatGPT, so that’s not the Wild West—that’s heavy industry. But these smaller, fly-by-night developers are also working on different AI engines. I’d say the AI porn world is more like the Wild West.
When I first started looking into it, there was a site called “The Porn Guy” that had a list of the 24 best AI porn sites. Now that list is up to 100. I checked out a couple of them because I like seeing how fast they change and adapt to different kinks, and, well, I also like looking at naked ladies.
Jacobsen: Is AI porn something like “adaptive kink”?
Rosner: Yeah, in a way. I followed two sites for a while, but one went out of business. It was interesting to see how each site seemed to adapt to the specific kinks of its users. Each site developed its distinct style. One site had more painterly images, still close to photorealistic but with an artistic touch. The other site—which seems more durable—offers about two dozen styles, like hentai, 2D comic book style, or CG animation.
Jacobsen: What about the dominant styles?
Rosner: On the more durable site, there are some dominant themes—especially in terms of, well, dominant boobs. Most of the images feature women with huge, round breasts, the kind a 9th grader would fantasize about.
And the other site that went out of business still had people with big boobs, but the bodies were more regular, and the images were more painterly. I didn’t go through and memorize every difference in style, but after looking at about 100 pictures, you could get a sense of what was typical for that particular site. I found it interesting that just a few dozen users—these “lunatics” generating the images they liked—could teach the engine enough to give the site a distinct, characteristic style. That says how easy it is for a small group of users to influence an AI engine.
We’re told about the massive size of the data sets, the training sets—what do they call it? Large language models? Thousands of people coding, billions of snippets of text, stories, and who knows what else. But on these porn sites, it seems like just a few people are shaping the output.
If you compare that to what we’re told about AI in general, it’s almost laughable. You expect these large AI models to be built on massive, diverse data sets with a ton of oversight. But then you go to a niche site, and just a handful of obsessed users can skew the output toward their specific tastes. It makes you wonder how much influence a small group can have over a learning model. If I knew anything more about AI beyond being a half-assed consumer, I’d have more insight into how that works. But for now, all I can say is that a few lunatics can definitely “pollute” an AI learning set.
Rick Rosner: Informational cosmology has been a theme throughout our talks for ten years. Bit by bit, it’s becoming a complete theory. When we last discussed it, I want to mentioned information pressure—the idea that increasing information in a semi-closed, self-consistent system, like a universe, drives time. It embodies time.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Right; the idea is that time results from increasing information.
Rosner: Exactly. A blob of degenerate matter, which has had all its information squeezed out by gravitational pressure, can create its own space as it differentiates into specific states. If you go back to the 1948 Claude Shannon definition of information, the amount of information is proportional to the specificity of the state chosen from available states. For example, rolling a pair of dice has more information than flipping a coin because there are more potential outcomes.
So, a blob of matter in a nonspecific, degenerate state can make itself specific, and in doing that, it establishes time—a timeline, a history.
We can analyze this through the physics of gravitational collapse, but you also have to consider it from the outside perspective—what’s driving it from the “armature world”?
What’s driving it? There is intentionality. In the armature world, some entities have laid the groundwork to create the material circumstances that allow for creating an information space. For instance, when a baby is born, it develops its own information space—it’s not precisely intentional in the sense of someone specifically creating it. People may want to have a baby, but through evolution, this baby can generate an information space, a brain that contains a mind that forms that information space.
Jacobsen: Right, so it’s not intentional in the traditional sense, but the underlying structure still allows this information space to emerge.
Rosner: But I’m struggling with the word “intentionality” because, in a few years, we’ll be intentionally engineering entities with their own information spaces. So you can imagine entities in an amateur world doing that as well. But for now, all conscious beings on Earth were created through babies being born. So, whether the structure is engineered, evolved, or birthed, it still needs to exist in the armature world to allow a mind and information space to develop. And in the physics of it, degenerate matter moves into a state that contains more and more information.
So, for an information space to exist, you need a containing world with a structure capable of supporting it—a kind of hardware that holds the information. For an information space to emerge within that containing world, I was trying to find a better word than “intent” or “intentional” because, for example, a mind emerging in a newborn baby isn’t intentional—it is enabled. So, unless you have a better term, “enabled” seems like a decent word for now. You need a structure to allow the information space to form. Does that seem reasonable?
Rick Rosner: So, while you were away, I do not remember my dreams very often, and I have forgotten this one now. Still, I remembered that a whole lot of ridiculous bullshit happened in this dream that did not comport with my reality at all. I was working at Kimmel in some capacity, but there was much nonsense, yet it took forever for me to realize it was nonsense.
I do not even remember if realizing it was nonsense woke me up or whether something else woke me up. Still, I thought it difficult to know you were in the middle of nonsense in a dream. You could get better at it if you practice. You see, it is tough too, but, if you accumulate experience realizing your dreams are bullshit while you are in them, I assume it becomes easier to know you are in a dream.
I do not know, but I wondered, why doesn’t your brain call out bullshit when absurd shit happens? Oh, now I am starting to remember more of it, but it does not fucking matter. I was at a gym, and the gym just made no fucking sense at all. Still, the reason that your brain does not call out bullshit is that there is no need to call out bullshit when you are awake. For one thing, in a dream, your brain is supplying all the sensation, everything you see and hear.
When you are awake, your brain is not doing that. It is processing external sensory information, and your external sensory information is never bullshit. You can temporarily reach the wrong conclusions about what your senses are telling you. Still, your senses themselves are reflecting reality as best they can. Hence, they are never bullshit, so your brain does not develop the ability to call bullshit on your sensory information, so your dreams can skate on your lack of skepticism at the end..
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It is generally correct that dream states are entirely decoupled. Interestingly, the history of the information is not decoupled, so their physics is slightly different. It is the lack of critical thought, and so maybe there is something about a more consistent personal identity throughout the day that allows bullshit to be detected in inconsistencies. Still, that is part of the conscious arena.
It detects inconsistencies.
Rosner: I do not know. We have yet to talk about dreams, we have not. Dreams are almost always not great in movies, books, or TV shows; they are not helpful or entertaining when you enter a dream sequence.
Jacobsen: Well, it is done. It has fuzzy, glowy borders around the screen, the border of the screen. That is about it.
Rosner: I skip dream sequences or hope they are over fast.
Jacobsen: They are usually too high fidelity, anyway. Dreams are low fidelity.
Rosner: I want to see stuff that happens within the character’s reality, not within the character’s bullshit. All right, you are exhausted. Do you want to try again another night?
Jacobsen: Mm-hmm, sure.
Rosner: I am glad you are back safe.
Jacobsen: Yes. They are victims of fate. Let us call it a night. All right.
Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Talk to you tomorrow. Thank you very much.
Rick Rosner: So, Harris has been the Dems’ candidate for about a month now. There are about 70-80 days to go until the election, which means people, depending on the state, can start early voting as soon as a few weeks from now. In many states, early voting might begin about seven weeks from now. So, the time is getting shorter and shorter. The feeling that pervades liberals right now is that Trump and his campaign are falling apart. What I worry about is that that’s not true.
That this is just the normal level of Trump being the uncontrollable jagoff that he’s always been. So, we’ve got one more certain bump to the Harris campaign. Currently, Harris leads in the aggregate of polls by about 2.5 to 3%. She’ll get a bump from the Democratic National Convention, which begins in 2 days. However, the DNC, the RNC, the Oscars, and the Emmys need to deliver demographically the way they used to.
Because there’s a bunch of other stuff to pay attention to. So, if we’re lucky, she might get a 1 to 1.5% bump. Seeing her leading in the polls by 4% would be nice. But then you still have to get through the next ten weeks until election day. The gleeful characterization of Trump’s campaign falling apart is not entirely accurate because he says a bunch of desperate nonsense now, but he’s always done that.
And there was a rally today in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. There were many clips showing an arena that holds 9,000 people, and half an hour before he was supposed to go on, it looked like it was only 20% full. So, that did not look good for Trump. But then I saw clips of him speaking, and he was late.
He’s probably late a lot, but being late gave them a chance to fill that place up to 7,500 people out of 9,000 so that it looked full. So, he’s still pulling people. There was another thing: the liberals put up clips where he was in Pennsylvania and said, “Hello, North Carolina.”
And a bunch of liberals put up clips saying he doesn’t even know what state he’s in. Then, many MAGAs put up tweets and clips saying he knew exactly where he was. He specifically addressed some superfans from North Carolina who had been to more than 200 of his rallies. So they get seated in the front row, and he greets them.
He knows them because they’ve been to 217 rallies. He says, “Hey, North Carolina,” because he knows where they’re from. So that whole thing about his brain going to shit and not knowing what state he’s in was possibly liberal bullshit. And then the liberals say, “Okay, yes, that’s true. But you guys always used to run deceptive clips of Biden, so turnabout is fair play.” But in the middle of all this, I’m worried that Trump’s campaign is in no more disarray than ever.
He rehired Corey Lewandowski, who’s one of the many scumbags on his staff. Corey Lewandowski is this piece of shit who had an affair with Kristi Noem, the governor of North Dakota—or either North or South Dakota—the governor who didn’t like her dog, so she shot it in the face, and then didn’t like the way her goat smelled, so she shot her goat. And this was the guy she was having an affair with. He’s been kicked out of stuff for roughing people up. Liberals took his rehiring as more disarray and desperation.
So yes, he rehired a scumbag. But does that mean his campaign is sinking? I don’t know.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you feel about having more white hair?
Rick Rosner: I feel bad about having a ton of white hair. I feel bad about having an old-looking face. I’ve done so many pilots about myself as the guy with among ‘the highest IQs in America’ or as part of a team of high-IQ people who do things. I’ve done at least four pilots over the past 25 years.
And they have yet to go anywhere. The older I look—the more I realize there’s this project with Kevin that got sold, and it was going to take off, but then the strike scuttled it. I don’t have that many more shots, and my face tells me that. My hair tells me that.
So yes, I would not say I like it. I see myself in pictures and look like a ghost because some people look good with white hair, but my skin is pale, too, so I look super ghostly. I asked Carole about it, and she said, “Yes, you do.”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the comparison and contrast between “based” happening in conservatives and “woke” that occurs to progressives?
Rick Rosner: The way I understand “based” is that it’s being aware of and upset about things that matter to conservatives or conservative pundits. It’s buying into what they talk about on Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, and Fox News and getting worked up over it. If you’re “based,” you buy into their statistics about how many undocumented immigrants have entered America. But you don’t call them “undocumented immigrants”; you call them “illegal aliens.”
And you believe they’re bringing gang violence, rape, and all that. You buy into that narrative—that’s being “based.” Whereas we know that’s bullshit and that immigrants, documented or not, have a much lower crime rate than native-born Americans. But if you’re “based,” you buy the fear and anger about conservative issues. Being “woke” is being aware of and pissed off about liberal issues.
Jacobsen: If you look at Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson, Fox News, Newsmax, etc., what do they get right? Or, what qualities do they have that are, in fact, admirable?
Rosner: Well, Newsmax and Fox News occasionally report the news. Fox Newshas probably—if you did some statistical analysis of their treatment of Trump—I would guess that, over time, they’ve had to more frequently say negative things about Trump as he gets worse, even though they broadly support him and his issues. Also, Fox has a show called The Five, which features five people discussing the day’s issues for an hour.
They generally have a token liberal. Right now, they’ve got Jessica Tarlov, who’s on every day, often one of the five. She’s good; she makes a lot of liberal points.
I don’t watch the show, but I’ve seen clips. She tends to hold her own, at least in the clips I’ve seen. So, people do have an opportunity—not always on Fox News, certainly not if you’re watching Hannity or Laura Ingraham—but there are opportunities to see more balanced perspectives about Trump and some of what the Republicans want to do. Even Newsmax occasionally stumbles into reporting something that isn’t complimentary to Trump.
They’d prefer not to, but “news” is in the network’s name. So, if Trump is trailing in the polls, they either have to report that or find polls where he’s not.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you make of “woke,” wokeism, wokeness, wokeology? Claims about it; facts about it.
Rick Rosner: Most of the talk about it is garbage. There’s a thing on the right that I guess is the right-wing version of “woke,” which is “based.” It’s an interesting question.
A congressman calls himself “Based Mike Lee.” He’s some dipshit from—I want to say Texas. He’s always getting worked up over some issue that’s important to right-wing bullshitters. So, left-wingers say that being “woke” is being aware of stuff.
This is true; you don’t have to agree with everything but can be aware of it. If you’re going to make jokes on social media, on Twitter, you do need to be “woke” in the sense of being aware of what the landscape is, what people are talking about, what people are getting upset about, even if you don’t think it’s worth getting upset about. It’s understanding the current discourse. Being “woke” is understanding the current discourse and sharing liberals’ upsetness about aspects of the discourse of the world. In that sense, I’m fairly “woke,” but I know you can play with the discourse. You can make jokes about it.
Jacobsen: So, when liberals say being “woke” is being aware, they’re largely correct. But at what point are they not correct?
Rosner: I would say that in being “woke” and upset, sometimes you’re playing into conservatives’ hands. The whole trans thing is important because you’re looking at about 1% of the population who might be trans and probably a couple percent more who are exploring gender fluidity but will eventually decide against it. Maybe. Doesn’t matter. But if you give that stuff too much attention, you’re playing into conservatives’ strategies.
The deal is that conservatives build a lot of their attacks on liberals over issues like trans rights to convince middle-of-the-road people that this is what liberals care about and to turn independents against liberals. So, if you invest too much in trans issues, you risk missing the issues where you can convince independents and middle-of-the-road people. It allows Republicans to get away with much bullshit. Maybe some of the energy that you put into trans issues should go into talking about things like Project 2025, the Republicans wanting to get rid of contraception, and their desire to fire everybody in the federal government who doesn’t share their political ideology.
There’s much sinister stuff from the Republicans and many good policies from the Democrats—like making it easier to buy your first home without that blowing up in your face two years into home ownership the way it did in 2007 and 2008. That whole thing was mismanaged; it was a scam where many people got put into homes they couldn’t afford with teaser-rate mortgages that exploded after two or three years, leading to them being evicted. There was a whole scam with selling shitty mortgages to investors because mortgages are normally fairly safe, but that’s a whole other topic.
But the deal is, the Democrats’ political positions are shared by 70% or more of Americans—things like background checks for guns and medical care that doesn’t screw you over. So, when you focus on more controversial stuff like trans issues, it takes attention away from mainstream, highly popular issues that the Democrats stand for.
And the Republicans have almost no political stances that align with most Americans. So, they look for these controversial stances held by a minority of liberals and try to get people to focus on them, making it easier for Republicans to manipulate the situation. Being “woke” can backfire and give an advantage to the Republicans. Was that clear?
On the Russo-Ukrainian War: August, 2023 to July, 2024 covers live reportage on Ukraine and Russia in 2023 and 2024. The following are acknowledgements, the introduction, and the associated publications. This is intended as a free public access resource for those interested in this war.
—
Acknowledgements
To Oleksandra Romantsova and Remus Cernea, in particular, for their instigation and complete support in working on this endeavour inclusive of travel to Ukraine, and to Dr. Kateryna Busol, Sorina Kiev, and Dr. Roman Nekoliak for their contributions to this volume, Dr. Kristen Monroe at the University of California, Irvine Ethics Center for the years of support as a Tobis Fellow and the Ethics Center family, and Dr. Daniel Bernstein, Weston MacAleer, Joan Payne, Simon Parcher, Dr. Lloyd Robertson, and Dr. Richard Thain, just so many people have been so crucial in this endeavour – it’s overwhelming, a bit, writing this, even Brent Balisky, Laura Balisky and LJ Tidball for bringing in a stray Canadian under their Tbird aegis; and to human rights defenders devoting their resources and putting their lives at risk for a fairer and more just situation in Ukraine (and the Russian Federation).
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Introduction by Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Life is a continual process of initiation, of humbling. I shoveled a lot of horse shit and laid a lot of mulch in gardens while working at a horse ranch to self-fund this independent journalistic journey. I loved the time there.
In Langley, agriculture can have a hard go of it, for employers and employees alike. Good labour is hard to find. It’s a rewarding lifestyle because it’s a hard day’s work well-earned, merely ask your body at the end of the day. In fact, you don’t need to ask; it’ll simply tell you.
When I went to Copenhagen, I was thinking of going to a regular conference in Europe. Life had others plans. I met Oleksandra and Remus there. I was struck by their sincerity and dedication. Remus proposed work in Ukraine together. It sounded crazy enough to do it.
Thus began plans to travel to Ukraine, upon arrival, you meet all types of people in every kind of situation, while united by a common sense of identity and suffering. Street vendors selling cigarettes, breaded meats, coffee, and souvenirs.
A wide range of styles of cars, of quality of infrastructure, and the like. Everything seemed normal for about a day, maybe a day and a half, then the scramble of war came to a head: air raid alarms, explosions in the distance, casualty reports, international and domestic war reportage, people’s trauma stories, soldiers in buses, in train stations, in hotels, walking the streets, at checkpoints.
Then the horror of war crept more into the central vision: memorial to those bombed outside of office buildings, religious sites like cathedrals, apartment complexes, administrative buildings, і так далі. The horror of war is the horror of the normal, fragmented and twisted to the barely recognizable.
A museum, as with the first instance of a bone healing, seems like another step and stage in the diagnosable instance of real civilization from the human species. Kindness matters. When a museum is destroyed, it leaves an emotional mark – a pause.
When people power through horror and turn their restaurant into a shelter and food service for those victims of war in need, it leaves a pause. I am struck and humbled by the kindness of an invitation to take part in this narrative and recordkeeping aim in Ukraine with Remus, Oleksandra, and others.
That’s why I’ve decided to commit so much time and resources to cataloguing these voices. Fundamentally, it is a decision grounded in a sentiment experienced and felt. So, thank you everyone for helping this come to fruition.
I am off to Ukraine for a second trip today.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
August 19, 2024
Further Internal Resources (Chronological, yyyy/mm/dd):
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Karl Schroeder is a member of the Association of Professional Futurists and has his own consultancy. He is the Chair of the Canadian node of the Millennium Project, a private/public foresight consultancy active in 50 nations, and an award-winning author with ten published novels translated into as many languages.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Karl Schroeder. Thank you to Jerome C. Glenn for the recommendation and for connecting us. I’m currently interviewing a few futurists. There are many, but I can only do a few right now. How did you get into futurism? Or, as Jerome informed me, that might be a troublesome term. How did you come to define yourself as a futurist?
Karl Schroeder: The non-problematic term these days seems to be “strategic foresight.” When you think about a futurist in terms of the future, ideas of prophecy, prediction, and things like that come up. Foresight, on the other hand, is about being prepared. That is a much easier pill for many people to swallow. That said, I come to this from the least reputable possible direction. I’ve been a published science fiction writer for about 30 years. I had just finished or published mysecond novel—or my third, if you count the one I wrote with my colleague David Nickle—my second solo novel in 2002 when I started getting invited to attend foresight conferences hosted by the National Research Council in Ottawa.
Initially, I was brought into these conferences as a “spoiler.” Imagine a room full of government bureaucrats, quants, technocrats, and scientists, all of whom have been trained their entire lives never to speculate. They’ve just been brought together at a conference and are asked to speculate about the future. Having someone in the room who is guaranteed to be wackier than they are—a professional science fiction writer—was a great way to break the ice. I called those my “dancing bear” performances when I was brought in to be the wackiest person in the room.
But after a few of these, I started getting invited back as a participant and facilitator. I began to do more serious work around helping to frame scenarios and doing the advanced work ahead of foresight engagements. I got to know Jack Smith, who was the leader of the foresight effort in Ottawa, quite well. From there, I did some consulting. Around 2009, I undertook a master’s program in Strategic Foresight and Innovation at OCAD University in Toronto. Now, I have a master’s degree in foresight.
I’ve done that as a complement to my science fiction writing. They don’t exactly inspire one another—they’re different—but they work together quite well. I’ve learned much about how to do one from doing the other.
Jacobsen: You were contacted by the Canadian Armed Forces to write a book? The crisis in Zefra is such an unusual request. How were you even on their radar for writing this?
Schroeder: I don’t even know. If you think about it, it’s unsurprising that the Canadian Armed Forces would have a presence in Ottawa for foresight work. So, again, around 2003-2004, I attended conferences where people from the armed forces were in attendance, and I got to know some of them. I developed a reputation around that time as someone who could work in two worlds. I was approached by the army around 2003 to do the first of what turned out to be three short novels based on foresight work that the Canadian military had done. They have always done foresight work.
The armed forces are all about strategic planning. If you haven’t planned, you won’t win the war. The armed forces had developed some fairly forward-looking scenarios. Still, they wanted to try a new method of communicating these to staff officers, junior officers, and those in officer training. They hadn’t done this kind of thing for decades.
A few foresight fiction stories were written for the Canadian army about 100 years ago. They knew my reputation and had a process in mind. So we sat down, and I put together a book called Crisis in Zefra; Zefra is a mythical African city-state where Canadian peacekeepers are deployed in this story. It was a great opportunity to test many ideas about deploying narrative techniques in foresight that I’d been thinking about for some years. Zefra was extremely successful.
I’m told it’s quite popular with the US Marine Corps. It is publicly accessible online. All you have to do is search for it.
Jacobsen: Outside of the national defence, there’s one word I came across. I didn’t know what the heck that was. It was trans-doggism. What is that?
Schroeder: Trans-doggism is my satire on transhumanism.
Jacobsen: Interesting. So, what makes transhumanism an appropriate target for satire? Is it the whole idea or just part of it?
Schroeder: That’s a rabbit hole we could fall quite far down. Transhumanism assumes that we can see what it would mean to transcend humanity from our current perspective. I invented the idea of transformism to illustrate this problem. If you asked a dog what it would mean to become a transdog, a superdog, or a post-dog, what would a dog answer? They would say, “Obviously, we transdoggists will be able to run at 100 miles an hour. We’ll be able to bite the hubcap off of a car. We’ll be able to pee infinite amounts and scent-mark everything in the neighbourhood.” In other words, a dog would not think of its transcendence in anything but dog terms. Friedrich Nietzsche satirized This concept about 140 years ago in a book called Human, All Too Human. The idea that we, as we are now, could even imagine what would be better than us is just an illustration of how limited we are.
So, yes, this was something that came up about 15 years or so ago when transhumanism was in vogue. I wanted to skewer it, so I did. These days, I’m neither a transhumanist nor a humanist. I call myself a posthumanist because I am equally interested in the fates of all the other species on Earth as I am in humanity’s. I’m not interested in transcendence.
Jacobsen: What have been the responses to the satire, and which ones have been valid about the point you’re making with the satire?
Schroeder: If the transhumanist community knows about me at all, I think they’re just quietly ignoring it.
Jacobsen: You have a newsletter. What is it called? What is typically in it for interested readers?
Schroeder: My newsletter is called Unapocalyptic. The URL is kschroeder.substack.com. It is about several things, but primarily, it’s about the intersection of science fiction and foresight and how each discipline can learn from the other.
Aside from that, it is also about earned optimism, which is how to be optimistic about our future at this moment in time while not ignoring or downplaying how serious the world situation is. You earn optimism by acknowledging bad things and doing the necessary work to improve things. There are a lot of different domains in which things are pretty bad—climate change, resource overshoot issues, political instability, international tensions, nuclear tensions—I could go on and on. However, there are possibilities for optimism in these areas if we work to make them real. That’s the other thing the newsletter is about.
Jacobsen: What areas of technology won’t necessarily lead to transcendence but will be powerful in providing great convenience for all of us? Something that most people will likely agree on outside of a subpopulation of Luddites.
Schroeder: We now face a situation where several technological strands are weaving together and influencing one another. So, we are at a point where renewable energy, the electrification of industry, and technologies such as vertical farming and precision fermentation all suggest an impending revolution in food production. Agriculture itself may not even remain the dominant player in how we feed ourselves in the future. I’m toying with the idea of writing a newsletter piece right now called “Banning Agriculture” as a provocation.
Jacobsen: That is provocative. Also, it’s provocative in the sense of puzzling. What do you mean by that?
Schroeder: Right now, we’re using about 2.5 Earth’s resources. About 40 to 60% of the Earth’s landmass is given over to agricultural production, which is unsustainable and a recipe for mass extinction. So we have to do something else. We can do different things—precision fermentation being one of them. Using the same technologies that we use to create beer, for instance, to create almost any other food you can imagine by genetically engineering microorganisms to create the molecules, proteins, fats, and so on we require. There are already companies coming online that are producing butter and, soon, something indistinguishable from cow’s milk via precision fermentation.
Each of these companies can produce the equivalent of thousands of hectares of farmland worth of product in small, essentially industrial facilities, but it’s indistinguishable from what you get from the field. So, it is a no-brainer to go in this direction, particularly if we can create tasty products with the right mouthfeel as original agricultural products. The result is a much smaller footprint of humanity on the Earth, which we need to achieve in the 21st century.
Jacobsen: What about stacking of farmland?
Schroeder: That’s part of it too. The thing about looking at the future is that it’s easy to fixate on one thing and say, “What happens when this develops?” We do this with, let’s say, electric cars or eVTOLs (electric flying passenger vehicles), and we wonder, “What’s the impact of flying passenger vehicles on the design of cities?” You can find all manner of foresight studies out there on one or another technology and how it might change our lives. The problem is that all of these things get developed at once. They all come online at once, and they all influence each other. It becomes extremely difficult to talk about the future, say, 20 years down the line, when we have a fully renewable grid with electrification and batteries, eVTOLs, electric self-driving cars, humanoid robots, artificial intelligence, precision fermentation, and catastrophic global warming—all at once. It’s essentially impossible to look at the future by examining these things in isolation. But it’s also extremely difficult to envision the future simultaneously with all these factors. So, foresight has become an increasingly difficult discipline to practice due to the acceleration of all these simultaneous changes.
Jacobsen: I’ll combine two ideas that you have written about. When it comes to the workplace of the 2030s and digital currencies, how will technological change influence how we work? How will cryptocurrency potentially influence how we trade? Could some of these influences intersect, such as companies paying employees in some form of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies?
Schroeder: That’s different. Right. When we talk about cryptocurrencies, the future of work, and the future of the economy, we’re now on the ground where I can speak both as a futurist and as a science fiction writer because my last novel, Stealing Worlds, was set in the early 2030s in the United States where all of these technologies and trends have converged. A new form of economics is being created. It’s not capitalism. It’s not socialism. It’s something else. The way I put it in the book is if in capitalism, the capitalist owns the means of production, and in communism, the workers own the means of production; in my system, the means of production own themselves. It is an AI-driven economy in which resources and technical systems are, in a sense, awake. They’re stakeholders. They can help decide the course and direction of companies, marketing campaigns, and essentially everything. There is an underground version of this based on blockchain technology. Blockchain was cool in 2017 when I was writing about this stuff. It’s used in the book to create the digital equivalent of permanent, unique objects.
Once you have such digital uniqueness, you can monetize it and create unique objects and items that can be owned, traded, and used in marketplaces where businesses can grow. In this novel, I have an augmented reality, massively multiplayer role-playing universe called the Frame Worlds, in which all of these systems converge to create a parallel underground economy that our main character flees into at the beginning of the book. This novel allowed me to take ideas I’ve been working on in foresight and apply them in a fictional setting. Before that, most of my novels had been set in the far future. Because Stealing Worlds is set right around the corner, I could directly apply what I learned in foresight studies to storytelling.
Jacobsen: And it worked?
Schroeder: Yes, it worked.
Jacobsen: A lot of futurist thinking is academic or abstract. I’m gathering from your narrative that you’re not just in contact with the military or coordinating with the Obama White House; you’re also having more practical impacts because you’re working with mainstream institutions that influence young people. What feedback do you get from younger people starting their careers in science, technology, politics, and policymaking about these ideas?
Schroeder: I have inspired some people to go into foresight, which is quite gratifying. However, I am very careful when laying down the boundaries of my expertise. I’m a generalist and, therefore, an expert in nothing.
Jacobsen: You sound like a journalist.
Schroeder: As a professional storyteller, I essentially lie for my dinner. So, I’m careful to tell people not to take the things I say or my ideas as recommendations, likelihoods, or even things I necessarily believe in. That’s why I use the term “provocation.” I often want to get people to think, and I don’t want them to think the way I’ve been thinking because I’ve already done that. So, we need other minds and other voices.
So, yes. I’m at pains to play down any expertise on my part, but I encourage people to look into foresight and related disciplines, regardless of where they’re working and what their job is. Because there’s essentially no area of life where looking to the future isn’t useful, whether personal or professional. People talk about augmented cognition a lot. We work with devices with many apps to do shortcuts for much of our thinking.
Jacobsen: Even the use of a calculator, technically, is an aid to cognition, where it handles complex mathematical algorithms to help us with much of this stuff. When you think of augmented cognition, what are you thinking of outside of normal applications that we take for granted now?
Jacobsen: That’s a good question, and it touches on one of the themes I’ve been writing about in the Unapocalyptic newsletter. That theme is getting past what I call the science fiction of the 1900s and thinking about what science fiction would look like if it were written using only ideas taken from the 21st century.
There is an idea developed in the 1990s and into this century by Francisco Varela and, I think, Humberto Maturana, who were Chilean systems thinkers. It’s called activism or inaction. What you discussed—augmented cognition—is closely related to that and extended mind theory and distributed cognition. These areas of cognitive science are growing based on the idea that human thinking does not happen just inside the skull. We actively think using our devices, paper, pens, Post-it notes we put on the walls, and everything around us—that our constructed environment is, in fact, part of our mind in an almost literal sense. Right now, we use computers to extend our thinking, and we’re used to that.
The phone is a computer, but I’ve been thinking lately: Could we redesign our entire built environment to act as an extended mind? To an extent, it already is. How could we make that even better? In doing so, they make computers themselves obsolete. Then you’re wandering straight into science fiction territory.
You can play with those ideas and explore the dividing line between foresight speculation and what becomes science fiction speculation. This is where the potential disreputability of what I do becomes obvious.
Because there is a dividing line. At some point, thinking about cities built as thinking aids does shade into science fiction. However, extended mind theory is not science fiction, and it seems clear that we use our devices and built environments to help us think. This can be positive or negative if those devices are not controlled because they can be used to make us think what other people want us to think. So, there is much to unpack and potentially a whole other novel.
Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts based on the conversation today?
Schroeder: Other than that, I encourage anyone interested in foresight to look into it. A while ago, I gave up on the idea that foresight is about looking at the future. To me, the future is not about time. Foresight is about looking at surprise; the future is the dimension of surprise. Suppose you think about studying surprise, learning to anticipate it in your own company, institution, or life, and how to forestall it and inflict it on your competitors. In that case, foresight looks much more useful, interesting, and fun. So, I encourage anyone interested to go down that route and study it with an open mind and an eye to possibilities that don’t necessarily have to do with prediction.
Jacobsen: Karl, thank you so much for your time today. And also, thank you to Jerome.
Jacobsen: Yes. I will thank him the next time I talk to him.
Schroeder: Awesome. I’ll send him a note, too.
Jacobsen: All right. Good luck with your second tour. I hope it’s productive and you return safe and sound.
Schroeder: As do I.
Jacobsen: All right. Thank you.
Schroeder: Thank you, Scott.
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
No Bargaining: The universe has judged and found itself to be wanting; there will be no bartering, no bargaining, no returns; and never, never, never, never, never again, She speaks in distant, intimate tones.
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist who conducts research in visual cognition, psycholinguistics, and social relations. He grew up in Montreal and earned his BA from McGill and PhD from Harvard. Johnstone is a Professor of Psychology at Harvard; he has also taught at Stanford and MIT. He has won numerous prizes for his research, teaching, and books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense of Style, and Enlightenment Now. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, a Humanist of the Year, a recipient of nine honorary doctorates, and one of Foreign Policy’s “World’s Top 100 Public Intellectuals” and Time’s “100 Most Influential People in the World Today.” He was Chair of the Usage Panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and writes frequently for the New York Times, the Guardian, and other publications. His twelfth book, published in 2021, is called Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters.
Professor Steven Pinker: Well, the pushback is very recent, and there is a very strong feeling among American university students that you have to watch what you say, that you cannot speak your mind, and you never know when you might commit racism, that you might commit some political sin and be cancelled, what used to be called excommunicated. The universities have not done a good job of fostering an environment of free speech. There are often student orientations in which they are warned about how they can commit a microaggression if asked somewhere, “Where are you from?” That can be considered a form of subtle racism. If you say, “Oh, you speak very well,” that can be a form of racism. So, they are often terrified. I am not even talking about controversial political or scientific opinions. I am talking about ordinary interactions where they feel like they must walk on eggshells. This leads to the paradox that many American university students in their dorms are in adolescent heaven. Their peers surround them. They are constantly invited and given opportunities for socializing and recreation. They eat with each other, but they say they are lonely. How can this be?
We have reason to believe that in adolescents and young adults. There is an increased risk of anxiety and depression, given that social interaction is one of the most important elixirs for mental health. Why is this possible? I suspect that the fact that interactions are so policed and so guarded means that social opportunities for interaction, far from being opportunities to relax, kick back, and laugh together, are more sources of anxiety. Particularly when a lot of it is done on social media, where you have to worry about being mobbed in real-time, anything you say can be dug up decades later by offence archaeologists and used to cancel you retroactively. None of this even gets to the expression of opinions on political, social, or scientific issues.
Jacobsen: Right, I like that. I like that step back from touching on social dynamics.
Jacobsen: So that will not lead to conversation, whether it be social or intellectual. There will be some people who, in response, will say, “Good, they got their comeuppance for the things they have done.” I am sure you live and work in that world. What happens in those contexts?
Pinker: One quick note that one of the side effects is the epidemic of mental health problems, together with the cases in which that general attitude of censorship and cancellation leads to entire societies adopting the wrong policies or being in the dark as to major issues, such as the effects of, say, school closures and masking during COVID, where there appears to be tremendous harm on a generation of children losing out on a year or two of education based on what turns out to be a very trivial risk of their degree of harm. At a time when it was considered taboo to criticize policies of masking children during school closures and widespread shutdowns, bringing it up would lead to massive condemnation. If there had been a greater commitment to free speech and people not being punished for their opinions, realizing that these policies are harmful may have come sooner.
Jacobsen: People will probably consider this a largely academic phenomenon outside of the social media landscape. People from more ordinary backgrounds working blue-collar jobs and do not necessarily need higher education for their pursuits might think, “It is a humanistic thing that we should generally care about, but why should I, as a blue-collar person, necessarily care about this?”
Pinker: Well, partly because many blue-collar people are on social media, but also, what happens in academia does not stay in academia. About 10 or 15 years ago, people argued, “Who cares what kids get taught or what censorship regimes are implemented in academia? When students enter the real world, they will find they cannot escape this nonsense.” What we know happens is that the whole generation brought the regime of cancel culture into the workplace, so, publishing houses, newspapers, nonprofits, and artistic organizations are being torn apart by the regime of cancel culture, microaggressions, and constant accusations of racism because they have been exported from universities, including blue-collar people being fired from their jobs because of some accidental offence–precisely because the culture of the universities was then taken into the workplace and government and nonprofits.
Jacobsen: So, eventually, this does not only chill academic life; it also chills general culture.
Pinker: Yes, well, it is a chill in that the culture of academia is often brought into other institutions by the graduates of universities as they take positions of power. However, when it comes to societies making collective decisions based on an academic consensus, it can often be the wrong consensus if academia is churning out falsehoods because ideas cannot be criticized. I mentioned the effect of school closures and masking children. However, the other example is even the origin of SARS-CoV-2, where it was considered to be racist to suggest that the virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan. We do not know that that is true, but it is not implausible; it might very well have happened.
If it is true, it would have a major implication that we have got to ramp up lab security drastically, perhaps not do gain-of-function studies of the kind that could have created this virus, on pain of suffering from another catastrophic pandemic if we do not learn the lesson. So, that is a case in which what academics decide can affect the world’s fate. Another example would be the effectiveness of policing. If there is reason to think that after the George Floyd demonstrations and the riots of 2020, the idea that police do not matter or that there is an epidemic of shooting by racist cops may have led to withdrawals of policing that then caused the violent crime, if that understanding of an epidemic of racist shootings had been put into context in the first place, they knew that there are not that many shootings of unarmed African-Americans by cops, that this was a false conclusion. Journalism has as much a role in this as academia, but journalism has also developed a regime of cancel culture, where heterodox opinions are often firing offences. If the nationwide consensus is distorted, society will adopt policies that worsen it. Finally, one other thing, and I will turn it back to you, is that even when the academic consensus is almost certainly correct, as in the case of, say, human-induced climate change, if scientists, government officials, and scientific societies have forfeited their credibility by ostentatiously punishing dissenters, leading to the impression that they are their cult, we could blow off their recommendation because if anyone disagreed, they would be cancelled. So it is another cult, it is another priesthood, it is another political faction. The scientific consensus loses credibility if it comes from a culture known for intolerance of dissent.
Jacobsen: We could probably iterate that across domains, whether it is the combat over creationism, or vaccines causing autism, and things of this nature.
Pinker: Yes, so if the scientific consensus tries to debunk it, then no one has enough scientific competence to review everything scientists say perfectly. Some of the acceptance of the findings of science has to be committed trust; these are people who know what they are doing. They have means of distinguishing true from false hypotheses. If something they believed were false, it would be self-correcting. If you undercut that assumption, then people will blow off what scientists say. Scientists themselves are surprisingly oblivious to this possibility. Many scientific societies churn out a woke boilerplate, branding themselves as being on the hard political left and cultural left, with no appreciation that this may alienate the people who are not on the left or in the center who do not care but perceive science as another faction.
Jacobsen: What areas are incursions of what is called something like woke ideology or wokeness into academic and empirical findings or before the empirical findings impact a lot of academic and professional life? So, at the highest level, where people are tenured professors, it is an ideological strain pushing against proper consideration of the evidence.
Pinker: It is worse in the humanities than in the social sciences, worse in the social sciences than in science and engineering. Although, those are generalizations. Probably worst of all, the branches of humanities and social science that are sometimes denigrated as grievance studies are often departments of women and gender studies or studies devoted to particular ethnic groups. Some of the social sciences are worse than others. For example, cultural anthropology is a lost cause. There has been such ideological capture. Most of my field, psychology, is not nearly that bad. Although, there are strains there. Sociology is divided; there is a branch of more quantitative sociology, verging into economics, that is pretty empirically oriented, but then there is another far more ideological part. Even the hard sciences, particularly the scientific societies, have plenty of wokeness, even though the actual lab scientists may be more neutral or empirically oriented. However, the societies themselves tend to be “woker” than their members.
Jacobsen: Why are societies more likely to be captured than individuals?
Pinker: Yes, it is a good question, partly because of the selection of who goes into societies and institutions. If your heart and soul want to do science, you will be in the lab, getting your hands dirty with data. If your motivation is more political, verbal, or ideological, you will try to become a magazine’s editor or a society’s spokesperson. There is a tendency for institutions to drift leftward. Robert Conquest, the historian, is sometimes credited with a law that states that any institution that is not constitutionally right-wing becomes left-wing. You can see the drift that has happened to many institutions recently. They have not become left-wing in the economic quasi-Marxist sense but “woke” in the sense of identitarian politics, seeing culture and history as a zero-sum struggle among racial and sexual groups. A kind of intolerant identitarian politics has captured several societies with well-defined intellectual goals. It has happened to the ACLU, the American Humanist Association, and Planned Parenthood.
So, selection is part of it. Another part may be the belief that the way to change the world is through the imposition of verbally articulated philosophies, as opposed to a bottom-up approach of experimentation, data gathering, entrepreneurship, trying things out, and seeing what happens. The top-down approach is much more likely to start with a predefined narrative and to try to impose that narrative. There may be something more pleasant to institutions in this approach.
To a more left-wing mindset. To elaborate on that a little bit, this comes from Thomas Sowell. Some systems achieve order spontaneously and in a distributed fashion, market economies being the most obvious example—the invisible hand. No planner decides how many size eight shoes to make or where to sell them. The millions of people making choices proliferate information in markets, and the system becomes intelligent, with no one articulating exactly why. The evolution of a language works that way; a culture with its norms and mores works that way. There is a kind of sympathy for these distributed systems that are more on the right, and historically, there are many exceptions. However, on the left, there is more of an articulation of foundational principles, which is a good theory. Therefore, you are more likely to try to change things by joining an institution that can pass resolutions and implement verbally articulated policies. Conversely, on the right, people will go into business, try to invent things, and hope the invention will take off as part of this more distributed, bottom-up approach.
Jacobsen: Do you think the general humanistic approach is akin to an evidence-based moral philosophy where you work bottom-up and then formulate the principles of your ethics from that, rather than top-down, as you might find in divine command theory?
Pinker: There is some affinity in that humanism starts from the flourishing and suffering of individuals. When that is your ultimate good, instead of implementing scriptures or carrying out some grand historical dialectic or privileging some salient polity or entity like a nation, or a tribe, then, if you are a humanist, you see the point of a society, a religion, and so on, is what will leave those people better off.
My pleasure, thanks for the time to talk to you, Scott.
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu i Dorothy Small opširno raspravljaju o svećeničkom zlostavljanju vjernika u pravoslavlju i katoličanstvu. Što se događa?
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu neuroznanstvenica je rođena u Rumunjskoj. Njezin istraživački rad bavi se neurobiološkom kontrolom abnormalnih ponašanja i moždanih funkcija relevantnih za ljudsku psihopatologiju. Većina ovog rada usmjerena je na razumijevanje moždanih mehanizama koji su u osnovi upotrebe i zlouporabe supstanci s naglaskom na pristup i izbjegavanje okruženja uparenih s drogom. Druga linija istraživanja usmjerena je na istraživanje neurobiološke disregulacije uzrokovane PTSP-om izazvanim seksualnim napadom i samoubojstvom s nadom da će informirati terapijske tretmane. Za svoj teološki rad usavršava se u Centru za teologiju i prirodne znanosti na Graduate Theological Union u Berkeleyu, gdje koristi svoju stručnost u neuroznanosti kako bi razvila teološku antropologiju temeljenu na kršćanskoj pravoslavnoj tradiciji. Ovo istraživanje usmjereno je na temu želje naspram neregulirane želje koja dovodi do zlostavljanja. Ona je instruktorica za Stepping Higher Inc., vjersku organizaciju koju financira Odjel za zdravstvene usluge ponašanja okruga San Diego za podučavanje i podršku svećenstvu, pastorima i pružateljima usluga bihevioralnog zdravlja koji služe osobama koje pate od poremećaja ovisnosti, zlouporabe supstanci, kao i drugih psiholoških ovisnosti ili mentalnih bolesti. Aktivno je uključena u državne zakonodavne napore za zaštitu odraslih od seksualnog zlostavljanja koje je počinilo svećenstvo. Suosnivačica je Prosopon Healinga, resursne stranice za pravoslavne kršćanske žrtve/preživjele svećeničkog zlostavljanja. U slobodno vrijeme uživa u fotografiranju mikroskopom i crtanju moždanih stanica kako bi podijelila prekrasnu strukturu i funkciju mozga sa širom javnošću kroz umjetničke izložbe.
Dorothy Small, odvjetnica SNAP-a, Mreže preživjelih za one koje su zlostavljali svećenici od 2019., bila je žrtva seksualnog zlostavljanja djece. Također je doživjela seksualno zlostavljanje od strane svećenika kao odrasla osoba. Dorothy se hrabro obratila potonjem kroz uspješnu parnicu javno otkrivajući svoj identitet prije početka pokreta #Me Too. Žrtva, ali ne i žrtva, dijeli kako je prešla dalje od preživljavanja do napredovanja, koristeći nedaće kao snažan motivator. Ojačala se znanjem o poremećajima osobnosti i taktikama koje su koristili grabežljivci kako bi joj pomogli uočiti vukove u janjećoj koži. To joj je omogućilo da se osjeća sigurno u svijetu u kojem sigurnost nije zajamčena, čak ni u institucijama u kojima bi se to očekivalo, poput vjerskih. Umirovljena registrirana medicinska sestra s više od četrdeset godina kliničkog iskustva, Dorothy živi sa svojim voljenim krznenim suputnicima Bradleyjem Cooperom i kapetanom Ronom, bostonskim terijerima. Autorica je samostalnog izdanja, preživjela je rak, majka i baka. Dorothy trenutno radi na knjizi u kojoj detaljno opisuje svoja iskustva u prelasku iz života zlostavljanja u novi život slobode.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dakle, danas ćemo govoriti o tome kako Istočna pravoslavna crkva, općenito, nije uspjela učiti iz pogrešaka Rimokatoličke crkve. Svi možemo priznati poštenu tvrdnju: Rimokatolička crkva veća je od svake vjerske institucije. Dakle, s obzirom na njegovu veličinu, imat ćete više priča. Imat ćete još užasnih priča. To će se istaknutije pojaviti na kioscima kada se pojave skandali, naravno zbog veličine. To je kao da poznatija osoba ima skandal u odnosu na manje poznatu osobu. Dakle, uvod u to, međutim, budući da se ovi slučajevi zlostavljanja vezani uz svećenstvo događaju i unutar Istočne pravoslavne crkve, što Istočna pravoslavna crkva ne uspijeva naučiti iz zlostavljanja povezanog sa svećenstvom koje dolazi iz Rimokatoličke crkve?
Dr. Hermina Nedelescu: Ne uspijevaju naučiti da bi fokus trebao biti na pomaganju onima koji su bili iskorištavani od strane svećenstva koje Crkva zapošljava; onih vjernika koji su bili žrtve. Ti pojedinci imaju veliku nevolju. To je jedan neuspjeh. Drugi bi bili prijavljeni slučajevi zlostavljanja svećenstva; Ako bi je crkva shvatila ozbiljno, onda ne bi bilo toliko tužbi. U državi Kaliforniji otvorio se prozor u kojem je podneseno više od 4.000 novih pravnih pritužbi zbog zlostavljanja koje se dogodilo prije nekoliko desetljeća. Dakle, postoji stalni gubitak novca. Dok si Katolička crkva može priuštiti financijsku restorativnu pravdu, Pravoslavna crkva nije tako velika i nema izvor novca bez dna. Čak i s Katoličkom crkvom, župe moraju prodati svoje zgrade ili podnijeti zahtjev za bankrot kako bi zaštitile svoju imovinu. Je li doista vrijedno svega ovoga prikrivati i štititi zalutale svećenstvo koje iskorištava?
Sa stajališta žrtava, postoji mnogo štete u obliku traume. Postoji potpuni napad na njihov identitet. Ponekad, što dovodi do samoubojstva, definitivno PTSP-a, s kojim ti ljudi moraju živjeti dugi niz godina. Sa stajališta crkve, kao što znate, oni gube novac i, što je još važnije, kredibilitet i poštovanje obrazovanih ljudi.
Postoje statistike. Na svakog katolika koji se obrati na katoličanstvo, šest odlazi. Pravoslavna crkva doživljava priljev bijelih mladića; međutim, tiha većina obrazovanih žena i muškaraca distancira se od institucije pravoslavne crkve. Ljudi reagiraju nogama tako što izlaze. Možda Dorothy može dodati još malo.
Small: Hvala. To je prva stvar koja mi pada na pamet. Što trebaju naučiti? Ne možete nešto skrivati zauvijek. Stvari će izaći na površinu. Bez obzira na to koliko davno, to je učinjeno. Sudnji je dan. Izaći, učiti od Katoličke crkve i reći: “Hej, oni su prisiljeni biti transparentni. Prisiljeni su priznati: ‘Da, ovo se događa. Zašto mi kao crkva ne zauzmemo stav, ne preuzmemo odgovornost i kažemo: ‘Da, to se događa i u našim crkvama’? Želimo biti proaktivni u priznavanju zlostavljanja i pružiti odštetu žrtvama na najbolji mogući način da to učine.”
Pravoslavna crkva i dalje drži stav da se to nije dogodilo i upire prstom u Katoličku crkvu
Jedna stvar koju smatram da žrtve svećeničkog zlostavljanja najviše žele je broj 1, da ih se čuje; broj 2, da im se vjeruje; i broj 3, nešto što se dogodi počinitelju da ih kazni, umjesto da nema posljedica za njega. Pravoslavna crkva i dalje drži stav da se to nije dogodilo i upire prstom u Katoličku crkvu. Nedostaje im čamac. Propuštaju priliku da učine nešto što je Katolička crkva morala učiniti pod velikim pritiskom. Čini se da bi se to moglo dogoditi i njima. Ono što Hermina pokušava učiniti i što Katherine (Archer) radi je podići neku svijest. To se dogodilo nama. Činjenice će ih staviti tamo s Katoličkom crkvom. Upiru prstom govoreći: “Oni su problem.” Problem je posvuda. Nalazi se u vjerskim institucijama. Ima ga u cijelom svijetu. Kako to ne može biti? Gube kredibilitet. Opet, skrivene stvari imaju način da nas na kraju sustigne.
Dr. Nedelescu: Postoji još jedna stvar koju sam želio dodati vašem pitanju. Tako je razotkrivanje seksualnog zlostavljanja svećenstva počelo s Katoličkom crkvom. Nekoliko ljudi istraživalo je slučajeve zlostavljanja, prijavljivali te slučajeve, a zatim dalje istraživali rigoroznim istraživanjima. Ista stvar se sada događa u Pravoslavnoj crkvi. Započeli smo temeljit istraživački program za slučajeve u javnoj domeni. To je samo vrh ledenog brijega. Crkvene administracije ne shvaćaju koliko se brzo to može razotkriti u našoj trenutnoj klimi i da je problem daleko dublji nego što bi ljudi željeli priznati.
U pravoslavnom svijetu postoji različita dinamika. Na primjer, u Georgiji imate crkvu koja je više zapetljana s vladom. Dok je u Sjedinjenim Državama, previše je prepušteno lokalnim biskupima koji (1) nisu informirani o traumi i (2) nemaju obuku o dinamici i uzrocima seksualnog zlostavljanja koje je počinilo svećenstvo. Kada biskupski pojedinci nisu dobro obučeni kako se nositi sa seksualnim zlostavljanjem koje je počinilo svećenstvo i brkaju ga s ovisnošću ili drugim psihopatologijama umjesto da ga priznaju kao zlostavljanje i predatorsko ponašanje, tada situacija obično završi vrlo loše.
Iako Katolička crkva ima središnje upravno tijelo, to nije slučaj među pravoslavnim jurisdikcijama koje čine Pravoslavnu crkvu. Teže je pratiti zlostavljanje svećenstva i lakše je sakriti stvari pod tepih s tolikim podjelama u pravoslavnom svijetu.
Jacobsen: Dakle, kada se razmatraju rimokatoličke pogreške, ako biste mogli uzeti dvije velike, koje bi to bile? Kako se to replicira u Istočnoj pravoslavnoj crkvi? Počevši od Dorothy, nastavit ćemo s Herminom kao reakcijom.
Small: Pogreška broj jedan Katoličke crkve bila je u prikrivanju zlostavljanja štiteći ugled crkve i njezin klerikalni autoritet. Oni su to izravno zanijekali. Druga pogreška je zataškavanje prikrivanjem dosjea i premještanjem svećenstva koje je prijavljeno u druge crkve, često u druge zemlje jer je crkva globalna. Nije bilo transparentnosti. Nitko nema pristup njihovom sustavu. Mogli su premjestiti svećenike za koje je prijavljeno da su SLI, staviti ih ispod radara i staviti ih na sljedeće mjesto jer ne postoji javni registar u kojem bi netko mogao provjeriti prošlost. To je slično “metenju smeća na drugu stranu ulice”, da tako kažem.
Laganje je pravi skandal
Jacobsen: Ne priznajem, odražava li to njihov glavni grijeh, ponos?
Small: To je priznanje da mrze skandal i da će učiniti sve što mogu da zaštite instituciju od skandala, za koji vjeruju, nakon što se njihovo prljavo rublje prozrači, skandal. Ne shvaćaju da je pravi skandal laganje; Laganje je grijeh. Dakle, lažete kako biste zaštitili crkvu. Oni čine još jedan grijeh kako bi zaštitili crkvu od saznanja o njezinim zlostavljačima, što je zločin protiv čovječnosti. Zločin je grijeh. Ali oni to ne žele nazvati zločinom, pa to zataškavaju, nazivajući to grijehom. Prikrivanje sprječava potrebnu svijest ne samo da se nastoje poduzeti korektivne mjere, već i zaštititi župljane i samu crkvu. Izrečene laži opravdane su kako bi se zaštitila crkva. Oni se štite i drže bolest zaključanu u sebi. Pravi skandal su laži koje se govore kako bi se prikrilo sustavno zlostavljanje.
Doista, kao ljudi padamo. To nije prihvatljiv izgovor za izbjegavanje odgovornosti. Gotovo kao da su klerici hibrid između čovjeka i Boga. Međutim, oni nisu oslobođeni vlastite ljudskosti. To su dvije najveće. Lažu o tome i pokušavaju učiniti sve što mogu kako bi zaštitili instituciju umjesto ljudi, koji su najvrjednija imovina. Služeći ljudima, oni služe Bogu. Čini se kao da je ova točka propuštena. Laganjem i prikrivanjem djela koja povređuju ljude, crkva služi samom đavlu koji je otac laži. Epska bitka između dobra i zla, Boga i đavla, odvija se unutar zidova naše crkve.
Jacobsen: Hermina?
Dr. Nedelescu: Slažem se. Prva velika pogreška su zataškavanja. Zlostavljanje svećenstva događa se u Pravoslavnoj crkvi u svim jurisdikcijama. Taktike su vrlo slične onome kako se to događa u katoličkom okruženju, kao i u drugim vjerskim vjerama. I Katolička i Pravoslavna crkva imaju vrlo krute hijerarhijske strukture. Zataškavanje i ušutkavanje žrtava primarna je taktika koju koristi Pravoslavna crkva. U prošlosti su neki crkveni administratori imali one koji su bili iskorištavani da potpišu dokument u kojem je stajalo da neće tužiti crkvu. Osim toga, laici nisu voljni vjerovati da bi njihov voljeni svećenik mogao biti zlostavljač i seksualni prijestupnik. Sve to dovodi do samoopravdanja i traženja žrtvenog jarca, što je “grijeh”. Međutim, zlostavljanje i seksualni zločini ne mogu se uspoređivati s tipičnim “grijesima” o kojima razmišljamo. I krađa voća je grijeh. Zlostavljanje drugog ljudskog bića s pozicije klerikalnog autoriteta mora se shvatiti kao predatorsko ponašanje, a ne bilo koji drugi “grijeh”.
Dio nepriznavanja da se zlostavljanje dogodilo i traženja sve više i više informacija, koje se obično koriste protiv onih koji su iskorištavani, tipična je taktika koju crkveni administratori koriste. Različite taktike ušutkavanja koje koriste crkvene uprave opisane su u članku Stephena de Wegera iz Australije (Religije, 13(4), broj članka: 309). De Weger je objasnio kako crkve provode ta zataškavanja. Dakle, bilo što, od isprva iskrenog do prisile ili korištenja klasičnog načina. Klasičan način bi bio reći: “Budimo praštaj. Zlostavljač se poskliznuo. On je čovjek”, “sagriješio je”, “pokajao se”, “imao je trenutak slabosti” i tako dalje. Zatim, postoje i druge taktike, kao što je zbunjivanje situacije jer zbunjenost skreće pozornost sa zlostavljanja. Druge taktike koje koriste su zastrašivanje, prisila, okrivljavanje žrtava, a zatim pregovaranje. U konačnici, crkvene administracije i crkveni odvjetnici čine one koji su bili iskorišteni neprijateljima, a istovremeno štite nasilne Pastire koji su plijenili njihove ovce za hranu. Veliki su napori da se okrive pojedinci koji su bili iskorištavani.
Pravoslavci tvrde da se boje “skandala” ako se razotkrije da je voljeno svećenstvo zlostavljač. Evo skandalozne stvari koju pravoslavci često kažu: “Moramo održavati jedinstvo.” Nemojmo ljuljati čamac oko svećeničkog zlostavljanja. To je ironično. Pravoslavlje je tako podijeljeno na mnoge jurisdikcije. Postoji Rumunjska pravoslavna crkva, u kojoj sam rođen; Ruska pravoslavna crkva, Grčka pravoslavna crkva Amerike, Bugarska, Antiohijska, Srpska itd. Pravoslavna crkva je tako podijeljena.
Gledajući to intelektualno, vidim mehanizam samoopravdanja i traženja žrtvenog jarca koji sam već spomenuo. Dakle, samoopravdavanje da je zaštita počinitelja ispravna stvar jer ne želimo “skandalizirati” i “izazvati podjelu”. Ovo samoopravdanje pomiješano je s traženjem žrtvenog jarca. Žrtveni jarci su oni koje je svećenstvo iskorištavalo. Ova dva bihevioralna odgovora (samoopravdanje i traženje žrtvenog jarca) mogu se nazvati “grijehom”. Iz Svetog pisma znamo da je i Krist bio žrtveno janje. Ljudi se moraju samoopravdati kako bi se osjećali bolje zbog svojih postupaka u zaštiti svog “voljenog svećenika” koji u javnosti postavlja fasadu dok je iza kulisa uključen u zlostavljanje i iskorištavanje svojih ciljanih vjernika. Važno je napomenuti da ti prijestupnici izgledaju “vrlo ljubazno” u javnosti. Oni nisu “zli” prema svojim žrtvama ili u javnosti, tako najbolje obmanjuju ljude igrajući ulogu “iskrenosti” i “dobrote” dok se pretvaraju da su dio Kristove službe. Obmana je duboka.
Ponudite preživjelima pastoralno savjetovanje za one koji to žele
Small: Upravo sam potražio na internetu tko ima najviše sljedbenika, katolik ili pravoslavac? ‘Rimokatoličanstvo je najveća pojedinačna kršćanska denominacija, s više od 1 milijarde sljedbenika diljem svijeta. Istočno pravoslavlje je druga najveća kršćanska denominacija, s više od 260.000.000 sljedbenika.’ To je bilo 19. ožujka 2024. Po veličini Istočna pravoslavna crkva je sljedeća najveća kršćanska denominacija. Čovjek bi morao razmisliti: “Sigurno nisu bez problema sa zlostavljanjem.” Ako su voljni pogledati Katoličku crkvu i reći: “Oni su ti koji imaju problem”, onda oni hrane problem, umjesto da uče od Katoličke crkve i priznaju: ‘Pogledajte kako su pali, udarajući nogama i vrišteći.’ Do prosinca 2002. godine Spotlight tim Boston Globea objavio je 600 priča o zlostavljanju od strane 249 svećenika samo u Bostonu. Pravoslavna crkva trebala bi se proaktivno baviti pitanjem svojih zlostavljanja, a ne pod vanjskim pritiskom poput Katoličke crkve, pozabaviti se problemom koji je pri ruci i vidjeti što se može učiniti da se žrtvama donese odšteta.
Broj jedan je priznanje. Također, ponudite preživjelima pastoralno savjetovanje za one koji to žele. Neki ljudi su toliko uništeni zlostavljanjem u vjerskoj instituciji da ne žele imati ništa s crkvom ili čak s Bogom. Međutim, što se tiče parnice, čini se ako, ako se ne varam, žele slijediti obrambenu taktiku Katoličke crkve. Od travnja 2024. trideset i osam američkih katoličkih vjerskih organizacija zatražilo je zaštitu od bankrota u poglavlju 11. Zaključena su dvadeset i četiri slučaja. To godinama povezuje slučajeve, eliminira pristup sudskom sustavu na suđenju i sprječava otkrivanje važnih informacija o imenima zlostavljača.
Dr. Nedelescu: Dodao bih da je Katolička crkva samo dalje na putu u pogledu priznanja i razotkrivanja zlostavljanja. Pravoslavna crkva će s vremenom sustići zaostatak, pogotovo sada kada je #me i u vrijeme kada se zlostavljanje izazvano traumatizacijom puno bolje razumije. Ovo je vrijeme kada se seksualno zlostavljanje od strane vjerskih vođa razotkriva kao epidemija ne samo u Sjedinjenim Državama, već i na međunarodnoj razini.
Small: Da nije bilo preživjelih, onih koji su žrtve, koji su spremni ustati, i da nije bilo istraživačkih novinara koji rade ono što vi radite, Scotta i drugih poput vas koji pokušavaju razotkriti priču o zlostavljanju odraslih u našim vjerskim institucijama i iznijeti je u javnost, kao i odvjetnici, preživjeli, vršeći pritisak na ove institucije, oni ne bi imali razloga za promjenu. Ne bi imali ništa što bi ih smatralo odgovornima. Nije u redu imati zlostavljanje u školama ili seksualno zlostavljanje u obitelji. Radila sam u sestrinstvu 40 godina. Takvo ponašanje ne bi bilo prihvatljivo. Kako svećenici dobivaju besplatnu propusnicu? To je najveća institucija na svijetu. Tražimo medicinsku skrb za tjelesne bolesti i terapeute za emocionalne potrebe. Mi smo duhovna bića. Mnogi od nas okupljaju se u vjerskim ustanovama tražeći duhovnu utjehu i hranu. Često se o pitanjima koja se rješavaju u terapiji raspravlja sa svećenicima u vjerskim institucijama kako bi se dobila ta perspektiva. Svećenici stoje za propovjedaonicom i objavljuju: “Ovo je poljska bolnica za one koji traže duhovno iscjeljenje.” Zovu je “poljska bolnica za duhovno bolesne koji traže iscjeljenje i utjehu”. Dakle, u poljsku bolnicu često ulazimo mnogo ranjiviji i goli, emocionalno, psihološki i duhovno, više nego s terapeutima, pa čak i bolnicama. U bolnicama oni koji se oporavljaju i oni koji umiru traže duhovne predstavnike. Vjerskom vođi otkrivamo ono što vjerojatno nikome drugom ne bismo rekli.
Dr. Nedelescu: Pravoslavna crkva koristi isti jezik. Katolici i pravoslavci dijele prvih 1.000 godina, bili smo zajedno prije nego što su se dvije vjerske institucije razdvojile iz različitih razloga. Postoje mnoge sličnosti, uključujući sličnosti rigidne muške hijerarhijske strukture koju sam gore spomenuo. Žene nisu uključene u hijerarhijske procese donošenja odluka. U našem društvu imamo žene izvršne direktorice, premijere zemalja, znanstvenike, liječnike, voditeljice odjela itd. Trenutna situacija u vezi sa ženama u Pravoslavnoj Crkvi danas je užasna čak i u usporedbi s prethodnim stoljećima kada je Crkva imala svećenice.
Mali: Ta sličnost uključuje posvećenu hostiju za koju se vjeruje da je stvarno Tijelo i Krv Kristova, doslovno, a ne simbolično. Nema mnogo vjerskih praksi koje imaju takvu tvrdnju. Svećenstvo preko kojeg se čudo događa u transsupstancijaciji pretvaranje kruha i vina u tijelo i krv Kristovu nešto je što ne možemo učiniti. To je moćno. Svećenstvo je tu da nam pomogne doći do neba, a ne da nas odvuče u pakao zlouporabe moći i duhovnog autoriteta.
Dr. Nedelescu: Imamo ikonografiju u Pravoslavnoj crkvi koja prikazuje kralja koji se klanja na koljenima pred biskupom kako bi pokazao moć koju biskup ima kao osoba koja sjedi na Kristovom prijestolju. Čak bi se i kralj ili predsjednik trebali pokloniti biskupu. Svećenici, preko svoga biskupa, odražavaju Krista na zemlji. Tu je ova ogromna razlika moći između klerika i bilo koje druge laike slična u katoličanstvu.
Klerikalizam je ozbiljan problem u Pravoslavnoj crkvi. Vjernici doprinose ovom nezdravom “vodstvu” gdje sve što svećenik ili biskupi kažu mora biti ispravno. Ako poriče zlostavljanje onih koje je iskorištavao, onda to mora biti istina jer “otac to najbolje zna”. Tako su indoktrinirani neki vjernici čak i u svojim kasnim odraslim fazama.
Small: Ovdje se radi o ogromnoj neravnoteži moći. Harvey Weinstein zastupa filmske producente. Zatim su tu političari. Da, oni predstavljaju zemaljsku moć. Ljudi koji traže posao bojali bi se bilo što reći. Dakle, to je razlog zašto ne žele ništa reći. Oni su eksploatirani i to ne shvaćaju u tom trenutku. Često su potrebne godine da shvatite što vam se dogodilo, ali učinci su tu i uzimaju danak. S vjerskom institucijom, ovdje govorimo konkretno o pravoslavnoj i katoličkoj crkvi i kako su strukturirane; kao što ste rekli, ikona, čak i kod Katoličke crkve i biskupa i nadbiskupa, ljudi im se klanjaju. Neki čak i ljube ruke. Postoji poštovanje – taj osjećaj da ste odvojeni. Oni su 100% ljudi. Iako su Božji predstavnici na Zemlji, oni nisu Bog. Oni dodiruju nebesku haljinu i Božji su predstavnici. Ali oni nisu Bog. Mislim da je lako sa snagom poziva to zaboraviti. Katolička crkva navodi da se pri ređenju svećenici podvrgavaju ontokološkim promjenama.
Kako reći “Ne” takvoj moći? Većina nas koji smo odrasli u tim institucijama indoktrinirani smo kao djeca da mislimo da su uvijek u pravu. Ne dovodite ih u pitanje. Zaštitite ih pod svaku cijenu. Dakle, mi smo obučeni da što god da se događa, ne usuđujete se reći: “Ne”. Kad nešto počne ići po zlu, ne poštujemo ih kada im to iznesemo i preispitamo njihove postupke ili riječi. Mi smo bezobrazni. Egzorcist je čak rekao: “Ne kritizirajte svećenika.” Naravno, osim ako nije konstruktivno i učinjeno na određeni način. Ne usuđujte se govoriti o njima iza njihovih leđa. Navikli su da se prema njima postupa oprezno.
Dobro je poznata činjenica da su ljudi s poremećajem osobnosti kao što su psihopati, sociopati i narcisi vrlo šarmantni i manipulativni varalice. Prevaranti. Privlače ih ta zvanja snagom i puno pristupa gorivu. Što je gorivo? Pažnja, obožavanje. Opskrba.
Zlostavljačko svećenstvo traži to “gorivo pažnje”
Dr. Nedelescu: Veličanje. Svećenici koji seksualno iskorištavaju žele da ih proslave žrtve kao i njihova zajednica. Eksploatacija obično nije agresivna. Nasuprot tome, to je varljivo “iskrena”, “ljubazna” i “nježna” vrsta nasilja. To je lažna iskrenost, lažna ljubav. Inače, kako bi stari neprivlačni vjerski vođa mogao iskorištavati tinejdžera ili mlađu ženu? Zlostavljačko svećenstvo traži to gorivo pažnje i želi biti veličano istiskujući pohvale od onih koje iskorištavaju, koji zbog traumatizacije imaju pojačan odgovor kako bi izbjegli daljnje iskorištavanje i tako izopačenom svećenstvu odgovorili na ovu traumatiziranu “pažnju”. Da bi se sve ovo imalo smisla, reakcije na traumu moraju se dobro razumjeti kada je riječ o zlostavljanju koje je počinilo svećenstvo, bilo emocionalno ili seksualno zlostavljanje. Svećenici koji iskorištavaju koriste kaznu s povremenom nagradom kako bi privukli pozornost svojih ciljanih žrtava. Kazna traumatizira osobu koja se iskorištava, a povremena nagrada pojačava žrtvu da odgovori na “ugodan način svom zlostavljaču”. To je ključni obrazac mehanizma zlostavljanja svećenstva.
Mali: Da, glorifikacija, čak i negativna pažnja daje gorivo. Mogu manipulirati cijelom zajednicom, izgledati blaženo i odabrati svoj plijen pažljivo odabran i njegovan. Kada se dogodi nešto što je crvena zastava, na kraju preispitujemo svoju perspektivu. Zatim, kada se zlostavljač prema vama ponaša malo drugačije od drugih, pitamo se je li to pogrešna percepcija s naše strane. Često je to suptilna varijacija u ponašanju. Počinjete si postavljati pitanja. “Sigurno ovo pogrešno čitam. On to radi u društvu drugih.” U međuvremenu, ulaze vam u glavu. Vrlo su manipulativni. Suptilnost se propušta jer se čini da se stapa sve dok se ne nađete sami i izvan dometa drugih koji čuju ili vide izgovorena ponašanja i riječi koje su “isključene”.
Jacobsen: Kada ste mlada odrasla osoba u predpubertetskom razdoblju u prisutnosti oca ili svećenika, kakav je osjećaj kada komunicirate s njima? Kako vas uče da osjećate prema njima u njihovoj prisutnosti kada im se obraćate u obje religije?
Mali: U katoličkoj tradiciji nas uče da je svećenik Božji predstavnik ovdje na zemlji. Ako su zajedljivi, to je nešto što mi radimo. Uvijek će biti naša krivnja. Uče nas da ih zaštitimo pod svaku cijenu jer im je posao puno teži zbog onoga s čime se suočavaju. Da ih đavao više progoni jer vode ljude Bogu. Ako su u iskušenju ili se ponašaju, rečeno nam je da ih trebamo zaštititi.
Trebalo bi biti obrnuto. Ako su pastiri na pašnjaku crkve, onda bi trebali štititi stado, a ne stado koje štiti pastira. Imaju to unatrag. Odrastao sam u crkvi počevši od ranog djetinjstva. Svećenik, nikad ih ne dovodiš u pitanje. Zaštitite ih. “Trebamo ga. On je važan. Što bismo bez njega?” To je gotovo poput oca u obitelji gdje nas uče da nas treba vidjeti, a ne čuti. Poslušajte jer ako to ne učinimo, ne želite posljedice. Drže vas u redu. Radi se o moći i kontroli. Tako sam odgojen. Moć i kontrola prenose se na svećenika kao dijete; postoji otac i Božji predstavnik, svećenik koji se također naziva Ocem. Strah od pakla ili izazivanja posrtanja svećenika zadržava se u udubljenju uma.
Dr. Nedelescu: Identičan je i u pravoslavnom svijetu. Neki smatraju da im je ređenje dalo tu posebnu supermoć. Ljudi bi trebali potpuno i nekritički vjerovati svećenskom vijeću jer su zaređeni. Na svećenstvo se gleda kao na višu razinu od ostalih vjernika. Sami vjernici stvorili su ovu sliku svećenstva. Drugi misle o sebi kao o vrlo posebnima, koji su dobili neke supermoći prilikom ređenja. Ako se suprotstavite svećeniku koji izgleda kao “voljeni svećenik”, a on zlostavlja iza kulisa, neki to vide kao napad na “dušu” žrtve, a ne na počinitelja. Bezbožno je razmišljati na ovaj način. To je mjesto gdje je zlo dopušteno da teče kada su oni koji su bili iskorištavani ušutkani pod pretpostavkom da svećenstvo mora biti zaštićeno iz svih razloga; čak i ako pokazuje predatorsko ponašanje. Takav je odgovor pogrešan jer moramo biti sposobni ispravno podijeliti riječ istine. Moramo biti u stanju imenovati i utvrditi tko je ovdje pogriješio, slično kao što kirurg dijeli kancerogeno tkivo od zdravog tkiva. Ta ekscizija mora biti obavljena točno. Odgovornost je na svećenstvu koje je na poziciji moći i koje je iskoristilo Službu svećeništva kako bi iskorištavalo ljude koji vjeruju.
Pravoslavna teologija ne podržava klerikalizam. Postoji pojam univerzalnog svećeništva koje pripada svim vjernicima. Kada svećenstvo, uključujući biskupe, zaluta i/ili pokazuje predatorsko ponašanje, treba ih razotkriti i ukloniti jer nešto nije u redu s njima kada traže ljude od povjerenja za izopačenu pažnju i/ili seks.
Jacobsen: Je li patrijarh Bartholomew dao bilo kakve izjave o bilo kakvim oblicima zlostavljanja u crkvi?
Dr. Nedelescu: Postoji patrijarhalna potpora od strane nadbiskupa Carigrada-Novog Rima i ekumenskog patrijarha Bartolomeja dokumenta pod nazivom “Za život svijeta: Prema društvenom etosu Pravoslavne Crkve“. U ovom dokumentu postoji pretraživanje ključnih riječi koje se može učiniti za traženje “seksualnog zlostavljanja” koje se pojavljuje pet puta i usmjereno je na seksualno zlostavljanje djece, ali se ne spominju slučajevi kada je zlostavljač svećenstvo zaposleno u Crkvi. Važno je da sve više dokaza pokazuje da su tiha većina onih koji su seksualno zlostavljani od strane svećenstva odrasle žene, a ne djeca, iako je seksualno zlostavljanje djece od strane svećenika ono što obično dospije u vijesti. Dakle, sve ovo treba adekvatno ažurirati dostupnim dokazima. Kada je riječ o pastiru, svi vjernici su duhovna djeca, a ne samo oni mlađi od 18 godina. Drugi oblici zlostavljanja spominju se u ovom dokumentu, uključujući sljedeću rečenicu: “Pravoslavna crkva ne može, naravno, odobriti nasilje, bilo kao cilj sam po sebi ili čak kao sredstvo za postizanje nekog drugog cilja, bilo da je to u obliku fizičkog nasilja, seksualnog zlostavljanja ili zlouporabe autoriteta.” na str. 60. Neodobravanje nasuprot priznavanju i poduzimanju mjera protiv krize zlostavljanja svećenstva u Pravoslavnoj crkvi dvije su različite stvari. Također ću dodati da nasilje nije adekvatno definirano jer se seksualno iskorištavanje svećenstva događa s “ljubaznim” i “nježnim” nasiljem, pa kada ljudi vide nasilje, automatski pomisle na četke i ogrebotine.
Osim ovog dokumenta, nisam svjestan bilo kakvog javnog priznanja ili jasnog spominjanja seksualnog zlostavljanja svećenstva u Pravoslavnoj crkvi od strane bilo kojeg hijerarhijskog vodstva. Ekumenska patrijaršija nije jedina glava. Tu je i Antiohijski patrijarhat, Aleksandrijski patrijarhat, Jeruzalemski patrijarhat, Moscoski patrijarhat, Srpski patrijarhat, Rumunjski patrijarhat, Bugarski patrijarhat, a zatim imate Ciparsku crkvu u kojoj je moj rođak svećenik, Grčku crkvu, Poljsku crkvu i Albansku crkvu. Još nisam vidio adekvatne izjave o seksualnom iskorištavanju svećenstva i zlostavljanju vjernika od bilo kojeg od ovih primata.
Rumunjska patrijaršija trebala bi se pozabaviti nedavnim vijestima o visokopozicioniranom biskupu osuđenom za silovanje. Nakon osude u petak, 28. lipnja 2024., biskupija Husu u priopćenju za javnost navela je sljedeće: “… Naša je institucija službeno primila na znanje ovo uvjerenje, kao i posebnu ozbiljnost, u svim aspektima, nemoralnih djela protiv optuženika.” Problem se spominje, ali nema službenog priznanja Patrijaršije. Možda Rumunjski patrijarhat može imati hrabrosti biti prvi koji će priznati postojanje svećeničkog zlostavljanja i seksualnih zločina u crkvenoj instituciji. Tada mogu slijediti ostale službe patrijaršije i crkveni poglavari.
Small: Dakle, kažete da Pravoslavna crkva priznaje da je bilo zlostavljanja djece. Je li to ono što razumijem?
Dr. Nedelescu: Ne baš. Jezik je nejasan i samo spominje nešto o temi, ali nema službenog priznanja. Budimo precizniji jer sam znanstvenik. Tekst iz dokumenta “Za život svijeta: Prema društvenom etosu Pravoslavne Crkve” na stranici 21 kaže sljedeće: “Nijedna uvreda protiv Boga nije gora od seksualnog zlostavljanja djece i nije nepodnošljivija za savjest Crkve. Svi članovi Kristova tijela zaduženi su za zaštitu mladih od takvog zlostavljanja, i ne postoji situacija u kojoj član Crkve, nakon što sazna za bilo koji slučaj seksualnog zlostavljanja djeteta, može to odmah ne prijaviti civilnim vlastima i mjesnom biskupu. Osim toga, svaki vjerni kršćanin nije ništa manje dužan razotkriti one koji bi takve zločine prikrili od javnosti ili ih zaštitili od zakonske kazne. Čini li se to kao priznanje ili priznanje da postoji zlostavljanje djece u Pravoslavnoj crkvi? Većina čitatelja odgovorit će negativno. Ono što znamo je da postoje sudski slučajevi i medijski slučajevi koji izvještavaju o seksualnom zlostavljanju djece, a naše istraživanje pokazuje da su velika većina žrtava žene, a ne djeca u Pravoslavnoj crkvi – obrazac koji se nalazi i u drugim kršćanskim denominacijama. Dakle, podaci su ponovljivi i u pravoslavnoj crkvi.
Seksualno zlostavljanje odraslih nije sustiglo svijest o seksualnom zlostavljanju maloljetnika u crkvi
Malo: Seksualno zlostavljanje odraslih nije sustiglo svijest o seksualnom zlostavljanju maloljetnika u crkvi. Morao bih se složiti s Herminom u njezinoj izjavi da je većina pozornosti, ono malo pažnje koja je privučena u vašoj crkvi, usmjerena na seksualno zlostavljanje djece. Znam da Katolička crkva tvrdi da se to uglavnom događalo 70-ih i 80-ih i za to krivi kulturu svećenika koji su došli tijekom 60-ih i seksualnu revoluciju. Mnogima koji su homoseksualci dopušten je ulazak u sjemenište. Međutim, homoseksualnost ne uzrokuje pedofiliju, niti ih tjera da napadaju odrasle žene. Mogli bi loviti odrasle muškarce. Odrasle žene koje su zlostavljane, kao i odrasli muškarci. Koliko god je odraslim ženama teško istupiti, muškarcima je mnogo teže progovoriti. U 2017. godini, otprilike mjesec dana prije podnošenja tužbe, zastupao sam se preko odvjetnika žrtava u svojoj crkvi i to gotovo deset mjeseci. Predstavila sam biskupu rad koji sam napisala o tihim žrtvama svećeničkog zlostavljanja koje su odrasle žene. Napisala sam rad o tihim žrtvama svećeničkog zlostavljanja koje su odrasle žene i pročitala ga biskupu i odvjetniku. Kada sam razgovarao s odvjetnicom žrtava, rekla je: “Dorothy, nisu samo odrasle žene. Utječe i na odrasle muškarce. Zapamtite moje riječi, sljedeći val koji će pogoditi crkvu bit će vijesti o odraslima koji su zlostavljani jer će najvjerojatnije zasjeniti broj djece koja su bila zlostavljana.”
Krajem 2021. godine Vatikan je objavio priopćenje u kojem se kaže da i odrasli mogu biti zlostavljani i da kriminaliziraju svećeničko zlostavljanje “ranjivih odraslih osoba”. Od 2024. još uvijek se bore s onim što predstavlja ranjivost odraslih. Cijepaju dlake. Vi ste ranjiva odrasla osoba ako vam je potrebna skrb i ne možete sami donositi razumne odluke u bilo kojem trenutku.” Slikali su ga prilično sumorno. Malo ga popuštaju. Ako, čak i na samo neko vrijeme, recimo da izgubite muža ili zdravlje, ili bilo koju drugu situaciju koja uzrokuje privremenu ranjivost, tada ste ranjivi za to razdoblje. Napisao sam 15 ili 16 pisama institutu u Rimu nadgledajući problem zlostavljanja u Crkvi. Rekao sam: “U osnovi, morate gledati na sve u kongregaciji kao na jednako ranjive na napade zlostavljača samo zbog razlike u moći, a gledajući ih ne možete znati tko je ranjiv, a tko nije. Svatko je ranjiv zbog čiste prirode apsolutnog povjerenja koje ide uz poziciju. Ne možemo cijepati dlaku. Pogledajte ponašanje svećenika; Nema šanse da bi trebali seksualizirati odnos s bilo kojim župljaninom. Svi su ranjivi na iskorištavanje i manipulaciju u crkvi.”
Jacobsen: Što je s – nazovimo ih – kongregacijskim flakom? To sam uzeo iz protuzračnog oružja koje se zove flak top. Ideja pojedinaca koji preuzimaju na sebe zaštitu crkve vrlo je eksplicitna. To čine agresivnim suočavanjem s pojedincima koji im izlaze s tvrdnjama o zlostavljanju ili pojedincima koji podržavaju te druge ljude. Znam, kao novinar i drugi novinari, koji štite one ljude koji su zlostavljani i pričaju svoje priče i drže neke stvari privatnima, kao i one koji su izašli u javnost. Neke od tih stvari osobno dobijete u pristigloj pošti. Dakle, bit će gore za pojedince koji su se izjasnili kao identificirani zlostavljani. Kako obični članovi kongregacije pristupaju ovom kontekstu pokušaja zaštite ugleda crkve s napadom?
Mali: Krive one koji su žrtve. Postoje kolateralne žrtve. Ostali župljani su žrtve jer su tu za svoje duhovne potrebe, a da bi nastavili dalje, teško je vidjeti svećenika kao počinitelja. Moraju vjerovati da je svećenik, otac, u redu. Jesu li prevareni? I prevareni? Ne možemo imati dvije suprotstavljene misli u isto vrijeme. Kako može biti loš i u redu u isto vrijeme? Dakle, moraju pronaći način da to razdvoje kako bi nastavili opravdavati odlazak. Oni se rješavaju svoje kognitivne disonance premještanjem svog bijesa zbog osjećaja izdaje na žrtve koje istupe. Dakle, oni će to automatski prenijeti na odraslu osobu kojoj je puno gore. Žena u mojoj bivšoj crkvi kada je izašla vijest o 13-godišnjaku kojeg je zlostavljao svećenik koji je otišao na suđenje i završio sa zatvorskom kaznom, šokantno je rekla: “Tinejdžeri ovih dana! Tako su zavodljivi i promiskuitetni!” Obožavatelji optuženog svećenika okupili su se u znak podrške ispred sudnice. Kakvu poruku to daje shrvanoj žrtvi i njihovim roditeljima?
Bio je poput rock zvijezde. To je način razmišljanja. Svećenik je uvijek u pravu. Kad nije u pravu, to je zato što ga je netko iskušavao. Netko ga je namamio. Međutim, oni su u poziciji najveće moći. Dotjerivanje stručno izvodi grabežljivac koji bi trebao utjecati na emocije. Uđu vam u glavu. Zatim slijedi razdoblje povremenog pojačanja stvarajući traumsku vezu koja izaziva ovisnost kao i svaka supstanca koja izaziva ovisnost. Jeste li ikada bili prevareni? Lakše je kada postoji duboka nezadovoljena potreba. Svatko može biti prevaren od strane dobrog prevaranta. Crkva je posljednje mjesto za koje očekujemo da će biti povrijeđeno ovim manipulativnim ponašanjem.
Jacobsen: James Randi ima poznatu frazu. “Svatko se može prevariti.”
Mali: Sjetite se ranjivosti. Da, kao što sam već spomenuo, svatko se može prevariti. Ranjivost nas čini osjetljivijima. Nisu svi koji su seksualno iskorištavani od strane svećenstva ranjivi zbog neriješenih ranih trauma. Apsolutno povjerenje u sebe čini čovjeka ranjivim. Povjerenje se podrazumijeva iz pozicije koju imaju. Povjerenje se ne zaslužuje. U svojoj situaciji patio sam od ozbiljnih trauma u ranom djetinjstvu koje su me učinile mnogo podložnijim njegovanju i iskorištavanju tijekom mog odraslog života. Svatko može biti zaveden i postati žrtva manipulacija prevaranta. Predatorski svećenici u fazi dotjerivanja svog plijena često razvijaju odnos i osobnu vezu. Dajemo im više slobode. Možda ćemo vidjeti znakove crvene zastave, ali ih ispričati i odbaciti. Onda jednog dana naprave svoj potez. Mislimo što se upravo dogodilo ovdje? Župljani će stati na stranu klerika i distancirati se od onoga koji istupa kako bi ih zaštitio, ali i od vlastitog odnosa s njima kao svećenstvom i crkvom.
Jacobsen: Hermina [Ur. Kratko odsutno], ovu klasu osoba u laicima ili kongregaciji nazivao sam flakom, po flak topovima iz davnih vremena, protuzračnim topovima. Ideja je da kada se netko javi ili izvijesti o tome, osoba koja izvještava o tome dobit će e-poštu. Ljudi koji izlaze izjavljujući: “Zlostavljan sam.” Redovni članovi kongregacije shvatit će to kao moralni imperativ ili emocionalnu potrebu za sobom da idu naprijed i suoče se s tim ljudima, čak i osobno i prilično agresivno ih ispituju ili čine društveno kako bi spriječili bilo kakvu potencijalnu kontaminaciju tuđih umova koja se dogodila u toj određenoj kongregaciji. Dorothy je opisivala u katoličkom kontekstu. Koji je pravoslavni kontekst? Je li slično u pravoslavnom kontekstu?
Dr. Nedelescu: Da, apsolutno, slijedi iste obrasce. Dakle, ne znam je li Dorothy to već spomenula. Jednom kada se identificira svećenstvo koje zlostavlja, ono ne postoji u vakuumu. To se događa u toksičnoj zajednici, toksičnoj župi gdje su više usredotočeni na svoje “službe”. Međutim, ova toksična mjesta promašuju cilj, ne shvaćajući da rad crkve nije poziv na službu, već da je više nalik Kristu. Toksični župni sustavi misle da su rast članstva i financijska dobit u službi dokaz da su poput Krista. Ti otrovni organizmi tada donose odluke koje ušutkavaju neželjene istine o zlostavljanju i prijevari. Zavaravaju sami sebe govoreći sebi da je zataškavanje slično Kristu.
Dakle, zlostavljanje se nastavlja uz pomoć ovih pomagača. Postoji ta ideologija da je zajednica “lijepa zajednica” i da nema ništa loše u župi. Ti ljudi pronalaze utočište i sigurnost u svojoj zajednici od vanjskog svijeta pa im je vrlo izazovno razumjeti i prihvatiti da je njihov voljeni svećenik, njihov Pastir, zlostavljač i da se zlostavljanje događa u njihovoj “kući” pod njihovim “krovom”. Stoga je to lakše zanijekati.
Više se bave obožavanjem ove ideologije službe i sigurnosti koju su stvorili nego suočavanjem s istinom i shvaćanjem da netko koga zapošljavaju pokazuje predatorsko ponašanje i nanio veliku štetu ljudima pod istim krovom. Također je obično više od jednog vjernika koji se iskorištava i više od jednog zlostavljača i vojske pomagača. U zajednici od 400 ljudi prijavljeno je da ima oko sedam žrtava. Ovo je istraživanje koje dolazi sa Sveučilišta Baylor.
Jacobsen: Dakle, uzmimo perspektivu pojedinca koji je uložio svoj život u crkvu. Ne mislim na nekoga tko je formalno teološki obrazovan na elitnoj razini. Ovo nije kritika intelektualnog umijeća teologa. Kao što je čak i H. L. Mencken spomenuo, teolozi su pronicljivi u apstrakciji i logičkoj argumentaciji. To ovdje nije poanta. Ideja je razmotriti društvene i etičke posljedice ponašanja ljudi koji su bili žrtve, i muškaraca i žena, uglavnom žena. Kada je riječ o institucijama poput ove, pojedincima koji su uložili svoje živote u tu zajednicu i teologiju, bilo katoličku ili pravoslavnu, što se može uzeti od pojedinca koji kritiku zlostavljanja laika od strane svećenstva vidi kao napad na Crkvu u cjelini? Kako bi se to potencijalno moglo smatrati valjanom kritikom? Nasuprot tome, kako bi se to moglo smatrati pretjeranom generalizacijom u vezi s problemima iznesenim ovim pričama?
Dr. Nedelescu: Kakvo dobro pitanje. Mali, želite li ga prvo ubosti?
Mali: Naravno. Mogu odgovoriti. Kada sam prijavio svoje zlostavljanje, članica crkve u kasnim 70-ima je rekla: “Crkva ima dovoljno skandala. Zašto to radite?” Također sam u Mreži preživjelih onih koje su zlostavljali svećenici, a oni gledaju na odvjetnike zajedno sa žrtvama koje se prijavljuju kao na zlikovce. Prvo sam bio žrtva/preživjeli, a zatim sam postao odvjetnik. Oni na to gledaju kao da skrećete pozornost na crkvu; vi stvarate skandal. Stoga je onaj koji izvještava protiv svećenstva i crkve. Ono što oni ne razumiju je da se za izlječenje nečega prvo mora izložiti. Sunčeva svjetlost dezinficira zlostavljanje. Istupajući i izvještavajući o tome, otkrio sam insajdersku informaciju da taj svećenik nije u redu. Javno se predstavljao kao jednosmjeran. Bila je to maska. Iskusio sam tamu ispod nje.
Bog je svjetlost, istina i pravda!
Osjećao sam dužnost to prijaviti. Da nisam, bio bih suučesnik zataškavajući to. To je bio cijeli korijen situacije. To je u suprotnosti s onim što Bog naučava. Bog je svjetlost, istina i pravda. Ako pokušavate zadržati svjetlo, koje je istina, izvan crkve, zaključavate zločin i grijeh. Koristeći medicinsku terminologiju, ako pacijent ima apsces, on ne može zacijeliti dok se ne izreže, otvori i ne ocijedi. Za ublažavanje boli možete uzeti analgetik, ali ako ne dođete do korijena apscesa, na izvoru infekcije, on ne može zacijeliti. Tako je i s pitanjem zlostavljanja u crkvi. Pokrivanje pitanja zlostavljanja zavojem šutnje čini da se ono širi umjesto da ga razotkrije i donese odgovarajući pravni lijek kao što je odšteta za zlostavljane i kazneni postupak za klerike.
Prijavio sam jer nisam želio da se ista stvar koja se meni dogodi dogodi drugoj osobi. Znam kroz što sam prošao. Bilo mi je stalo do drugih koji su bili u opasnosti zbog izlaganja svećeniku. Prijavio sam to i zato što mi je bilo stalo do svećenika. Očito nije bio u redu i ja sam to znao. Brinući se za svećenika, brinuo sam se i za samu Crkvu i dobre svećenike koji drže svoje zavjete. Zaslužuje li crkva, koja predstavlja Krista, imati vukove u janjećoj koži koji se maskiraju kao pastiri? Izvještavanje i pozivanje na odgovornost nije protiv crkve. Nije protiv klerika. On je protiv zlostavljanja i njegovog zataškavanja.
Kada govorimo istinu i tražimo iscjeljenje, ne tražimo iscjeljenje samo za one koji su povrijeđeni, već i za onoga koji je povrijeđen, kome je također potrebno iscjeljenje kako bi se spriječila daljnja ozljeda. To nije protiv crkve ili protiv svećenstva. Ima ogroman učinak. To je utjecalo na moju sposobnost da nastavim jer je izazvalo noćne strahove i jaku tjeskobu. Morao sam se maknuti. Imao sam cjeloživotni odnos s crkvom. Pružio je dubok izvor utjehe i duhovne njege i izraz mog odnosa s Bogom. Na kraju sam shvatio da se moram procijeniti, preispitati svoj život, napraviti duboko iscjeljenje koje je povećalo moju ranjivost na zlostavljače i vidjeti gdje se crkva uklapa u veliku shemu stvari na “drugoj strani”. Nisam znao hoću li stići do svjetla na kraju tunela. To me lansiralo u najdužu mračnu noć duše iz koje sam ponekad mislio da je to pakao.
Moje djetinjstvo bilo je otvoreno za istragu jer je trauma koja se dogodila u crkvi iskoristila to. Nisam se mogao izliječiti od crkve, a da ne zaronim duboko u svoje najranije djetinjstvo. Za one koji nisu izravno povrijeđeni zlostavljanjem u crkvi, oni pokušavaju ne razmišljati o tome. Oni znaju da je tu, ali neznanje je blaženstvo sve dok ne dotakne njih ili nekoga koga osobno poznaju. To se događa nekom drugom. Mogu sjediti u klupama, stavljati novac u košaru za prikupljanje, nastaviti ići u crkvu na vjerske praznike i svaki tjedan, i zadovoljiti svoje duhovne potrebe, zanemarujući činjenicu da se to događa njihovoj braći i sestrama u crkvenoj obitelji diljem svijeta.
Usporedimo to sa zlostavljanjem u obitelji. Na primjer, pogledajmo obitelj od desetero djece, oca i majke. Otac seksualno zlostavlja jedno dijete, ali dobro se odnosi prema svim ostalim i zarađuje novac kako bi uzdržavao sve. Tada zlostavljano dijete kaže nešto o tome i što se događa? Ostali nemaju tu perspektivu. Odjednom ste upravo rekli nešto loše o ocu, a oni ne mogu vjerovati jer to ugrožava njihov odnos s ocem koji im je toliko potreban. Dakle, na koga će se naljutiti? Naljutit će se na dijete koje je to prijavilo jer ostalih devet treba oca. Ne treba im to drugo dijete.
To se prevodi na crkvu. Onaj koji prijavljuje zlostavljanje je potrošna roba, ali im je potreban svećenik. Oni ga trebaju jer je to njihov odnos s Bogom. Žrtva koja je to prijavila samo se našla na putu. Upravo ste skrenuli pozornost na činjenicu da je otac učinio nešto previše neugodno da bi se mogli pomiriti. Situacija je usporediva s obiteljskim sustavom.
Dr. Nedelescu: Crkva je više od samo svećenika, administracije ili biskupa. Small prenosi ovaj koncept onoga što Crkva uistinu jest kada koristi teološki izraz “Tijelo Kristovo”, što znači ljudi, vjernici, svi oni. Crkva nije samo institucionalna organizacija.
Za one koji imaju problem sa zagovornicima koji razotkrivaju istinu, sve se svodi na to razumiju li što je Crkva. U prošlosti je postojao jedan veliki teolog po imenu Maksim Ispovjednik u 7. stoljeću, i govorio je istinu. Evo što mu je Crkva učinila: odsjekli su mu jezik i ruke. To je ono što mu je Crkva učinila. To je ono što se i danas događa, pri čemu su oni koji govore istinu odsječeni od zajednice. Tretiraju ih kao neprijatelje. Dio naše poremećene ljudskosti je zatvoriti ljude koji govore istinu. Ali, kada to činimo, odsiječemo pogrešnu granu Tijela Kristova. U isto vrijeme, kada se to dogodi i ljudi još uvijek uspiju govoriti istinu, ona ima još veću moć. Dakle, ne bismo se trebali brinuti i imati malo povjerenja. Vjerovati znači imati vjeru. “Temeljno povjerenje je u konačnici vjera u smisao, o kojoj možemo odlučiti. Između ostalog, to znači i svijest o našoj jedinstvenosti i nezamjenjivosti, kao i o našoj vrijednosti za svijet“, kaže Viktor Emil Frankl, koji je pokrenuo Logoterapijsku školu misli.
To je sve što bih dodao jer je Dorothy to tako dobro pokrila. Njezino stajalište o potrebi da progovori jer svećenstvo nije dobro također je kritično. Svećenik koji je zlostavljao nije sposoban za službu, treba ga ukloniti iz službe i staviti u program zlostavljača. U ranim kršćanskim danima, ljudi koji su “sagriješili” (NB: Seksualno zlostavljanje svećenstva nije grijeh kao i svaki drugi grijeh kao što je krađa. Seksualno zlostavljanje svećenstva je predatorsko ponašanje i korištenje “grijeha” za opisivanje predatorskog ponašanja uvelike potkopava težinu stvari) uklonjen je iz zajednice, a zatim vrlo polako vraćen u zajednicu ako su pokazali razumijevanje onoga što je učinio.
Istraživanja pokazuju da se svećenici koji seksualno iskorištavaju svoj plijen obično ne kaju. Vrlo je rijetko da zlostavljanje svećenstva prizna ovu vrstu prijestupa. To uključuje priznanje da je zlostavljao i ispriku onima koje je iskorištavao i lagao. Crkvene uprave koje ih ostavljaju u njihovoj “bolesti”, znači da ih nije briga za te prijestupnike, žrtve ili budućnost Crkve kao Tijela Kristova. Mi zagovornici brinemo o prijestupnicima jednako kao što brinemo o ljudima koje iskorištavaju i cijeloj zajednici. Tužno je vidjeti ljude koji sebe nazivaju “kršćanima” kako štite prijestupnike dok omalovažavaju žrtve i izbacuju ih iz svojih zajednica. Tada znate da župa ne služi Bogu. I sve se to pojavljuje pod krinkom “prijateljske zajednice”. Ispiranje mozga je obrazac u svim župama sa zlostavljačkim svećenstvom.
Odrasli koji nauče dinamiku svećeničkog zlostavljanja znaju da nije “Bog” zlostavljao, već je sam svećenik taj koji je zlostavljao
Jacobsen: Što je s pojedincima koji kritiku svećenika od žena i muškaraca koji istupaju shvaćaju kao da jednostavno mrze Boga? Ljuti ste na Boga. To je nešto vrlo uobičajeno za pojedince koji dolaze iz određenih misaonih zajednica. To dobivaju putem interneta i osobno. “Ljuti ste na Boga. Stoga vas možemo odbaciti ili svrstati u kategoriju i ne obraćati pažnju na bilo koji od argumenata koje možda iznosite ili svjedočanstva koja iznosite.” U slučaju zlostavljanja povezanog sa svećenstvom, može li to biti slična perspektiva za pojedince koji one koji istupaju smatraju “ljuti ste na Boga”?
Dr. Nedelescu: Da, ljut ili “otpadnik”, odričući se svoje vjere. To bi se moglo uzeti u obzir. Uvelike su u zabludi jer je suprotno. Svećenstvo koje zlostavlja stvara situaciju u kojoj se konceptom Boga manipulira kako bi se iskoristili njihovi vjernici. Odrasli koji nauče dinamiku svećeničkog zlostavljanja znaju da nije “Bog” zlostavljao, već je sam svećenik taj koji je zlostavljao. Zapravo, zlostavljački svećenik može se odvojiti od službe svetog svećeništva, koja ima visoke standarde, barem prema svetom Ivanu Zlatoustom.
Small: Mislim da bi se to više odnosilo na one koji su bili zlostavljani kao djeca. Roditelji i djeca su ljuti, pitajući se zašto je Bog dopustio da se to dogodi. U mojoj suradnji s onima koji su bili traumatizirani u crkvi, bilo kao djeca ili odrasli, ljudi su mi govorili da više ne mogu imati ništa s Bogom jer je Bog to učinio. Bog je upotrijebio svećenika da me zlostavlja. A ako Bog to nije učinio, zašto to nije zaustavio? Automatski ide Bogu; tamo se prevodi. Dakle, ako prijavimo svećenika, to se nekako dotiče našeg odnosa s Bogom. Moramo biti ljuti na Boga što je izvijestio o Njegovom izaslaniku? Ali postoji problem s teologijom u tom pogledu. Vratimo to obitelji. Ako prijavljujete oca koji seksualno zlostavlja svoje dijete, prijavljujete li dobrog oca? Dakle, ako prijavljujete svećenika, ne prijavljujete Boga jer što je Bog? Bog je svjetlost, istina i ljubav. U Bogu nema zlostavljanja. Grabežljivi svećenik nije dobar svećenik. Pomiješa se. To stvara zbrku.
Predatorski svećenik djeluje izvan svog odnosa s Bogom. Nije ljutnja na Boga kada zlostavljani prijavi svećenika. Služi kao svjedočanstvo za Boga, govoreći da je to zlostavljanje Boga, a svećenik manipulira svojim odnosom i svojim položajem, predstavljajući Boga zlostavljanju. Svećenik zloupotrebljava Božje ime i Božji položaj kako bi učinio nešto potpuno protiv religije. To čak nema smisla. Ta razina neznanja i poricanja gotovo je dječja perspektiva. Kad netko kaže: “Zašto Bog to nije zaustavio?” Zašto Bog ništa ne zaustavlja? Većina zlostavljanja događa se u obitelji, a ne u instituciji ili vjerskoj crkvi. Dakle, što se tamo događa? Gdje je Bog? Svi žele kriviti Boga. U redu je biti ljut na Boga. U redu je osjećati ljutnju.
Bog se može nositi s tim. Radi se o slobodnom izboru kada je sve rečeno i učinjeno. Imamo slobodan izbor. Tuđi slobodni izbor nas boli. Naš vlastiti slobodni izbor šteti nama i drugima. Loše stvari se događaju. Ali gdje je Bog usred svega toga? On je u pomagačima. Postoje ljudi koji pomažu u iscjeljenju. Ima nas koji smo zagovornici, grupe podrške, terapeuti, obitelj, prijatelji itd. Međutim, često je preteško podijeliti s njima i često se osjećaju uplašeno i nemoćno kako se nositi sa situacijom. Kad bi se Bog umiješao u slobodan izbor, bi li on bio slobodan? Ne. Međutim, ne razmišljaju svi o slobodnom izboru kao izvoru boli. Župljani trebaju krivnju, pa čak i odvjetnici koji zastupaju crkvu, prebaciti na žrtve koje služe kao žrtveno janje.
Dr. Nedelescu: To je ono što mi je prolazilo kroz glavu, mehanizam traženja žrtvenog jarca, kako uvijek mora postojati žrtveno janje, bilo da se radi o žrtvama, Katoličkoj crkvi ili celibatu. Mnogi pravoslavni kršćani misle da se zlostavljanje događa u Katoličkoj crkvi jer su njihovi svećenici u celibatu. Međutim, i naši biskupi bi trebali biti u celibatu. Sada, znamo iz istraživačkog rada Richarda Sipea da je samo ~ 50% katoličkih svećenika zapravo bilo u celibatu, a noviji istraživački rad pokazuje da je taj postotak katoličkih svećenika koji su u celibatu još niži. Isti obrazac slijedi u pravoslavnoj crkvi gdje neki biskupi i redovnici u celibatu imaju spolne odnose, kao i neki oženjeni svećenici imaju spolne odnose izvan braka. Isto je i s redovnicima. Jeste li ikada čitali literaturu kenobitskog redovnika?
Ljudska rasa je spolna vrsta, a ne aseksualna. O zdravim seksualnim interakcijama treba hitno raspravljati i u katoličkom i u pravoslavnom okruženju kako bi vjernici znali kako bolje prepoznati izopačene seksualne situacije kao što su seksualno zlostavljanje i iskorištavanje od strane svećenstva.
Ljudi mogu imati žrtvene jarce za sve kako bi se samoopravdali i nastavili biti u kolotečini bez ikakve duhovne formacije ili rasta. Kada ljudi odgovore tako što žrtvuju one koje je svećenstvo iskorištavalo i opravdavaju zlostavljanje okrivljujući žrtve kako bi zaštitili svoj “sustav”, oni su ljudi koji žive u sramotnoj kolotečini. Možemo odgovoriti na zlostavljanje koje je počinilo svećenstvo s milošću ili možemo odgovoriti na sramotne načine i pretvarati se da je sve u redu dok se životi uništavaju do točke samoubojstava u nekim slučajevima.
Mali: Žrtveni jarac prima svu krivnju koju drugi ne mogu vidjeti u sebi. Da, žrtve su žrtveno janje. Bog je čak i žrtveno janje jer pravi počinitelji nemaju odgovornost. Zapravo, Krist je bio žrtveno janje za sve naše grijehe. To je dio poremećaja osobnosti i načina razmišljanja zlostavljača. Izbjegavaju odgovornost, gaslight, izazivaju zbunjenost, sumnju u sebe i krive druge. Krivi su svi ostali, a ne njihovi. Korijen problema je u tome što se mora riješiti pitanje zlostavljanja odraslih. Postoji potreba za javnim obrazovanjem. Što ljudi mogu učiniti da budu sigurniji u crkvama? Vatikanski ili pravoslavni dužnosnici mogu obavijestiti župljane kako se grabežljivci timaraju. Na početku svih crkava podijelite letke koji obavještavaju o taktikama koje koriste oni s predatorskim ponašanjem. Predatori su posvuda u svijetu. Da, oni su u našim vjerskim institucijama. Otvorite dijalog kako biste lakše priznali da u ovom svijetu ne postoje apsolutno sigurna mjesta. To je fantazija.
Priznavanje stvarnosti smanjuje lakovjernost tako da ne pretpostavljamo automatski samo zato što je to kuća bogoslužja da je to 100% sigurno mjesto. Na primjer, ako bi netko ušao u bar, imao bi neku zaštitu. Ulazak u crkvu za koju mislimo da je automatski siguran. Naš gard je pao. To nije sigurna pretpostavka. Ako netko ima zabrinutost ili primijeti da nešto nije u redu, potaknite prijavljivanje; Evo broja. Nazovite nas. Znam da crkva treba zaštititi svećenike od lažnih optužbi. Jedna od taktika korištenih kada sam prolazio kroz svjedočenje bila je plinska paljba. Odvjetnik obrane me upitao: “Zašto ste ga pozvali u svoju kuću tog dana?” Odgovorio sam: “Pa, budući da je on svećenik, mislio sam da je to sigurno, a on me u nekoliko navrata zamolio da vozim bicikl. Namjeravali smo učiniti nešto javno. Nisam očekivao da ću biti seksualno zlostavljan.” Dakle, traže grešku u vama. Oni traže ono što ste vi učinili. Ako ste odrasla osoba, automatski način razmišljanja je da prijavljujete zbog toga što ste odbačeni ljubavnik. Svećenik uspostavlja vezu prijateljstva i povećava napore dotjerivanja kroz povremene epizode prikladnog ponašanja s neprikladnim. Ako ga se pita, često to poriče. Stvara zbunjenost i sumnju u sebe.
Manjak znanja
To nije ljubav. To je zlostavljanje. Često vam kažu da vas vole i uvode Boga u to. Ako je netko dovoljno povrijeđen do te mjere da će istupiti i riskirati da to učini, to nije dio ljubavi. Bio je to dio zlostavljačke situacije. Postoji veliki manjak znanja. Čak ni žrtve često nisu svjesne što se događa u tom trenutku. Predatori ciljaju emocije.
Jacobsen: Postoje opći trendovi za žrtve koje istupe. Većina slučajeva seksualnog zlostavljanja koji se pojave su istiniti. Zadana postavka trebala bi biti da je istinita ili vrlo vjerojatno da će biti istinita. Ako pogledate podatke FBI-a i Ministarstva unutarnjih poslova Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, dvije odvojene institucije koje nisu poznate po tome što su glupe, prikupile su četveroznamenkasti broj slučajeva silovanja, najekstremnijeg oblika seksualnog napada. Ti su slučajevi otkrili da su neki jednoznamenkasti postoci neutemeljeni. Moje novinarsko tumačenje je da je osoba lagala ili nije bilo dovoljno podataka da bi se to pronašlo. Stvarna stopa laži je niža, s obzirom na one druge opcije u sadašnjim podacima. Ili ste utvrdili ili osnovali ili neutemeljeni, ali nedovoljni dokazi. Kada netko općenito istupi, vjerojatno je to istina ili samo istina. S obzirom na ove opće trendove poricanja, Hermina je neuroznanstvenica i zna sve o poricanju znanstvenih teorija koje su dobro utvrđene hipoteze u široj javnosti.
Dr. Nedelescu: To je način da zaštitite sebe i kolotečinu u kojoj postoje. Zato poriču prijestupe. Osobe s poremećajima upotrebe alkohola ili ovisnosti koje zloupotrebljavaju alkohol i droge također poriču da imaju problem, često dok se tijelo ne raspadne i oni umru. Kad to više ne mogu poreći jer je istina razotkrivena, pronalaze slamnate izgovore da okrivljuju svoje žrtve.
Jacobsen: Pojedinac ne samo da negira, već i krivi žrtvu. Dobivam općenitije pojmove onoga što je Dorothy istaknula u vezi s razlogom. Zašto pitanja koja vi ili drugi stalno dobivate u vezi s tim iskazom. Kakav bi bio prikladan odgovor pojedincima koji to ne vide na ovaj način, ali su skloni okriviti žrtvu? Mogli bi to učiniti neizravno postavljajući toliko pitanja zašto ili izravno. Za pojedince koji to ne vide na taj način, ali krive žrtve, bilo neizravno, kao u slučaju Small, sa svim pitanjima zašto tijekom njezina svjedočenja, ili izravno, kako potencijalno pristupate tim pojedincima kako biste preoblikovali svoj način razmišljanja o tim stvarima?
Dr. Nedelescu: Pitanje je kako pristupiti pojedincima koji koriste DARVO ponašanje? To je kratica za Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim i Offender. Dobro je proučen, a Jennifer Freyd ga je skovala. Kako se nositi s takvim ljudima je maksimalno im se oduprijeti. Maksimalno joj se oduprite i držite se istine jer postoji nešto vrlo moćno u držanju istine. Tako bi se ljudi trebali odnositi prema tim pojedincima. Ljudi koje je crkva ili svećenstvo viktimiziralo trebali bi se maksimalno oduprijeti ponašanju DARVO-a / okrivljavanju žrtava. Jednom su mi rekli da je starog svećenika privukla druga mlađa vjernica i započela “aferu” s njom jer je svećenikova žena bila “bljutava”. Ova crkvena zajednica izbacila je svećenika iz svoje župe, što je ispravna stvar i signalizira da je takva zajednica zdrava i poštuje žene. Kažem “afera” pod navodnicima, da budem jasan: svećenstvo koje traži od svojih vjernika za seks nije “afera”, već zlostavljanje, jer “afera” zahtijeva dvije odrasle osobe jednake moći, a to nikada ne može biti slučaj kada uključuje svećenstvo koje predstavlja Krista na zemlji – to je moć.
Pravoslavni svećenici mogu se vjenčati pa neki krive svoje žene za svećenikovo zlostavljačko ponašanje. Drugi zlostavljači krive one koji su bili iskorištavani. U osnovi su svi krivi osim svećenstva koje je zlostavljalo. Zlostavljači ne preuzimaju nikakvu odgovornost, a budući da njihov poslodavac ne preuzima odgovornost, nastavljaju vrijeđati nesmanjenim intenzitetom.
Small: Slažem se s onim što je Hermina rekla. Nažalost, pokušaj da se svi uključe vjerojatno je nerealan. Važno je samo znati da podržavaju ljude koji istupaju govoreći da im se vjeruje, da ih se čuje i da ih se ne smije kriviti ili sramiti. Očekivati da to shvati netko tko to ne može shvatiti je nerealno. Sve što možemo učiniti je objaviti informacije. Seksualni napad i obiteljsko nasilje imaju oglase koji upozoravaju ljude na određene situacije. Nemamo zaštitne mjere za crkvu. Da bi ljudi automatski pomislili da bi crkva mogla biti skrovište za prijestupnika, trebat će vremena i javnog izlaganja. Znamo da u baru ne treba ostavljati piće bez nadzora. Lako je natjerati nekoga da se petlja s njim. Kad ste vani noću, najsigurnije je ne hodati sami. Znamo izbjegavati određene nesigurne javne prostore. Postoje zaštitne mjere za sigurnost na drugim mjestima, ali ne postoje smjernice za sigurnost u crkvi.
Pružanje sigurnosnih informacija o tome kako se zaštititi od grabežljivaca i pomoglo bi educirati župljane o ponašanju crvenih zastava koje grabežljivci koriste za dotjerivanje. Crkva ima letke, reklamne funkcije i hodočašća. Zašto ne biste imali mjesto gdje su sigurnosne informacije lako dostupne kako bi ih ljudi mogli pokupiti? Ako se pronađe u crkvi, bit će vjerodostojniji nego ako netko izvan crkve pokuša reći da postoji problem u crkvi. Ako predstavnici Crkve, vođe, pastiri, biskupi i Vatikan dopuste da se te informacije donesu u tisku kako bi ih ljudi mogli zgrabiti na izlasku, to bi bilo prihvaćenije. Bog se zalaže za pravdu i zaštitu. Da, moguće je biti ozlijeđen u crkvi. Evo što je to. Dođite do javnosti. Ako je prihvaćena u crkvi, bit će prihvaćenija od strane onih koji je pohađaju. Informacije se šire i u širu zajednicu. To je služba javne sigurnosti.
Zabranjena mi je sva služba u mojoj crkvenoj zajednici jer sam prijavila svećenika. Da ga nisam prijavio, mogao sam nastaviti u službi. Kad sam bio spreman za povratak, nisam znao da sam zabranjen. Rekao sam da sve što trebam da se oporavim je da mi dopusti da se vratim i zapjevam. Nije bio spreman. Nije me želio tamo. Rekao je: “Sjedenje u klupi za neke od vas je služba.” Da mi je dopustio da se vratim, to bi pokazalo kongregaciji da me podržava, što bi ih potaknulo da učine isto. Pastor postavlja način razmišljanja i standarde za ostatak kongregacije.
Obitelj koja raspravlja o problemima ima bolju stopu uspjeha u sprječavanju problema
Odnesite to obitelji. Ono što kažu vaša majka i otac vrijedi. Imaju pravo unijeti informacije koje žele da znate ili ne znate. Ako mama i tata prihvate ovu informaciju, djeca su sklonija prihvatiti je. Odnesite to na crkvenu razinu. Ako službenici donesu tu informaciju u crkvu, ljudima će biti lakše prihvatiti da se to događa jer dužnosnici kažu da se događa. Obitelj koja raspravlja o problemima ima bolju stopu uspjeha u sprječavanju problema. Kada imate kodeks šutnje, to je nevolja. Podignite svijest, ali neka to odobre i prihvate crkveni službenici. Trenutno ne vidim da će se to dogoditi. Ne žele ga tamo. To je: “Držimo se podalje odavde”. Smatra se tabuom ako crkveni dužnosnici ne žele raspravljati o tome. Poput obitelji s djetetom koje pokazuje simptome zlouporabe supstanci, nemojmo o tome govoriti jer je to previše neugodno za ostatak obitelji.
Ako je osoba bila žrtva i dovoljno je hrabra da istupi i prijavi svećenika, možda svećeniku treba pomoć. On nije u redu. On predstavlja crkvu, a to će naštetiti crkvi. Ako ga ne prijavimo, njegovo grabežljivo ponašanje se nastavlja. Obično nemaju samo jednu žrtvu. Oni nastavljaju loviti druge. Znam da sam učinio pravu stvar, ali bio sam kažnjen. Ako me moj crkveni pastor isključi iz svih službi, što je odobreno ostalima, govoreći da sam donio skandal i da me neće prihvatiti natrag? Tada će se i ostatak crkvene zajednice izopćiti. Neka crkva bude voljna otvoriti se i razgovarati o tome; Tada bi ljudi mogli vidjeti stvari u drugom svjetlu.
Dr. Nedelescu: Da, Dorothy, toliko si toga pokrila. Kad sam rekao da mu se maksimalno odupremo, svjestan sam da neki koji su žrtve to ne mogu učiniti. Zagovornici su važni u pomaganju žrtvama da vrate svoj glas i podržavaju ih kako bi se mogle oduprijeti ponašanju DARVO-a za koje ih krive kongregacija i crkvena uprava. Velika je pogreška misliti da se seksualno zlostavljanje svećenstva može rješavati unutar crkve, interno. Ne može se riješiti na pravedan način interno. Potrebno je doći vanjsko društvo obučenih pojedinaca.
Također, seksualno zlostavljanje svećenstva je seksualni zločin i njime bi se trebale baviti policija, okružni tužitelji, FBI i građanske tužbe. Govorimo o zločinu! U najmanju ruku treba napraviti policijsko izvješće. Ovisno o težini zločina i lokalnim gradskim resursima, lokalne vlasti će na odgovarajući način postupiti s hitnošću takvog slučaja. Međutim, također je važno znati da težina zločina prema zakonu nije uvijek izravno proporcionalna težini psihološke traumatizacije, ranjivosti na PTSP itd. Šteta koju seksualno zlostavljanje koje je počinilo svećenstvo nanosi žrtvama i kolateralnim žrtvama uistinu je duboka. Kad bi ljudi znali ovu činjenicu, shvatili bi je ozbiljnije umjesto da umanjuju i štite zlostavljačko svećenstvo. Postoje istraživanja koja pokazuju da je čak i svećeničko emocionalno zlostavljanje bez fizičkog dodira dovelo do toga da žrtve svećeničkog zlostavljanja potpuno izgube samopoimanje i osjećaju se bezvrijedno. To je potpuni napad na nečiji identitet i ljudskost – onaj dio sebstva koji nadilazi sebe i povezuje se s Bogom.
Small: Ono što je govorio bilo je o načinu razmišljanja, kako natjerati župljane da shvate da je žrtva uistinu žrtva, a ne negativac. Problem moramo riješiti vanjskim pritiskom jer se oni neće nositi s njim interno. Katolička crkva trebala je vanjski pritisak. Kako možemo potaknuti župljane da razumiju žrtvu zlostavljanja? Nisu se ljutili na Boga izvještavanjem. Pravedna ljutnja je prikladna kada ste bili žrtva. Neki su ljuti na Boga, ali to nije ono što pokreće prijavljivanje zlostavljanja. Uvođenje informacija izvan crkve izazov je za većinu njezinih članova. Kombinacija vanjskog pritiska s unutarnjim obrazovanjem je ključna. Crkveni dužnosnici moraju biti voljni prihvatiti ovo znanje i biti otvoreni za raspravu. To može stvoriti okruženje u kojem su svi svjesni kako se najbolje zaštititi kada se probude u ponašanju predatora u crkvi.
I vanjski pritisak i obrazovanje iznutra mogu dovesti do misli: “Spremni smo prihvatiti da se to događa u našim crkvama. A budući da jest, bit ćemo otvoreni i ostaviti ga otvorenim za raspravu. Imat ćemo letke izložene na unutarnjem dostupnom mjestu kako biste znali što tražiti. Svi smo u ovome zajedno. Očuvajmo jedni druge zdravima, ali znajući da će se ponekad nešto dogoditi.” Ne smijemo imati zatvorene oči i umove. Ako crkveni službenici prihvate znanje koje dolazi u crkvu, to može pomoći služiti i zaštititi sve koji pohađaju crkvu i samu crkvu. Usporedite još jednom s obiteljskim sustavom. Ako maloljetnik u oporavku pokuša kući donijeti informacije iz programa od 12 koraka, a obitelji je previše neugodno da razgovara o toj temi, šanse za uspjeh se smanjuju. Sram je u korijenu teme zlostavljanja u obje situacije. Samozlostavljanje od ovisnosti i seksualno zlostavljanje od strane svećenika ukorijenjeno je u dubokom sramu.
Unutarnja svijest potpomognuta vanjskim pritiskom djeluje sinergijski. Zato kažem da unesete informacije u crkvu kako bi ljudi koji su možda propustili znakove mogli biti svjesni. Međutim, početni pritisak doći će izvana kada dođe do nepovoljne situacije.
Držim glavu gore…
Dr. Nedelescu: Mislim da svi, uključujući Scotta i Dorothy, funkcioniraju tako. Dorothy je unutarnja osoba unutar Katoličke crkve i primjenjuje vanjski pritisak radeći na zakonodavnom procesu, na primjer. I ja funkcioniram na taj način. Oboje smo insajderi, ali i autsajderi u vjerskoj zajednici jedni drugih dok nastavljamo naš katoličko-pravoslavni rad zajedno u društvu i na državnoj zakonodavnoj razini.
Postoji prednost biti insajder, a ne autsajder, jer tada će ljudi koji sumnjaju ili imaju takav način razmišljanja da je to krivnja žrtve vjerojatnije da će poslušati insajdera da takvi slučajevi u kojima svećenstvo zloupotrebljava svoj autoritet i Službu svetog svećeništva odgovornost leži na svećenstvu, a ne na osobi kojom je svećenstvo manipuliralo, lagao, prisiljavao, zlostavljao i iskorištavao. Žrtve jednostavno pokreće povjerenje dok ne shvate da je interakcija zlostavljanje.
Small: Hermina, u pravu si jer sam napustio svoju vjersku praksu na oko četiri i pol godine. Tek sam nedavno osjetio da se mogu pomiriti i ponovno ući u Crkvu usredotočujući se na Euharistiju i pomireći da uz dobro postoji i zlo. Svjestan sam problema iz osobnog iskustva koji su me natjerali da se obrazujem kako bih se iscijelio i služio kao zagovornik drugima ranjenih u crkvi. Vratio sam se kao zagovornik SNAP-a koji je pomogao u mom procesu ozdravljenja i pružio uslugu drugima. Vrlo sam otvoren o onome što mi se dogodilo. Nisam se vratio u svoju bivšu crkvu jer sam osjećao da bi me to dovelo u emocionalno nesigurnu situaciju. Napokon sam uspio odabrati drugu crkvu. Donedavno nisam mogao pohađati ni jednu vjersku instituciju, a kamoli drugu katoličku crkvu. Morao sam izgubiti svoju bivšu crkvenu zajednicu koja je služila i kao sustav socijalne podrške i kao zamjenska obitelj, kao i mjesto bogoslužja. Nakon dva mjeseca povratka, rekla sam glazbenom direktoru zašto sam otišla i kako se vraćam kao zagovornik kroz Mrežu preživjelih zlostavljanih od strane svećenika. To je moja služba i ponovno pjevam. Ne stidim se. Nedavno je pastor čak rekao: “Lijepo je što ste ovdje i pjevate.” Držim glavu gore jer nisam učinio ništa loše prijavljujući što se dogodilo. Vjerujem da ostanak u zagovaranju također služi kao mjera zaštite. Osjeća se osnažujuće.
Hermina, u pravu si jer mu daje puno veću težinu jer sam bio ozlijeđen, ostao sam podalje da se izliječim, a zatim se vratio. Apsolutno nisam protiv crkve. Nisam protiv svećenika. To pokazuje ozljedu jer sam morao otići. Morao sam se držati podalje od svoje bivše zajednice što je stvorilo mnogo gubitka i tuge. Ali sada, s dovoljno oporavka potpomognutog pastoralnom skrbi, konačno sam se osjećao spremnim vratiti se u drugu Katoličku crkvu. Tugovala sam zbog ogromnih gubitaka i sada sam u stanju prihvatiti novo okruženje. Za mene je to bilo teško zbog katastrofalnog gubitka cijele moje nuklearne obitelji u ranom djetinjstvu. Nikada mi nije bilo pomognuto niti mi je dopušteno da tugujem. Rana iz crkve rastrgala se ravno u onu. Nikada nije obrađen.
Ugodno mi je vratiti se i kao zagovornik zlostavljanih i kao član župe. Moj pastoralni voditelj, koji je župnik tradicionalne latinske mise koji me slušao posljednje četiri i pol godine, čuo je dosta. Također je naučio mnogo o utjecaju svećeničkog zlostavljanja na odraslu osobu. Fokus je bio na maloljetnicima koji su bili zlostavljani, što je s pravom. Međutim, zlostavljanje odraslih i njegov utjecaj nisu tako dobro shvaćeni. Učinio sam da ga educiram koliko je on slušao kako izražavam svoju bol. To mu je još više otvorilo oči. Međutim, oni su još uvijek svećenici. Dobri svećenici također su povrijeđeni lošima koji zlostavljaju. Poznato je da se sustav štiti od onoga što vjeruju da je ponašanje koje stvara skandal u crkvi. U njegovom prikrivanju proizlazi pravi skandal. Dakle, naša odgovornost postaje da se brinemo o sebi, da odbacimo sram i da ne brinemo o tome što drugi ljudi misle o nama dugoročno, na ovaj ili onaj način. Tu se sve svodi jer ih ne možemo sve natjerati da razumiju.
Jacobsen: Što je s kritikom brojeva koju bi netko mogao iznijeti? Ideja je da samo nekoliko žena i muškaraca istupa s tim tvrdnjama. Kako to misliš? Što mislite pod stavljanjem citata kao da su to oni? Postoji toliko mnogo slučajeva zlostavljanja, zar ne? A ove crkve, kako to možete reći kada vas je tako malo u javnosti?
Dr. Nedelescu: Tamo je Dorothy prije spomenula da većina zlostavljanja nije prijavljena. Ljudi se toliko srame da ne prijavljuju. Žrtvama se često prijeti ako progovore. Što god vidimo u javnoj domeni u smislu zlostavljanja svećenstva samo je manji broj slučajeva što ukazuje na mnogo veći problem.
Pravoslavna crkva je trenutno u krizi, a svećeničko zlostavljanje je epidemija koju treba razotkriti prije nego što se povrijedi više života, uključujući više samoubojstava, jer je stopa suicidalnosti za one koje svećenstvo zlostavlja veća nego u drugim situacijama ili drugim uvjetima zlostavljanja.
Moramo provesti rigorozno istraživanje za koje su obučeni znanstvenici i društveni znanstvenici. Crkvene uprave nisu opremljene za provođenje ozbiljnih rigoroznih istraživanja jer im nedostaje osoblje i obuka. Organizacije kao što su Ortodoksno teološko društvo Amerike ili slične organizacije s obučenim znanstvenicima daleko su opremljenije.
Small: Imam i drugi pogled na to. To se vraća na moj razgovor s odvjetnikom žrtava nakon što sam se sastao s biskupom. Datoteke su zapečaćene. Dakle, nije da odrasla osoba to možda nije prijavila. Čuva se u tajnosti. Kada to prijave biskupiji, ta informacija ostaje povjerljiva i odlazi u svećenikov dosje. Ali nakon što žrtva napuni 25 godina, ti su dosjei zapečaćeni. Jedini razlog zašto su otvorili dosjee do 25. godine u mojoj lokalnoj biskupiji je taj što su priznavali žrtve/preživjele koji su bili zlostavljani kao mladi odrasli i maloljetnici. Izjavljuju da su mladi odrasli do 25 godina. I oni biraju 25 jer je tada prefrontalni korteks navodno potpuno uključen i dostižete punu zrelost. Ali svi znamo da je to u savršenom svijetu. Mnogi ne dostignu potpuno sazrijevanje dugo nakon ili čak u kasnijim godinama zbog učinaka na mozak u razvoju od trajnih trauma u djetinjstvu, a često i utjecaja ovisnosti na mozak za koju je dobro poznato da je povezana s preživjelima traume.
Prije mnogo godina, prije nego što sam podnio tužbu, susreo sam se sa svećenikom zbog duboke duhovne i emocionalne patnje. Bila je zaštićena ispovijednim pečatom. Svećenik je izbrbljao: “To je silovanje! Silovao te je!” Problijedio je. Priznao je da je radio u biskupiji kada sam prvi put prijavio uznemirujuće ponašanje župniku koji je to prijavio biskupiji. Ovaj svećenik je rekao da mu je on dopustio da se vrati nakon savjetovanja o granicama župljana. Predator je često narcisoidan i vješt u tome da bude vrlo uvjerljiv kroz vještu prijevaru. To je bio prvi put da sam čula riječ silovanje u onome što mi se dogodilo. Nisam htio koristiti R-riječ. Ne silovanje. Nije bilo nasilja. Doživljavao sam ono što je poznato kao efekt lane. Usklađenost nije pristanak. To je odgovor na preživljavanje traume. Osim toga, bio je svećenik i pokušao sam ga vidjeti kao svećenika blaženog izgleda koji slavi misu. Moj um nije mogao prihvatiti dva pojma o njemu. Svećenici ne siluju.
Donji mozak nadjačava viši racionalni mozak
Jacobsen: To je jeziva riječ. Može utišati sobu.
Small: Htio sam ga omekšati. Samo sam ga htio ublažiti. U početku je izvještavanje njima na početku bila najteža stvar kroz koju sam prošao. Najteža stvar je bila: “O moj Bože, upravo sam uvalio oca u nevolju. Što to radim?” Nisam mogao u potpunosti shvatiti da me je ozbiljno emocionalno, duhovno i fizički zlostavljao svećenik kojeg sam pokušavao vidjeti kao takvog dok sam odbacivao očite crvene zastave. Njegova taktika dotjerivanja bila je usmjerena na moje emocije, a ja sam bila pod njegovim utjecajem poput ovisnika o drogi koja izaziva ovisnost. Donji mozak nadjačava viši racionalni mozak kao i svaka ovisnost zbog istih moćnih kemikalija u mozgu. Bio je to ogroman emocionalni i duhovni teret za mene. Uzeo sam donju prečku na tome. Nije šteta koju mi je nanio. To je kao, što sam učinio? I neko vrijeme sam čak mislio da sam poput Jude ili Benedicta Arnolda koji su ga izdali. Sa mnom su se tako odnosili mnogi koji nisu razumjeli. O moj Bože, predao sam svećenika. I zato što je ova osoba blaženog izgleda slavila misu. Izgledao je tako nevino i sveto u svim namjerama i svrhama. Ali svakako sam vidio tamnog putnika ispod fasade. To je kao da gledate Netflixovu seriju Dexter, zar ne? Bio je serijski ubojica koji drži svoje mračne impulse pod kontrolom. Čini se da je normalan svojim prijateljima i mjestu zaposlenja kao analizator mjesta zločina, ako se dobro sjećam. Međutim, imao je ono što je nazvao svoje mračne impulse “mračni putnik”. Također sam se zapalio. Osjećao sam se zbunjeno i sumnjao sam u sebe. Drugi vas također omalovažavaju. Crkveni dužnosnici, iako ne svi, imaju plinsko svjetlo. Potrebno je vrijeme da se sve to razotkrije. Mnogi ne žele izvijestiti jer godinama nisu svjesni što se dogodilo. Misle da je to bila afera ili konsenzualno jer su odrasli, a za mnoge su emocije također uključene zbog procesa dotjerivanja.
Dr. Nedelescu: Mislim da je to i crkvena kultura. Jer kada razmišljam o akademskom okruženju profesora koji seksualno uznemiravaju i napadaju i siluju svoje pripravnike ili one na nižim pozicijama moći, što se događalo u raznim institucijama, to je drugačije. To je vrlo različito jer imamo drugačiju kulturu u akademskom okruženju nego u crkvi. Sramota pripada osobi na vlasti, a ne žrtvi. Postoji velika odgovornost koja se pripisuje osobi na vlasti. U pravoslavnoj crkvi vidim kako se okrivljuju oni koji su iskorištavani. Vidim vjernike kako staju na stranu nasilnog svećenika koji pokazuje prikriveno predatorsko ponašanje. Većina ljudi nije obučena da shvate da je njihov voljeni pastor koji se pretvara da je “ljubazan” u javnosti zlostavljač i da sram i odgovornost pripadaju njemu. Zloupotrijebio je ovlast koju mu je dala služba svetog svećeništva. Vrlo je malo njih priznalo da odgovornost leži na svećenstvu na vlasti. Općenito je mišljenje da je žrtva zavela svećenstvo, a stvarnost je potpuno suprotna. U kojem svemiru 12-godišnjak zavodi 40-godišnjeg svećenika sa sijedom kosom ili desetljećima mlađa žena zavodi mnogo starijeg neprivlačnog svećenika? Čak i u slučaju kada, recimo, istinski mentalno bolesna tinejdžerica ili žena pokuša “zavesti” takvog starijeg svećenika, on ima odgovornost da je ne proždire, već da pozove pomoć. Odgovornost leži na svećenstvu na vlasti. Moramo preokrenuti ovo izopačeno razmišljanje i biti stvarni i istiniti. Moć dolazi s odgovornošću.
Small: Mislim da se mnogi ljudi boje upotrijebiti riječ na R jer zamišljate da je svako silovanje nasilan čin poput onih prikazanih u filmovima. Opet, poštivanje ili podnošenje ne izražava sadržaj. To je odgovor na traumu kako bi se izbjegla daljnja eskalacija. Odgovor na traumu uključuje borbu, bijeg, smrzavanje ili lane. To je instinktivno. Dakle, možda nije bilo čina nasilja kao takvog, ali sigurno niste dali pristanak podnošenjem ili pokoravanjem. Niste željeli stvoriti goru situaciju u onoj u kojoj bi, da ste se borili, to moglo biti fizički opasna situacija.
Dr. Nedelescu: Zamrzavanje u slučajevima kada su žene seksualno zlostavljane dobro je dokumentirano kao odgovor kako bi se izbjeglo nasilno ozljeđivanje od strane počinitelja. To je odgovor na strah s nadom da će ostati živ prelaskom u način zamrzavanja.
Važno je znati da su gotovo svi slučajevi seksualnog napada i silovanja od strane svećenstva tiho nasilni zaogrnuti darom “ljubavi”, “nježnog” nasilja koje uključuje duboku obmanu. Obmana znači biti izmanipuliran da vjeruje u nešto što je zapravo lažno i neistinito. Kada postoji povjerenje kao što ljudi obično imaju u svoje svećenstvo, to povjerenje – prekrasan ljudski atribut – iskorištava zlostavljačko svećenstvo koje koristi povjerenje za iskorištavanje. Većina žrtava svećeničkog zlostavljanja izvještava da su se osjećale “sigurno” i da su vjerovale svećenstvu za koje se ispostavilo da su zlostavljači koji ih vrebaju
Mali: Da. Pa kad se osvrnem na svoju, pomislim: “Je li to moglo biti silovanje? Nisam se borio. Bio sam na autopilotu prepuštajući se njegovoj moći i položaju svećenika koji je trebao brinuti o meni i štititi me od zla. Uvijek sam glasno govorio da ne želim da se dogodi nešto neprikladno. Nikada ne bih pristao na to. Nikada to ne bih učinio. Bio sam ljubazan, ali sam također poštovao njegov stav pod pretpostavkom da će ga poštovati. Spustio sam gard taman dovoljno dugo. I tako, nakon što se to dogodilo, odgurnuo sam ga godinu dana dok ga više nisam mogao odgurnuti. Nastavio sam se aktivirati. Pomislio sam: “Što dovraga? Zašto se to događa?” Pokušao sam to učiniti u redu, ali nije bilo ništa u redu. I otišao sam, pa, jer nije bilo nasilno, možda bih to mogao ispričati? “Je li te držao protiv tvoje volje? Gdje su ogrebotine?” Šteta nije bila vidljiva osim kroz moje simptome. Izvana se psihijatrijska trauma ne može vidjeti osim kroz simptome povezane sa složenim PTSP-om ili PTSP-om. To izlazi na vidjelo u ponašanju.
Jacobsen: Ovo je holivudski prikaz nasilja i seksualnog napada.
Small: Najbolji primjer ovog problema je incident koji uključuje Stormy Daniels i Trumpa. Kao svjedok na njegovom nedavnom sudskom suđenju, spomenula je da je to smatrala “dobrovoljnim” jer nije rekla ne i nije bilo nasilja. Međutim, njezin opis događaja nije u skladu s “sporazumnom” interakcijom. Unatoč njezinoj tvrdnji da je, kao odrasla osoba, odsutnost nasilja jednaka pristanku, oni koji su upoznati s nepristankom i seksualnim zlostavljanjem prepoznaju je kao tipičnu žrtvu seksualnog zlostavljanja. Međutim, suđenje se nije odnosilo na seksualno zlostavljanje.
Jacobsen: Ljudi se mogu naći u situacijama pod izgovorom u kojima su povrijeđeni ili čak ubijeni. Kontekst se može činiti benignim, ali sam čin ostaje nasilan. Ova razlika mora biti jasna. Vaša stručnost u znanosti o mozgu bila bi dragocjena u ovoj raspravi. Upoznat sam s radom profesorice Elizabeth Loftus o lažnim sjećanjima na UC Irvine. To bi moglo poslužiti kao više utemeljeno na dokazima ili akademski sofisticirano opovrgavanje optužbi za zlostavljanje, sugerirajući zabrinutost zbog lažnih sjećanja. Neke priče o zlostavljanju pojavljuju se 20 ili 30 godina kasnije, povećavajući mogućnost da bi te tvrdnje mogle biti pogrešno konstruirane ili potpuno izmišljena sjećanja. Postoji li rizik da pojedinci koji istupe nakon tako dugog razdoblja mogu prepričavati lažna sjećanja?
Dr. Nedelescu: Moram reći, ne, ne postoji rizik od izmišljanja tako razrađenih sjećanja na seksualno zlostavljanje sa svom traumatizacijom i ranjivošću na PTSP koja slijedi. Postoji mogućnost zaboravljanja detalja i ljudi koji se sjećaju tih detalja kasnije, ponekad i mnogo kasnije, kada trauma popusti, ali ideja o izmišljenom cjelokupnom sjećanju na seksualno zlostavljanje je nemoguća bez da je uhvate stručnjaci. Glavni razlog je taj što prije nego što postoji pamćenje, postoji učenje koje se mora dogoditi. Ti događaji mogu biti kratkotrajni ili naučeni tijekom vremena, kao što je tijekom faze “dotjerivanja”, kada zlostavljač ruši prirodne barijere upozorenja žrtve. Iskustva učenja postaju instancirana u fizičkoj strukturi mozga, vjerojatno u sinapsama, pretvarajući se u kratkoročno pamćenje, a zatim, ako je dovoljno važno/traumatično, postaje dugoročno pamćenje.
Godine 2009. objavio sam rad koji pokazuje što se događa tijekom učenja straha na neurobiološkoj razini. Svećenici koji zlostavljaju djeluju tako da izazivaju strah kod svojih podanika koje iskorištavaju. To čine malim kaznama koje eskaliraju s vremenom i povremenom nagradom. Obično radi ovako. Nakon faze pažnje, zlostavljač počinje s malim kaznama i povremenim nagradama kako bi razbio žrtvinu prirodnu obranu. Ispod svega toga, to je učenje straha. Žrtva uči bojati se zlostavljača čak i ako možda ne može imenovati emociju straha.
Translokacija receptora
U svakom slučaju, u ovom prvom autorskom radu, moji koautori i ja pokazali smo da se podjedinica AMPAR-a (receptor koji omogućuje Ca+2 da uđe u neuron) premješta iz dendritičnih osovina i glava kralježnice u sinapsu kako bi podržala novoformirano sjećanje na odgovor straha izazvan šokom. Dakle, stresni podražaj rezultirao je translokacijom ovih receptora u sinapse kako bi podržao novoformirano pamćenje straha, to je ono što je provela ta studija. Unutarnji neuronski mehanizmi mozga u vrijeme učenja doprinose kodiranju pamćenja. Mora postojati neka vrsta aktivacije ovih neurona da bi se stvorila memorija. Ova aktivacija se događa kroz osjetilne sustave (tj. naših pet osjetila) koji se aktiviraju podražajima iz okoline ili nekom umjetnom stimulacijom dubokog mozga kako bi se aktivirali oni neuroni koji podržavaju određeni proces učenja i pamćenja, kao u slučaju znanstvenog rada mog kolege i mentora Marka Mayforda (Science Vol 335: 23, 2012). Memorija je fleksibilna u pogledu detalja koje može zapamtiti. Ljudsko pamćenje nije sjajno, ali reći da su žrtve sposobne izmisliti cijeli događaj zlostavljanja kao dio lažnog sjećanja pokazuje nedostatak razumijevanja kako mozak i ponašanje funkcioniraju.
U mnogim slučajevima zlostavljanja, gdje ljudi ne istupaju dugi niz godina, to nije toliko zbog njihovog “pamćenja”, već zbog njihove nesposobnosti da procesuiraju ono što im se dogodilo. Zlostavljanje svećenstva iznimno je bolno s ozbiljnom traumatizacijom koja nadilazi one veterana (vidi rad Davida Poolera). Suočavanje s istinom u tim je slučajevima vrlo izazovno. Dakle, stvar ima veze s hrabrošću više nego s pamćenjem. Jednom kada se taj strah imenuje, žrtva se može početi prebacivati na preživljavanje.
Sugerirate li da bi neki mogli reći da bi netko mogao usaditi lažno sjećanje, a ta osoba se onda javi 50 godina kasnije?
Jacobsen: Da, kao oblik akademskog otpora onima koji iznose tvrdnje o zlostavljanju.
Dr. Nedelescu: Mislim da su takvi slučajevi nemogući. Nisam svjestan bilo kakvih stvarnih slučajeva. Iako bi moglo biti moguće usaditi manja lažna sjećanja djeci, traumatični događaj poput seksualnog zlostavljanja daleko je složeniji. Na primjer, sugeriranje da je netko nosio crvenu haljinu umjesto narančaste haljine na zabavi 1980. može biti lažno sjećanje, ali lažna trauma i lažno seksualno zlostavljanje ne mogu se lako usaditi u nečije sjećanje. Kako bi se to uopće moglo učiniti? Postojao je slučaj u pravoslavnoj crkvi, vjerujem u antiohijskoj jurisdikciji, gdje je svećenik zlostavljao odraslu ženu. Tvrdio je da su njihova nasilna savjetovanja, gdje ju je ugrizao po cijelom tijelu i silovao, trebala pomoći da joj pomogne da se izliječi od zlostavljanja iz djetinjstva koje je potisnuto od strane oca (što se nikada nije dogodilo). Ovo je primjer u kojem je svećenik zlostavljač pokušao “usaditi” lažno sjećanje na zlostavljanje u djetinjstvu kako bi opravdao svoje postupke zlostavljanja. Ovo je najbliži primjer iz stvarnog života koji mogu zamisliti gdje je netko (u ovom slučaju svećenstvo) pokušao usaditi lažno sjećanje. Taj je svećenik imao ovu žrtvu pod svojim rukama tri godine.
Jacobsen: Ova situacija podsjeća na sotonističku ritualnu paniku u 90-ima, gdje su dobronamjerni, ali pogrešni napori terapeuta i drugih stručnjaka usađivali neka lažna sjećanja. Ti su profesionalci tijekom svog rada napravili značajne pogreške. To se razlikuje od neobučenih pojedinaca, kao što su vođe zajednice, koji pogrešno pamte događaje. Ova nijansa je bitna kada se odgovara na argumente pojedinaca koji istupaju s takvim tvrdnjama.
Dr. Nedelescu: Zlostavljanje svećenstva je duboko i moramo se pomaknuti dalje od psihologije sjećanja. Ovo se ni na koji način ne smije koristiti kao obrana. Ključno je to razjasniti. Dok bi neki pojedinci mogli pokušati iskoristiti ovu obranu kako bi smanjili kaznu, kao što se vidi u drugim sudskim slučajevima u kojima zlostavljači krive svoju psihopatologiju, neuroznanstvenici se moraju pozabaviti tim nijansama i osigurati da se naše znanje ne zloupotrebljava protiv žrtava.
Mali: Statistike pokazuju da je 21% ispitanih pacijenata doživjelo lažna sjećanja, a u 12% tih slučajeva barem je jedan klijent kasnije prepoznao svoje pamćenje kao lažno. Nadalje, 15% ispitanika primijetilo je da je barem jedan pacijent podnio građansku ili kaznenu prijavu na temelju tih lažnih sjećanja. Međutim, koliko često se pojavljuju lažne optužbe za zlostavljanje djece?
Dr. Nedelescu: Dijelovi naših prošlih sjećanja mogu se pamtiti na neujednačen ili “krivotvoren” način. Na primjer, kunem se da sam imala bijelu haljinu u dobi od tri godine, ali ispostavilo se da je bila žuta prema fotografskim dokazima. Naša sjećanja nisu poput računala na kojem nešto zapišete, zatvorite i ako otvorite 10 godina kasnije, ostaje identično onome kako ste to napisali prije 10 godina. Zaboravljamo stvari i nadopunjujemo svojim prošlim iskustvima. Memorija je poput lego tornja od različitih dijelova koje sastavljamo i ponekad se prave male pogreške. Biti silovan od strane svećenstva nije nešto što se može umjetno usaditi u mozak.
Važno je da trauma koja se doživljava od seksualnog zlostavljanja svećenstva navodi žrtve da ispričaju svoje priče na vrlo neujednačen nekronološki način. Međutim, što više vremena prođe od zlostavljanja i što je priča više ispričana, žrtva je u stanju bolje pronaći smisao i sastaviti dijelove na kohezivniji način.
Kao što sam već spomenuo, seksualno zlostavljanje svećenstva je predatorsko ponašanje jer je svećenstvo položaj ogromne moći nad svojim vjernicima, a kada zlostavljaju svoje župljane, ta razlika u moći čini zlostavljanje grabežljivim. Ja sam znanstvenik, radim i čitam eksperimente. Postoji rad Barbano et al., 2024 u Nature Communications koji pokazuje da se ekscitatorni neuroni u VTA (ventralno tegmentalno područje) aktiviraju prisustvom grabežljivca. To su studije na životinjama, ali ono što pokušavam pokazati ovim primjerom je da je neurobiologija mozga promijenjena u prisutnosti traumatizirajućeg grabežljivca koji navodi životinje i ljude da reagiraju na reakciju pacijenata s traumom. A što je to bihevioralni odgovor? Za neke je to reakcija straha, za druge je to bezbroj drugih reakcija na traumu koje tek treba temeljito proučiti.
Ljudi različito nose traumu. Pojedinci su svi toliko različiti i način na koji se seksualno zlostavljanje i iskorištavanje svećenstva instancira u mozgu i daje mu smisao uvelike se razlikuje od pojedinca do pojedinca. Jedno je sigurno, međutim, sve žrtve koje svećenstvo iskorištava doživljavaju traumu, neke s ranjivošću na PTSP, sklonostima samoliječenju i/ili suicidalnošću da spomenemo samo neke.
Jacobsen: Lažne optužbe se događaju, ali iznimno rijetko.
Small: Da, imaju. Međutim, u slučajevima zlostavljanja djece, Katolička crkva, na primjer, uključuje obučene kliničare i forenzičke psihijatre da izvrše ove procjene. Ovi stručnjaci prolaze intenzivnu obuku. Lažno prijavljivanje ili lažno pamćenje rjeđe je kod odraslih. Odrasli mogu blokirati određena sjećanja i, kao što je Hermina spomenula, mogu se usredotočiti na jedan aspekt traume, što dovodi do promijenjene percepcije okolnih detalja. Na primjer, nisam se mogao sjetiti određenih stvari jer sam bio usredotočen na određeni element.
Relevantan primjer su optužbe Christine Blasey Ford protiv kandidatkinje za Vrhovni sud, koja je izvijestila da ju je seksualno napao u srednjoj školi. Unatoč godinama koje su prošle, njezino je svjedočenje javno ispitano. Sjećate li se Christine Blasey Ford i nominirane? Sada je na Vrhovnom sudu.
Jacobsen: Clarence Thomas?
Small: Ne, ne on. To je bila Anita Hill. Ovaj je bio noviji. Počinje s “K”.
Jacobsen: Kavanaugh, da.
Periferni detalji mogu biti nedosljedni, ali središnja tvrdnja o kršenju stoji
Small: Da, bila je to značajna priča u američkim vijestima. Christine Blasey Ford bila je nevjerojatno vjerodostojna. Pridržavala se određenih detalja, ali kritičari su tvrdili da njezin izvještaj nije stvaran zbog praznina u nekim okolnim elementima. Tvrdili su da je lažna jer nije točno shvatila svaki detalj.
Jacobsen: To se odnosi na našu raniju raspravu o procesu davanja iskaza i zašto. “Zašto? Zašto?”
Small: Pa, to se više odnosi na ono o čemu je Nina govorila o lažnim izvješćima. Kada ispitivanje uključuje promjenu priča ili manja odstupanja u sjećanju – poput toga je li haljina bila narančasta ili crvena – ostaje temeljna tvrdnja: “Bila sam seksualno zlostavljana.” Periferni detalji mogu biti nedosljedni, ali središnja tvrdnja o kršenju stoji. U mom iskazu, fiksirali su se na te manje detalje, pitajući me što obukam, u koje vrijeme i što radim.
Dr. Nedelescu: Taj pristup je apsurdan i pokazuje nedostatak obrazovanja. To uključuje svećenika na poziciji moći. Dopustite mi da brzo dodam da stručnjaci iz Diane Langberg’s Associates, koji imaju desetljeća iskustva sa zlostavljanjem svećenika, daju jasan primjer: Ako žena uđe u svećenički ured i skine se, svećenik bi trebao podići ruke u zrak, napustiti sobu i pozvati pomoć. Svećenik je ne smije proždrijeti. Ne radi se o tome što je nosila; radi se o odgovornosti svećenika koji je na poziciji autoriteta i moći. Ovo je ekstreman primjer samo da istaknemo poantu.
Također vidim neobrazovane fraze poput “imala je aferu sa svećenikom”. “Afera” se odvija između dvije osobe jednake moći. Kada je razlika snage nejednaka, pristanak se rastvara. “Afera” sa svećenstvom nije moguća. To se zove zlostavljanje i može biti emocionalno zlostavljanje i/ili fizički seksualni napad, a silovanje je najteže. Govorimo o seksualnim zločinima, a ne o “aferama”.
Small: Svjestan sam Diane Langberg i pogledao sam neke od njezinih izvrsnih video prezentacija na tu temu. Ona je poznata psihologinja specijalizirana za svećenstvo i vjersko zlostavljanje. Najveća odgovornost leži na obučenim stručnjacima koji su u neravnoteži moći zbog profesionalnih smjernica. Radeći kao medicinska sestra s više od 40 godina kliničkog iskustva, često smo prolazili obuku o održavanju profesionalnih granica i granica pacijenata. Svi pacijenti, bez obzira na dob, trebaju zaštitu jer su pod našom skrbi, a mi imamo veću moć. Ovo bi se načelo trebalo primijeniti i na crkvu. Svećenici, poput terapeuta ili liječnika, obavljaju vještu dužnost i obučeni su da štite svoju zajednicu. Ako se žena skine pred svećenikom, to signalizira da joj je potrebna pomoć, a ne iskorištavanje. Također su obučeni za održavanje profesionalnih granica.
Mali: Svećenik bi trebao djelovati kako bi je zaštitio, a ne iskoristio. Vi ih štitite. I što je Hermina rekla, imate golu ženu koja stoji tamo; Što ti radiš? Proždirete li je ili podižete ruke i bježite kao pakao? Ako vam to radi, to je crvena zastava da nije u redu. Ne iskorištavate je. Ona nije “zavodnica”. Nije joj dobro. To je još veći razlog za zaštitu. Dakle, to nije izgovor, ali oni to pokušavaju. U mom slučaju, bilo je zanimljivo da su ga pitali: “Zašto ste ga morali zamoliti da ode na vožnju biciklom taj dan?” Kakve to veze ima sa seksualnim napadom? Zamolio sam ga da ode na vožnju biciklom na slobodan dan u javnoj zajednici pa sam mislio da je sigurno. Ali onda je zatražio da koristi moj toalet, što mu je omogućilo pristup mojoj kući dovoljno dugo.
Odvjetnik obrane tijekom svjedočenja ponovno je upitao: “Zašto ste to morali učiniti? Zašto ne biste mogli pitati nekog drugog?” Pa, budući da je bio svećenik, mislio sam da sam siguran. Želio sam sigurnost i uživanje u tjelesnoj aktivnosti, što je od mene tražio u mnogim prilikama. Nisam znao nikoga koga bih mogao pitati tko bi mogao voziti na velike udaljenosti. Bilo je nevino. Pretpostavio sam da ne mogu biti sa sigurnijom osobom. Znam da nikada ne bih učinio ništa što bi povrijedilo svećenika; Nikada ne bih bila zavodnica prema nekome. Bio sam svjestan profesionalnih granica i poštovao sam njegov položaj svećenika. Nisam očekivao da će učiniti to što je učinio. Odvjetnik obrane me pitao zašto ga nisam udario nogom ili vrištao? Upitao sam: “Kako mogu udariti svećenika? Da je bio netko drugi, ne bih imao problema!”
Jacobsen: Zavjetovao se.
Mali: Ako me pacijent zaprosi? Dao sam standardni odgovor: “To nije dopušteno. Zahvaljujem vam na tome kako se osjećate. Poštujem i poštujem to, ali ne mogu se upustiti u takvo ponašanje s vama prema profesionalnim smjernicama i pravilima ponašanja na radnom mjestu.” Bio sam u poziciji moći nad pacijentom. To nije bio ravnopravan odnos između dvoje odraslih osoba. Svećenik se zavjetovao; oni su se zavjetovali Bogu. Nema višeg mjesta. Kada se vjenčamo, zavjetujemo se svojim zemaljskim partnerima, ali oni se zavjetuju Bogu. Oni bi nas trebali odvesti u raj, a ne u pakao. Ne bi nas trebali odvesti u pakao sa sobom. Ne bi nas trebali povući sa sobom ako se bore i imaju problema. Oni bi nam trebali pomoći da nas vode u nebo. Osjećao sam se ukaljano. Ovaj svećenik je to učinio sa mnom i predstavljao je Boga. Osjećao sam se kao da sam s njim nehotice prevario Boga. Preuzeo sam svećenikovu krivnju. Osjećao sam se prljavo. Jeftino umjesto zaštićeno i vrijedno. Objektivizirano. Osjećala sam se kao ljubavnica kad nisam bila voljna sudionica. To se ne bi dogodilo da je održao svoj zavjet i profesionalne granice.
Dr. Nedelescu: Jedna stvar koju ljudi u crkvama trebaju podučavati je odvajanje zalutalog svećenstva od Službe svetog svećeništva, koja odražava Boga. Ima li to smisla?
Small: Da, razumijem da se pravoslavni svećenici mogu vjenčati, ali ne i biskupi. Oženjeni svećenici još uvijek služe Bogu na svom položaju u službi. Dvostruka je izdaja ako su u braku i djeluju izvan te granice u aferi. Ali napad nije stvar. To je zločin. Oni su odgovorni na najvišem položaju jer su još uvijek svećenici, a ne samo oženjeni muškarci.
Dr. Nedelescu: To je kršenje i svećeničkog zavjeta i bračnog zavjeta.
Mali: Katolički svećenici su se također mogli vjenčati. Prije 1100-ih, za vrijeme kralja Konstantina, biskupi i svećenici su se vjenčavali. Ali tada bi sinovi dobili nasljedstvo, a crkva je željela imovinu, pa je nametnut obvezni celibat S celibatom dolazi čistoća; u Katoličkoj crkvi svećenici kažu da su u celibatu, što znači da nisu u braku, ali bi također trebali biti čedni, suzdržavajući se od bilo kakve seksualne aktivnosti. Richard Sipe rekao je da najmanje 50% njih nije čedano. Upuštaju se u seks izvan braka kada su u braku s Bogom, izdajući taj odnos.
Jacobsen: Što je s izravnim, osnovnim ljudskim motivacijama da se izbjegne upadanje u nevolje?
Mali: Dio stanja Hipokratove zakletve ne uzrokuje štetu. Deset zapovijedi osuđuju preljub i ubojstvo. Moguće je ubiti dušu. Znam da kao ljudi ne uspijevamo. Ne govorimo o propustu u svetom zavjetu. Katolička crkva to minimizira govoreći da je to bio “neprikladan odnos” ili “propust u prosudbi”. Oni žele iskoristiti grijeh, a mi smo ljudi i ne uspijevamo u cilju. Još uvijek postoji odgovornost za naše loše izbore.
Jacobsen: Crkva se tada proglašava “whoopsie” organizacijom.
Small: Ali neka liječnik seksualizira pacijenta, on će izgubiti liječničku licencu i odslužiti zatvorsku kaznu. Nitko ne želi kardiokirurga s reputacijom “whoopsie”. Crkva je poput kluba za dječake; pokrivaju jedno drugo. Pitanje razotkrivanja razmjera zlostavljanja odraslih je složeno jer tako dugo odrasli nisu mislili da je to zlostavljanje. Uostalom, mi smo odrasli. Opet, podnošenje nije pristanak.
Jacobsen: Ako je netko depresivan i pijan, nije pri zdravoj pameti.
Oko 25 % vjernika odlazi svom pastoru/svećenstvu kako bi se pozabavili svojim osobnim problemima
Mali: Nisu samo pijani ili depresivni ljudi ti koji su iskorištavani i napadnuti. Svatko može biti ranjiv na grabežljivca koji je ujedno i prevarant. Protuzakonito je ako to radi liječnik ili terapeut. Sa svećenstvom je još gore jer utječe na vaš odnos s Bogom. To vas dovodi točno u srž vašeg bića gdje slika Božja prebiva u nama. Kada vas svećenik zlostavlja, to je drugačije od vašeg terapeuta ili liječnika. To se ne petlja s Bogom. U svakom slučaju, to nije u redu i oni bi trebali biti u potpunosti odgovorni po zakonu. S tekstom zakona o savjetodavnim odnosima, nisam tražio savjetovanje u svojoj situaciji. Bio je to jednostavno odnos pristupačnosti. Svećenik me slijedio izvan savjetovanja jednostavno zato što sam bio župljanin koji je također bio u službi. Imao je pristup. Tijekom procesa dotjerivanja stvorio je emocionalnu vezu. Svaki razgovor osim čavrljanja s njima može predstavljati savjetovanje jer u većini slučajeva razgovaramo s njima izvan stvarnog ureda.
Dr. Nedelescu: Ja sam instruktor za Stepping Higher Inc., vjersku skupinu stručnjaka koju financira Služba za bihevioralno zdravlje okruga San Diego. Pokušavamo educirati ljude da ako imaju problema, ne bi trebali ići svom pastoru ili vjerskom vođi vjere na terapiju osim ako nisu obučeni. Oko 25 % vjernika odlazi svom pastoru/svećenstvu kako bi se pozabavili svojim osobnim problemima, a ta osoba vjere obično nije licencirani terapeut. Ne bi trebali ići crkvenom vođi na terapiju i savjetovanje osim ako taj crkveni vođa nema dozvolu za pružanje terapije u njihovoj državi. Ali za neke vjernike postoji takva stigma protiv odlaska psihologu da odlaze svom svećeniku sa svojim problemima. Sada, ako taj svećenik ima predatorsko ponašanje, možete zamisliti što će se dogoditi.
Često ljudi vjere odlaze svom svećeniku na savjetovanje jer se s terapeutom sastajete u njihovoj ordinaciji, ali svećenik može doći k vama, u vaš dom. Granice su puno propusnije, što može povećati rizik od zlostavljanja. Kada nemaju dozvolu za pružanje savjetovanja, mnoge od tih takozvanih terapijskih sesija vrlo su neformalne, ali igraju savjetodavnu ulogu. To mora prestati. U nekim državama potrebna vam je licenca ako pružate savjetovanje. Ali u Kaliforniji to možete učiniti pod vjerskom organizacijom bez problema. Ne trebate dozvolu za pružanje takozvane pastoralne skrbi koja se miješa s terapijom, osim što to nije licencirana terapija. To je pop psihologija.
U drugim slučajevima, svećenstvo će ciljati potencijalnu žrtvu i navesti je da vjeruje da će zajedno raditi na nekom pitanju koje uopće ne postoji ili za koje svećenstvo identificira da mu je potrebna “pastoralna skrb”. Ono što to čini je da omogućuje svećenstvu pristup ciljanoj žrtvi kako bi razgovarali o ovom “problemu” pod pretpostavkom “zajedničkog rada”. “Problem” je često nejasan ili kao u gornjem antiohijskom slučaju, problem je potpuno izmišljen.
Small: Pogodite što to radi? Budući da nemaju licencu, ne možete ići za njihovom licencom. Postoji razdvajanje crkve i države. U mom slučaju, pitali su me: “Je li vam dao savjetovanje?” Rekao sam: “Pa, nakon što sam ga prvotno prijavio i nakon što je bio suspendiran oko tjedan dana i savjetovao se o granicama župljana i svećenstva te je vraćen, počeli smo se sastajati tjedno u sobi za savjetovanje.” Mislila sam da ako stvarno zna za moje traumatično djetinjstvo i njegove posljedice u mom odraslom životu s više nasilnih odnosa, da će razumjeti i to će nas oboje zaštititi otkako su ga vratili u crkvu. To me iznenadilo s obzirom na ono što sam napisao i predao župniku da ga da biskupiji, kao što je rekao da su tražili od mene kad sam ga prvi put prijavio. Pažljivo je slušao, ali samo je dobivao više informacija koje je mogao iskoristiti za daljnje dotjerivanje. Tijekom tih sesija s vremena na vrijeme iznio bi krajnje neprikladan komentar. Bilo je šokantno. Ali tada, kao da se to nije dogodilo, nastavio je svoju činovničku ulogu. Mislio sam da mu dajem informacije kako bih mu pomogao da shvati da se ne petlja sa mnom, ali on je samo otišao dalje. Pitat će koliki je postotak onoga o čemu ste govorili sekularno u odnosu na nesekularno. Zbog razdvajanja crkve i države, zaštićeni su ako vam daju savjetovanje na temelju vjerskih tema. To se nije događalo u mojoj situaciji. Nisam ga tražio zbog toga. Sve obrađujem kroz svoj odnos s Bogom, čak i na terapiji. To je ono što jesam. Međutim, svećenik to može bolje razumjeti ako terapeut nije katolik.
Možda neki odrasli strogo raspravljaju o vjerskim pitanjima. Mnogi donose osobne probleme za raspravu, čak i ako su na terapiji iz te perspektive. Sa svećenikom ćete razgovarati o svojim nereligioznim pitanjima, poput odnosa s mužem ili djecom. Često uključuje obiteljska pitanja.
Dr. Nedelescu: To je sjajna poanta, Dorothy. Neki od tih svećenika prakticiraju pop psihoterapiju bez dozvole pod krinkom “pastoralne skrbi”, ali sve je to kako bi dobili informacije o osobi koju planiraju iskoristiti. To je dotjerivanje. Važno je da su zaređeni i mogu biti smijenjeni baš kao kada liječnik koji zlostavlja svog pacijenta (pacijente) izgubi liječničku licencu. Isti standardi moraju se primijeniti na svećenstvo koje zlostavlja vjernike. Crkvene administracije, međutim, ne smatraju ovu malu, ali značajnu manjinu zlostavljača odgovornima. Dakle, moramo osigurati da ih država obuzda jer obično imaju mnogo žrtava i na kraju nanose štetu cijelim zajednicama. Postoje i kolateralne žrtve.
Jacobsen: Kada koristite izraz maskirani u svećenike, imaju li oni svećeničke kvalifikacije?
Dr. Nedelescu: Većina ima. Neću ulaziti u kvalitetu obrazovanja u sjemeništima. Postoje, međutim, neki ljudi koji oblače ogrtač i pretvaraju se da su svećenici. Neki postanu svećenici u jednom tjednu. Većina ipak prolazi kroz vjeronauk, ali i dalje igraju ulogu. Oni spajaju svoju ulogu svećenika koji pruža “pastoralnu skrb” sa svojim samopoimanjem. To se događa sa socijalnim radnicima, terapeutima, ali i s onima koji služe u crkvi. Na primjer, David Pooler kaže da “pastoralna” teorija identiteta uloga pomaže objasniti preopterećeno svećenstvo koje može imati osobne probleme i počinje posvećivati sve svoje vrijeme “služenju” drugima u svako doba dana jer ga to nagrađuje verbalnom i financijskom podrškom, što pojačava njegovo uvjerenje da bi se trebao potruditi da bude od pomoći. bez obzira na sve. Na kraju ga kronični stres sustigne i požuda ili drugi izlazi postaju njegov primarni način da se nosi s tim. Požuda je zlostavljanje.
Ovi zlostavljači svećenstva igraju ulogu iskrenosti i ljubaznosti, ali u stvarnosti su u crkvenom okruženju jer ih je lakše zlostavljati. Nema odgovornosti. Crkveno okruženje savršeno je za zlostavljače s predatorskim ponašanjem. U crkvi ima puno ljudi koji vjeruju. Znam za ekstremni slučaj u kojem je dijete silovao svećenik, a roditelji nisu vjerovali djetetu. Pod svaku cijenu vjerovali su ogrlici i svećeniku.
Mali: Neki se predstavljaju kao svećenici i tek trebaju ići u sjemenište. Ima i takvih. Oni samo oblače odjeću i kažu da su svećenici, poput muškaraca koji se predstavljaju kao policajci. Nedavno se dogodilo da čovjek nije bio svećenik, već se predstavljao kao svećenik. Bio je prevarant. Pogledajte ljude koji se pretvaraju da su liječnici. Kad kažem maskiranje, mislim na to da mogu biti potpuno obučeni i zaređeni, ali ako zlostavljaju, ne postupaju izvan svojih zavjeta i profesionalnih smjernica. Stoga oni uopće nisu pravi svećenici.
Dr. Nedelescu: Odlazak u sjemenište dio je njihovog identiteta. Obuka je također vrlo kratka, samo nekoliko godina. Vjerujem da tri godine bez dodatne obuke nakon obrazovanja ili stalnog razvoja kao u većini karijera. Dakle, to nije velika investicija ili veliki pothvat kao u slučajevima doktorskog rada gdje posvećujemo 5-7 godina svog života samo početnoj obuci, zatim još 5-7 kao postdoktorandi itd.
Neki tvrde da su dobili “poziv” od Boga da budu pozvani u svećeničku službu. Izmigoljim se na takvu izjavu. Duhovna formacija za službu zahtijeva vrijeme, to je proces, a ne neki “poziv s neba” i idemo na vjeronauk na 6 semestara.
Anna Salter, klinička psihologinja, intervjuirala je ljude koji su pokazivali predatorsko ponašanje i na kraju su osuđeni. Otkrila je da su uhvaćeni i osuđeni tek kada su “predatori” zlostavljali mnogo puta i imali mnogo žrtava. Predatori uspijevaju prevariti ljude igrajući ulogu desetljećima prije nego što budu uhvaćeni. Nakon što ih uhvate, kako je otkrila Anna Salter, na situaciju gledaju kao na privremeno “teško razdoblje” koje će proći sve dok ostanu mirni. U međuvremenu, traumatizacija žrtve (žrtava) je duboka. Postoji niz intervjua Anne Salter sa zlostavljačima s grabežljivim ponašanjem koji su vrlo korisni za čuti kako oni gledaju na situaciju i kako reagiraju kako bi nastavili zavaravati ljude.
Mali: Čak i jedan propust u zavjetu je značajan, ali grabežljivci obično imaju više od jedne žrtve. To je poput serijskog ubojice. Vrlo je neuobičajeno počiniti jednom i ne ponoviti. Svaki put je to poput ovisnosti koja stalno eskalira.
Jacobsen: Izvuku se s tim, tako da je to gotovo kao droga.
Mali: Dennis Rader, serijski ubojica BTK-a, bio je samo tip iz susjedstva, aktivan u crkvi s obitelji. Predatori imaju društvene pokriće. Pedofil koji vozi kamion sa sladoledom, klaun u cirkusu – ta zanimanja privlače narcisoidne, sociopatske, psihopatske predatore. Naravno, ne kažem da su svi devijantni! Oni traže pozicije moći i autoriteta tamo gdje imaju pristup opskrbi ranjivim ljudima. Kada idete u crkvu, tu ste da se otvorite Bogu, ispitivanje vaše savjesti je dio toga. Otvoreniji ste, odbacujete maske naših drugih obveza koje nas često definiraju.
Postoje dobri i loši policajci
Jacobsen: To nisu loše stvari. To su dobre stvari.
Mali: Nažalost, loši ljudi se skrivaju na dobrim mjestima. Sladoled je dobar. Ukusno je. To je mjesto za stjecanje povjerenja djece pružajući im nešto što je omiljena poslastica. Loši momci će se sakriti uklapajući se u društvo. Policija može imati isti problem. Postoje dobri i loši policajci koji se kriju iza uniforme i značke. Sada su javno odgovorni za ono što nekada nije bio slučaj. Dugo vremena policija se izvlačila s istom stvari. Pokušajte biti djevojka ili supruga policajca u razdoblju kada je obiteljsko nasilje bilo još teže prijaviti nego zato što žrtva ne želi uvaliti partnera u nevolju i zato što postoji duboka emocionalna veza. Ako biste ih htjeli često prijaviti drugim muškarcima u plavom, oni bi ih pokrili. Pokušajte da vam se vjeruje; Pokušajte biti partner policajcu u obiteljskom nasilju. Pokrivat će jedni druge jer policajci znaju kako policajci razmišljaju. Sada ih se smatra odgovornijima. Ako je netko uhićen i dogodilo se nešto gdje je policajac seksualno iskoristio? Tko bi se osjećao dovoljno sigurnim da kaže ne? Tko bi vjerovao tvojoj riječi više od njihove? Često je tako i sa svećenstvom. Napad se odvija izvan očiju javnosti.
Jacobsen: Dakle, tko će vjerovati da je to policajac?
Small: Tako je. Jer na sudu je policajac poznat kao vjerodostojan svjedok samo zbog svog poziva. Njegova se riječ uzima više od riječi druge osobe. Slično je svećeniku. To je pozicija autoriteta s puno povjerenja povezanog i nezasluženog. Dio je pomagačke profesije. Svećenik može reći: “Ne, nisam to učinio. Kunem se Bogom, nisam to učinio.” A tko će vam vjerovati? Netko bi se zapitao: “Otac koji predstavlja Boga je problem?” To je kao da pokušavate reći da je policajac problem. Jer u tim pozivima često pokrivaju jedno drugo. To je ono što se počinje raspadati. To je ono što se nagriza u Katoličkoj crkvi, ali to je trajalo godinama.
Dr. Nedelescu: To je trajalo desetljećima. Ranije ste rekli da katolici pokušavaju reći da su to slučajevi koji su se dogodili 70-ih i 80-ih. Ali istina je da sam upravo pročitao o trenutnom slučaju; Događaju se u sadašnjosti. Svećenik je zaređen 2020., a uhvaćen je u zlostavljanju 2022.
Htio sam dodati još jednu stvar kada smo govorili o grabežljivcima. Grenz i Bell (2001) kategorizirali su prijestupnike u tri vrste: grabežljivci, lutalice ili ljubavnici. Predatori nemaju moralnih ograničenja u korištenju svoje pozicije moći za manipulaciju i korištenje drugih ljudi. Grenz i Bell navode da je ovaj tip vođe “karizmatičan”, aktivno nastoji zlostavljati žene i često je serijski zlostavljač. Odmah će prijeći na svoju sljedeću ciljanu žrtvu. Lutalica ne traži aktivno žene kako bi ih zlostavljao, ali životna kriza dovodi ga do seksualizacije vlastitih potreba i seksualnog zlostavljanja žena. Konačno, vođa ljubavnika misli da je “zaljubljen” u vjernika, čak i ako je ta žena udana. Važno je napomenuti da svi ovi tipovi (grabežljivac, lutalica i ljubavnik) pokazuju predatorsko ponašanje i nema apsolutno nikakve razlike u smislu kako ovo zlostavljanje utječe na žrtve, njihove obitelji ili zajednicu. Motivacija je drugačija, ali ponašanje je grabežljivo i zlostavljanje utječe na one koji se iskorištavaju na isti način.
Jacobsen: Također demistificira zlostavljača dajući neku klasifikaciju utemeljenu na dokazima. Hollywood je napravio ove prikaze, ponekad točne, mnogo puta ne. Dakle, imamo ovu sliku razarajućeg luđaka koji zlostavlja. Ali postoje vrste, a možete ih klasificirati, što može pomoći. Dorothyna preporuka o stavljanju informativnih brošura u crkve i katedrale i njihovom unošenju može pomoći. Možete znati što tražiti, a ne imati generičku poruku “pomoć je dostupna”.
Mali: Točno, osvijestite znakove kako biste pogledali u crkve. Ako ga pustite u kuću, pokazujete otvorenost da budete dio rješenja umjesto da ga štitite. Ako potičete ljude da postanu svjesni i kažu: “Stalo nam je do vas. Ne možemo imati potpunu kontrolu. Pregledavamo najbolje što možemo, a još uvijek ih možemo promašiti.” Čak i FBI-jevi profileri mogu imati poteškoća u uočavanju sociopata. Dakle, imate sve te provjere. Priznajući da prolaze i govoreći: “To je ono što radimo kao crkva kako bismo pomogli u zaštiti javnosti i imena dobrih svećenika”, možemo raditi zajedno kao obitelj, a ne živjeti u poricanju zabijajući glavu pod pijesak. Educirajmo se i budimo informirani.
Nije dovoljno reći: Ne drogama!
Educirajući župljane o tim stvarima, pomažete im u svijetu. Djeca imaju pristup internetu, a muškarci se predstavljaju kao tinejdžeri i otimaju ih često u seksualne svrhe. Crkva je pozicionirana da pomogne ljudima da budu sigurni u zidinama institucije, gdje biste mogli pretpostaviti da postoji sigurnost, ali je nema. Pozivajući obrazovanje i znanje, ne postavljate svoje župljane da se ogluše ako se nešto dogodi. Podržavate to znanje i pozdravljate ga. Ne tjerate ih da šute kako biste izbjegli uznemiravanje vagona s jabukama. Pozovete ga: “Gledajte, mi želimo zaštititi našu crkvu, ljude i svećenstvo. To je ono što tražite.” Pustite ga unutra. To je unca prevencije.
Ali što učiniti s onim što se događa zahtijeva vanjski pritisak, poput onoga što Hermina govori i što se povijesno dogodilo s crkvom. Trebalo je ljudima da prođu sve dok se, konačno, najveća stvar nije dogodila s reflektorima Boston Globea. Godine 2019. dogodio se još jedan veliki incident u Philadelphiji. Možete potražiti taj slučaj, gdje je zlostavljanje velikih razmjera postalo javno. Nije važno je li se to dogodilo prije 100 godina; Nastavit će se događati jer se način razmišljanja nije promijenio. Način razmišljanja nije zacijelio. Retorika ništa ne mijenja. Potkrjepljenje riječi djelima i sviješću javnosti jest. Što rade s djecom u školi? Nemojte samo reći ne drogama. To nije dovoljno. Dovedite stručnjake i dajte informacije. Otvorite dijalog. Rasprava se mora odvijati i kod kuće. Olakšava nekome da se javi i prijavi problem ako je problem prihvaćen za raspravu.
Jacobsen: To je duboko povijesno pitanje. Ako se sada bavimo njima, događa li se to stoljećima?
Mali: Naravno. Vrijeme je da problem izađe na vidjelo dok se razvijamo kao društvo i ljudska rasa. Zlostavljanje ima dalekosežne implikacije koje se prelijevaju čak i na buduće generacije. Zlostavljanje je dar koji se nastavlja davati, to je ono o čemu sam čuo da se govori na sastancima podrške. Traumatizirani ljudi često se okreću supstancama koje izazivaju ovisnost kako bi pobjegli od boli koja dovodi do ovisnosti. Traumatizirana odrasla osoba nesvjesno uzrokuje traumu svojoj djeci koja odrastaju pateći od tjeskobe i depresije. Ako želimo izliječiti kao društvo, svako zlostavljanje mora se riješiti. Zlostavljanje u vjerskim institucijama predugo je prikriveno. Hrabrost preživjelih koji progovaraju s preprekama povezanim s tim, odvjetnicima i odvjetnicima vanjski su pritisak na ove institucije. U suprotnom, unutarnja promjena neće se dogoditi.
Dr. Nedelescu: To se događa već više od 2000 godina, ali došlo je vrijeme da se ovi zlostavljači pozovu na odgovornost.
Mali: Rimski car Konstantin prešao je na kršćanstvo. Uspostavljena je crkvena hijerarhija i Rim je postao službeno središte kršćanske crkve. Nakon pada Rimskog Carstva ljudi su ovisili o crkvi za njezine potrebe. S djecom se postupalo grubo. Zlostavljanje je bilo iznuđeno u najstrožoj kazni, čak i smrti. Kako se društvo razvija, to više nije prihvatljivo. Pogledajte vožnju u pijanom stanju. Zakoni su se promijenili nakon početka MADD-a. Ljudi su pušili mnogo prije 1960-ih kada je glavni kirurg upozorio da je pušenje opasno za vaše zdravlje. Kako evoluiramo i učimo utjecaj određenih ponašanja koja smo nekoć smatrali “normalnim” ili koja su bila prešućena, shvaćamo potrebu za edukacijom javnosti o inherentnim opasnostima određenih praksi i ponašanja koje šteti ne samo našem vlastitom zdravlju i dobrobiti, već i zdravlju javnosti. Dio evolucije je učenje, istraživanje, prilagođavanje, mijenjanje i shvaćanje ogromnog utjecaja zlostavljanja na ljudski um. Štetni učinak traume na mozak dobro je poznat kroz istraživanja. Stvara ponašanja koja štete sebi i društvu. Zatvori su puni traumatiziranih ljudi koji se okreću tvarima koje dodatno pogoršavaju štetne simptome čineći ozdravljenje gotovo nemogućim.
Živimo u vremenu u kojem je informacija u izobilju i dostupno kako bi se pomoglo u promjenama koje se moraju dogoditi iznutra, a najčešće im prethodi vanjski pritisak. Sentinel događaji privlače našu pažnju. Možemo učiti iz prošlosti i promijeniti svoj pristup. Narcizam je epidemija, kao i ovisnost. Važno je kao društvo probuditi se iz fantazije i mita da su naše vjerske institucije apsolutno sigurne i iznad zakona ako želimo donijeti promjenu. Učinak kapanja dosljedne pažnje u medijima je curenje istine koja može prodrijeti u poricanje i pogrešne percepcije.
Jacobsen: Također smo činili suprotnu pogrešku, zar ne? Uzimamo oholost trenutka, misleći: “Sada imamo ove činjenice; Imamo još priča koje se pojavljuju. Stoga smo sada u savršenom trenutku.” Nalazimo se u sretnom razdoblju da napravimo drastičnu promjenu. To bi mogao završiti kao mnogo duži proces; Moglo bi biti inkrementalno, moglo bi biti mnogo gubitaka i ne bi bilo jednostavne evolucije. Može li i to biti pogreška u ovoj vrsti posla?
Small: Možete li to preformulirati?
Jacobsen: Oholost trenutka, razmišljanje ili osjećaj da sada imamo te priče i te činjenice. Stoga smo savršeno pripremljeni za radikalne promjene u putanji crkve i postupanju prema ljudima koji su bili zlostavljani te za pružanje prostora ljudima da istupe i naprave institucionalne, kulturne promjene. Drugim riječima, možemo napraviti brze promjene jer sada govorimo o tome jer smo ovdje s tim činjenicama. Small: Može li to biti pusta želja?
Dr. Nedelescu: Ne mislim da će se ta promjena dogoditi brzo.
Mali: Pogledajte problem globalnog zatopljenja. To je postalo pitanje koje se više ne može gurnuti u stranu za budućnost. Problemi koji se kuhaju tako dugo i duboko su ukorijenjeni u našem poslovanju normaliziraju se i ignoriraju kako bismo nastavili. Sve dok se ne dogodi buđenje, za koje vjerujem da apsolutno vidimo u ovom neviđenom vremenu. Društvo je u nevolji. Sada, više nego ikad, postoji znanje koje prije nismo imali. Postoje terapeuti informirani o traumi koji su vješti u pomaganju u obradi trauma, kao i KBT i drugim modalitetima za liječenje traume. Postoji korištenje pristupa u 12 koraka za pomoć u poboljšanju ponašanja i pomoć u oporavku od ovisnosti pomažući pojedincima da stvore zdravije veze potrebne za iscjeljenje od traume povezane s ozljedama uzrokovanim ljudima koji su bili duboko ranjeni ili čak zli. Ako proučavamo traumu i što je uzrokuje, onda možemo nastojati riješiti je i primijeniti zakone i pitanja pravde kako bismo kaznili prijestupnike i donijeli odštetu preživjelima koji su ozlijeđeni u crkvi. Moramo obavijestiti ljude da se to još uvijek događa, a ne nešto iz prošlosti.
Ne možemo se više oglušiti i zatvoriti oči ništa više nego što bismo to učinili na bilo koju drugu profesiju pomaganja. Nijedno zlostavljanje ne pripada obiteljima ili bilo kojoj od naših institucija. Ipak, to će se ipak dogoditi. Zato je potrebna edukacija, podrška žrtvama i zakoni za kažnjavanje počinitelja. Sjetite se djeteta koje je u nasilnom domu, ide u školu i koje ga učenici maltretiraju i zlostavlja učitelj izravno ili možda kroz tiho suučesništvo te ide u crkvu i zlostavlja ga svećenik. Je li to moguće? Da, jer je dijete već istrošeno, što ga čini podložnijim zlostavljanju koje se nastavlja tijekom cijelog životnog ciklusa. Možda nećemo moći iskorijeniti problem zlostavljanja, ali svakako možemo osvijestiti da na mjestima gdje se obraćamo za pomoć nitko nije iznad zakona. Nitko ne može pobjeći od odgovornosti. Postoje posljedice koje se moraju priznati i riješiti.
Jacobsen: Sve više shvaćam da netko gleda pojedince koji istupaju i rade posao koji vi radite kao Pollyannini početnici. Mogu dati osobni primjer iz svog rodnog grada. Bio sam iz Fort Langleyja. Tamo je najveće privatno sveučilište. To je evanđeosko. Imaju ekvivalentan status Sveučilišta Liberty u Kanadi. Odbijeni su slučajevi Vrhovnog suda za pravni fakultet zbog ugovora koji su morali potpisati, a koji je bio protiv LGBTQ, itd. Intervjuirao sam predsjednika sveučilišta. Prije njega postojao je još jedan predsjednik sveučilišta koji je taj status imao više od 30 godina.
Kao što znaš, Hermina, to je vrlo neobično. Imao je najdugovječnije predsjedništvo od bilo kojeg predsjednika sveučilišta na bilo kojem kanadskom sveučilištu. Dao je ostavku oko 2006.-2007. Prije toga, žena je istupila s tužbom za seksualno uznemiravanje. Radio sam u restoranima u tom gradu jer je to moj mali grad, a novinarstvo je u teškoj poziciji. Ne plaća se loše, pa inače dobivate novac. Radio sam u jednom od tih restorana s nekim tko je tada radio s njim. Ovo je sve do početne točke Pollyanne. Sjećam se da sam razgovarao s njom i pitao sam: “Što je s onim slučajem uznemiravanja?” Odgovorila je: “Pa, njegova žena je upravo umrla. Bio je usamljen.” Imao sam svoj odgovor unutra. Nisam želio biti nepristojan. Ideja da je bio usamljen suptilno implicira da ne možete promijeniti ljudsku prirodu ili prirodu čovjeka na vlasti. Kada istupate, što je ono što mislim pod Pollyanninim početnicima, previše ste optimistični misleći da možete promijeniti nešto tako duboko ukorijenjeno kao što je ljudska priroda. Kakav bi mogao biti naš odgovor na to mnoštvo?
Small: Upravo si to pogodio u glavu. To mi je neki dan rekao jedan znanstvenik. Razgovarao sam o tome što mi se dogodilo sa svećenikom. Rekao je: “To je biološko, to je ljudska priroda.”
Jacobsen: Sjajno je kad se tihi dio izgovori naglas. Ne mislim to kao uvredu ili epitet čovjeku.
Zavjet čistoće
Small: To je stvarnost. Međutim, pozvani smo dovesti ljudsku prirodu pod vodstvo višeg racionalnog mozga i ne djelovati iz prirodnog sirovog instinkta iz načina preživljavanja primitivnog mozga. Kad sam obavijestio župnika, što se dogodilo, detalje, kada me svećenik napao? Rekao je: “Bio je na niskom mjestu u svom životu i obratio se tebi za utjehu. Bili ste na niskom mjestu i okrenuli ste se i njemu. Veliki je tjedan. Molite.” Bio je u poziciji da ga prijavi biskupiji, ali umjesto toga izmislio je izgovor koji bi mogao biti istinit, ali je prekršio uvjete crkvenog zapošljavanja i njegov zavjet čistoće koji ide uz celibat. Pokrivao ga je umjesto da nešto poduzima. Bio je “normaliziran”. Ne možemo samo djelovati bez poštivanja društvenih pravila. Ne petljamo u njihovu ljudsku prirodu. Govorimo im da postoje zakoni koji reguliraju izražavanje njihovog slobodnog izbora. Možete odabrati seks u odgovarajućim situacijama, ali ne možete zadovoljiti prirodne impulse samo zbog ljudske prirode. “Bila sam usamljena.” I to je kao, u redu, prijatelju. Kada vaša sloboda izbora ometa tuđu sigurnost i njihovu slobodu izbora, gubite svoju slobodu. Mi nismo životinje.
Jacobsen: To je jedno od onih temeljnih razumijevanja oko međunarodnih ljudskih prava i međunarodnog humanitarnog prava. Posjedovanje individualističke slobode uravnoteženo je kontekstualno s pravima drugih. Bilo da uzimate transcendentalističku moralnu etiku koja se nalazi u tradicionalnim religijama ili međunarodni kontekst ljudskih prava, sve su to načela koja su polukonfliktna ili se trljaju jedno o drugo. Ravnoteža leži u tome da se ne ograničavamo na izražavanje zdravijih načina, već u tome da se ne radi nešto nezakonito što nanosi štetu drugoj osobi.
Mali: Uzmimo za primjer alkohol. Punoljetni ljudi imaju pravo piti. Ali imate li pravo sjesti za volan automobila i dovesti druge ljude u opasnost? Dakle, da. Vaša posljednja rečenica je logičan i racionalan zaključak.
Jacobsen: Postoji fenomen koji se zove “J-A-Q”, koji samo postavlja pitanja. Zovu ga “J-A-Q-ing off”. Ideja je da netko provokativno postavlja pitanja kako bi vas isprovocirao ili odbacio, natjerajući vas da imate zvučni zapis koji vas zatim može iskoristiti da vas otpusti. Ljudi ne postavljaju takva pitanja o stvarima poput pijenja na poslu.
Mali: Postavlja pitanja i traži rupe. Radi se o traženju rasprave radi rasprave, ne nastojanju da se razumije, već postavljanju pitanja kako bi se pronašle rupe i potkopala druga osoba. Vjerujem da samo pokušavaju srušiti drugu poziciju. Jednom sam prisustvovao debati jednog ateista i kršćanina. Ateist nije pokušavao tražiti razumijevanje, već pronaći rupu koja bi diskreditirala poziciju drugoga.
Jacobsen: Na debatnim forumima postavljaju pitanja kako bi pronašli nedostatke na drugoj strani, ne da bi istinski razumjeli, već da bi je oborili.
Small: Kad sam prošao kroz parnični proces, odvjetnik je rekao: “Nemojte se previše zaprepastiti. Doći će na vas na isti način na koji bi došli na dijete koje je prošlo kroz istu stvar.” Vodio je nekoliko slučajeva zlostavljanja svećenstva za odrasle koji su zlostavljani kao djeca. Na isti su način pristupili zlostavljanju odraslih kao djeca. Zlostavljanje se dogodilo dok su bili djeca i nema šanse da su za to krivi. Ni to nije bila moja “krivnja”, ali korištena je ista linija ispitivanja, što je šokantno.
Dr. Nedelescu: Dakle, sve to na stranu, mislim da pokušavaju osloboditi počinitelja govoreći da su ga dijete ili žrtva poticali.
Small: To je gaslighting jer svećenik uopće nije trebao biti u toj poziciji. Da, žrtve su često okrivljene. Čak i ako se odrasla osoba bacila na svećenika, on ima veću odgovornost zbog neravnoteže moći. Ako bi se odrasla osoba tako ponašala, bilo bi nešto što nije u redu. To pokazuje ranjivost kod te odrasle osobe jer odrasla osoba koja to radi djeluje iz emocionalnih rana, a ne iz svog višeg logičkog uma.
Jacobsen: Možete napraviti hipotetski poput denominacijskog kršćanina gdje se žene mogu pridružiti svećenstvu i dobiti status kao muškarci. Ako se svećenik i svećenica zaljube, vjenčaju i imaju djecu, ali onda jedan tvrdi da je seksualno zlostavljao drugoga, čak i ako se te promjene naprave, čin zlostavljanja je još uvijek tu.
Mali: Da. Možete imati časnu sestru i svećenika gdje svećenik ima veću moć od časne sestre, ali ako imaju osjećaje jedno prema drugome, mogli bi se zaljubiti i ostaviti svoje zavjete nakon pažljivog razdoblja razlučivanja. Ipak, još uvijek postoji neravnoteža moći. Neki svećenici zlostavljaju časne sestre koje su još uvijek u njihovim redovima, a one nemaju pravo glasa. Ako to prijave, boje se rizika od gubitka svojih pozicija. Djeca rođena u tim zajednicama često su završavala u sirotištima.
Zlostavljanje se događa i između dviju osoba na jednakim pozicijama moći. Redovnice također zlostavljaju. Redovnice su zlostavljale novake koji su pod njihovim vodstvom i obukom, slično sjemeništarcima. Postoji neravnoteža moći. Redovnice zlostavljaju časne sestre, svećenici zlostavljaju svećenike, a svećenici vrijeđaju sjemeništarce. Ova dinamika je još uvijek prisutna, a odrasli su zlostavljani unutar svog reda. Još uvijek postoji redoslijed kljucanja, a oni koji žele ostati u tom redoslijedu imaju nekoga na višem položaju koji ih seksualno iskorištava. Govorimo o zloupotrebi, zlouporabi moći, iskorištavanju i skretanju pozornosti na ta pitanja. To se događa i u drugim religijama. Pravoslavna crkva je druga po veličini nakon Katoličke crkve, pa je vrlo važno skrenuti pozornost na nju. Po veličini su odmah iza Katoličke crkve. Kako su mogli poricati zlostavljanje u svojoj crkvi?
Jacobsen: Ima li Istočna pravoslavna crkva časne sestre ili ekvivalent časnih sestara?
Dr. Nedelescu: Da, imaju časne sestre i redovnike, i imaju novakinje koji su na obuci, kao i etablirane časne sestre. Zlostavljanje se događa i tamo. Vidio sam ga iz prve ruke kad sam bio u Jeruzalemu. Radio sam na Hebrejskom sveučilištu oko dvije godine. Jednom sam odsjeo u jednom od tih stanova koje ponekad iznajmljuju, i iz prve ruke sam vidio zlostavljanje od strane pravoslavne časne sestre prema drugoj pravoslavnoj časnoj sestri. Dakle, Pravoslavna crkva ima časne sestre i redovnike, i oni bi trebali položiti zavjet čistoće.
Jacobsen: Bi li Istočna pravoslavna crkva rješavala slučajeve u kojima časna sestra položi zavjete, svećenik položi zavjet, svećenik siluje časnu sestru, a časna sestra zatrudni, noseći se s dvostrukom moralnom povredom trudnoće kao časna sestra i polaganja zavjeta čistoće koji joj je svećenik nasilno oduzeo? Pojavljuju li se tamo isti slučajevi?
Dr. Nedelescu: Još uvijek moram pogledati to istraživanje. Moja kolegica Katherine više je govorila o zlostavljanju u samostanima, ali još uvijek moramo provesti istraživanje.
Jacobsen: Postoji li nešto što želite pokriti, a još uvijek trebam?
Dr. Nedelescu: Bože, što misliš, Dorothy? Pokrili ste sve što sam želio, dajući dovoljno vremena da razgovor teče. Ako nešto iskrsne, iznijet ću ti to opet, ili bi Dorothy mogla.
Small: Mislim da smo sve temeljito pokrili i uvijek će biti pitanja “što ako” ili “što je s tim”. Poanta je u tome da pogledajte kako su se zakoni za vožnju u pijanom stanju promijenili zbog zagovaranja Majki protiv pijanih vozača. Prije toga, zakoni koji reguliraju vožnju u pijanom stanju nisu bili ono što su postali. Potrebna je kriza da bi se nešto pokrenulo. To je ljudska priroda. Skloni smo jednom pobjeći i izvući se s nečim, a onda mislimo da možemo nastaviti bježati. Na kraju mislimo da je to normalno i odbacujemo to dok se ne dogodi kriza. U mojoj situaciji život mi se srušio i nisam mogao šutjeti. Šutnja bi me ubila. Ovo je bila posljednja kap. Bio sam spreman podnijeti posljedice i uzeti mržnju od svijeta. Shvatila sam da svojim zlostavljačima omogućavam od djetinjstva jer sam se tako prilagodila preživljavanju. Naučio sam zlostavljati sebe tolerirajući zlostavljanje i to se nastavilo.
Jacobsen: Na ovaj način, šutnja je suučesništvo; to je zločin protiv vas samih.
Small: Kad sam prijavio, nikada nisam namjeravao podnijeti tužbu. Zalagao sam se za sebe i zatražio savjetovanje. Kad sam bio spreman, želio sam se vratiti u crkvu i ponovno pjevati. Uskraćena mi je bilo kakva služba u mojoj crkvenoj zajednici. Pitao sam pastora zašto me zabranio, a on je rekao da je to zbog skandala. Rekao sam mu da to nije moj skandal. Otišao sam biskupu i iako je rekao da sam bio zlostavljan, da mu je muka i da moli za mene, rekao je da nije njegova politika miješati se u odluke lokalne župe o volonterima. Ipak, imao je moć poslati mog svećenika zlostavljača natrag u njegovu zemlju, ali nije nazvao pastora i zatražio da odustane od zabrane? Biskup je rekao: “Volonterska pozicija je za župljane, a ne za dobrovoljce.” Rekao sam mu. “Ja sam župljanin i pjevanje u crkvi dio je mog odnosa s Kristom. Ispunjava svrhu za druge župljane, tako je i za župljane.” Njegov odgovor bio je arogantan i odbojan. Navikli su na moć i kontrolu, a ne na suočavanje, posebno s laikom.
Dr. Nedelescu: Kad to učinite, oni se raspadaju. Ne znaju što učiniti.
Small: Zamolio sam biskupa da plati savjetovanje dok pastor ne bude spreman dopustiti mi da se vratim. Odvjetnik žrtava rekao mi je da je biskup rekao da više savjetovanja ne bi pomoglo s “vašim problemom s vašim župnikom”. Stoga je dodatno savjetovanje nakon onoga što je odobreno odbijeno. Rekli su: “Možeš otići negdje drugdje. Možete ići u bilo koju drugu crkvu koju odaberete.” Nisam želio ići negdje drugdje. Ne bih odabrao biti ni u jednoj drugoj župi prije zlostavljanja. Bio sam povezan i vezan za crkvenu zajednicu kao obitelj. Tijekom ispovijedi upitao sam svećenika: “Što da radim?” Predložio je: “Možda Bog želi koristiti vaš glas izvan crkvenih zidova. Jeste li ikada pitali Boga što želi?” Nisam razmišljao o tome. Sljedećeg jutra, u molitvi, upitao sam: “Što želiš da učinim?” Zgrabio sam svoj laptop i potražio odvjetnike za svećeničko zlostavljanje. Našao sam jednog s diplomom psihologa, nazvao ga i on je slušao. Rekao je: “Ne biste morali platiti odvjetnika; izlazi na kraju. Platit ćemo terapiju. Biskupija će nam platiti.” Izjavio je da je bio impresioniran mojim naporima u samozastupanju tijekom deset mjeseci. Upozorio me da sam blizu zastare. To me motiviralo da djelujem. Vjerujem da je to bila Božja ruka jer je tajming bio besprijekoran. Bez svega što se dogodilo, trenutno ne bih bio u ovoj poziciji. Moj glas se koristi izvan crkvenih zidova i nedavno se vratio unutra kad sam se vratio u crkvu i ponovno nakon više od osam godina pjevam u zboru. Kako bih mogao udobno činiti oboje ako sam protiv crkve, svećenika ili Boga?
Dr. Nedelescu: Tako je. Kad imate mirno ponašanje.
Small: Sve što sam učinio pomoglo mi je da se izliječim. Sve je u iscjeljenju dok donosimo svjetlo i istinu u tamu tihog suučesništva. Predan sam zalaganju za istinu, bez obzira na cijenu. Istina je zašto sam se izliječio, nastavljajući ga slijediti čak i kada je neugodno. Iako je teško prihvatiti i govoriti istinu, to je jedina stvar koja na kraju postavlja stvari u ispravan red i donosi iscjeljenje. Važno je priznati svoje emocije; Međutim, istina mora prevladati. Što je ispravno učiniti? Naši će se osjećaji smiriti. Tako sam dospio ovdje. Sada sam u boljoj formi zbog onoga što se dogodilo i što sam odlučio učiniti s tim. Da sam bio protiv Boga, kako bih mogao iscijeliti kad ništa drugo nije djelovalo godinama? Trebao je događaj u crkvi, razboljeti se i umoriti, ustati i pronaći nekoga tko će me saslušati da shvatim da je nekome stalo. Duboko u sebi bila je rezerva snage. Zatim sam uložio veliki napor u samooporavak.
To mi je dalo poticaj da se borim za svoj život jer me netko na poziciji moći čuo i stao za mene protiv mjesta moći. To je bio terapeutski dio odvjetnika. Nikada nisam razmišljao o tome da angažujem odvjetnika, ali on je bio bolji od svećenika s kojima sam imao posla. Razaranje se dogodilo u crkvi sa svećenikom. Iscjeljivanje je započelo s odvjetnikom i njegovim odvjetničkim uredom.
Dr. Nedelescu: Kakav važan komentar ste dali. Bili smo u Cambridgeu prošle godine. Možemo završiti s ovim. Razgovarao sam s prijateljem teologom, dr. Vassom Larin, također časnom sestrom, o tome kako bi se i druge profesije poput neurokirurga i drugih koji čine dobro za čovječanstvo mogle zaređivati. U svijetu postoji mnogo zanimanja. Pa zašto onda dati svu moć svećeniku? Kada postoje drugi koji čine mnogo dobra u svijetu.
Small: Da sam bio protiv Boga i učinio nešto protiv njega, to ne bi završilo mojim oporavkom izvan mjesta gdje sam bio prije nego što se to dogodilo. Cijeli moj život bio je povezan s onim što se događalo u crkvi. Morao sam iscijeliti cijeli svoj život da bih se izliječio od crkve. To je zapravo bilo briljantno od Boga da upotrijebi ono što je namjeravao uništiti za svoju svrhu donošenja iscjeljenja. Kako se to dogodilo? Govoreći iz pozicije ljubavi prema Bogu i želeći pravdu. Pitao sam Boga: “Tko će govoriti u tvoje ime? Oni oskvrnjuju Tvoj imidž i povređuju Tvoju djecu. To šteti crkvi i dobrim svećenicima. Tko će govoriti u tvoje ime?” Rekao sam: “Učinit ću to. I ja ću govoriti u tvoje ime.” Nastojala sam iskoristiti situaciju da se izliječim i ne dopustim da me ono što se dogodilo zadrži u načinu razmišljanja žrtve. Dobro pobjeđuje zlo.
Jacobsen: Pravda je također dio moralne ljudske prirode.
Mali: Bog voli pravdu. U Bogu nema zlostavljanja. Nijedan. Oni koji se ponašaju uvredljivo ne predstavljaju Boga. Oni zlostavljani koji ustanu to čine. Sve je uvrnuto. Crkvu čiste oni koje je povrijedila. Čini se da bi zlostavljani mogli biti sveci koji donose svjetlo u crkvu radi čišćenja. Moj duhovni vođa mi je rekao da su oni koji su zlostavljani u crkvi poput pokolja nevinih kada je kralj Herod naredio ubojstvo svih novorođenčadi muškaraca mlađe od dvije godine nakon što je čuo za Kristovo rođenje. Zlostavljanje mi je otkrilo moju najdublju ranjivost kako bih mogao krenuti za njim i donijeti iscjeljenje i znanje, pa se nadam da će biti manje vjerojatno da ću biti plijen drugog predatora bilo gdje, a posebno u crkvi. Krist je uskrsnuo nakon smrti. Uz mnogo rada uzdigao sam se iznad pepela. To traje dugo i to je bolno putovanje. Ne zaslužujemo biti traumatizirani ni u jednoj instituciji, posebno u sigurnom utočištu naših crkava.
Dr. Nedelescu: Vi ste prirodni teolog, Dorothy. Hvala vam, Scott i Dorothy.
Small: Nakon što ste danas slušali, biste li rekli da je vaše razumijevanje sada veće?
Jacobsen: Moje samorazumijevanje, također, razmišlja o tome jesam li ja osoba koja je mislila: “Ovi ljudi koji istupaju puni su toga”, a zatim stvaram protivljenje. Kako bi kritičari mogli reagirati? Davanje otvorenog zraka tome i reagiranje uživo je vrijedno; Dobio sam mnogo samouvida od vas dvoje kao odgovor. Kao što se svi slažu, izgradnja baze podataka, prikupljanje priča i raščlanjivanje što je zlostavljanje je jednostavno. Ali tamo gdje postoji neslaganje, iznošenje dijela ovoga na vidjelo je izazovno i edukativno; Stavljanje sebe u tu poziciju uživo također je korisno.
Dr. Nedelescu: To ima smisla.
Small: Ovdje svi učimo. Čujete moj ton. Nisam uzrujan. Prošao sam kroz sve to i vratio se kao zagovornik, što je također dio procesa ozdravljenja. Osjećam se osnaženo. Nadam se da ću uz znanje, oporavak ili rane traume, individuaciju zajedno sa sigurnim granicama i puno samosvijesti biti u boljoj poziciji da se zaštitim.
Dr. Nedelescu. Svi smo na istoj obali. Dobra večer. Zbogom svima.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/16
Aysha Khan, Jasmin Faulk-Dickerson, Khadija Khan, and ‘Mia,’ are former Muslim women. In an extensive conversation, we discuss the thematic question: “With more ex-Muslim women becoming prominent and equalizing the gender space of ex-Muslim voices, would an organization or foundation for ex-Muslim women be useful?”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start with introductions. Please go ahead alphabetically.
Aysha Khan: My name is Aysha, and I am the Director of Operations for Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA). I left Islam about ten years ago, though I had constantly been questioning it. I was fortunate enough to discover the Ex-Muslim subreddit, which opened the doors for me — not only in my journey to apostasy but also in finding a community of other apostates from Islam and owning that identity.
I had always struggled with the role that women are prescribed in Islam, and it never aligned with how I lived my life in the U.S. The rights afforded to me under the U.S. Constitution starkly contrasted with what Islam demanded of me. It never made sense to me.
Gradually, I started dissecting Islam. I tried hard to make it work for me, but it never did. After finding ex-Muslims in North America, I volunteered with them for several years. About a year ago, I entered this full-time role as Director of Operations. I’m so happy to be part of a community of other women. It feels like finding your people.
Many of the people I followed out of religion were men, so finding other former Muslim women has been life-changing for me. Thank you all for being here.
Jasmin Faulk-Dickerson: My name is Jasmin Faulk-Dickerson. I am a speaker and an author. In my other professional life, I am a Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), a challenging field right now, given the current political climate. I’m happy to speak more about that.
I was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, where I wasn’t given a choice to practice religion. Saudi citizens are born Muslim automatically. I’m not sure if that practice still holds, but when I was born in the early seventies, all Saudi citizens were raised as Muslims by default.
I am the product of an Arabian father and an Italian mother, so I have a Western mom and a Middle Eastern dad. I was raised in Saudi Arabia, where there was no conversation about choosing religion or exploring faith. From an early age, I noticed a disconnect because I had the opportunity to visit Italy every year and observe how religion played a significant role in people’s lives — being in a Roman Catholic country on one side and a Muslim country on the other.
I saw how women and girls were treated and how young women came into womanhood. For me, it always felt like a disconnect. So, while I say I was raised Muslim, it was never really a choice. That’s one of the reasons I don’t use labels like “ex-Muslim” or “former Muslim.” It doesn’t speak to my journey because I didn’t choose it.
As I grew older, I made distinct decisions to understand Islam, as I was raised in it and had to study it. But I also wanted to explore other faiths to understand how they all intertwined. Over the years, I decided that religion as a whole was not for me. I don’t practice any particular faith — not out of disdain or disrespect, but because it does not suit my journey in life.
It has been a journey of deconstructing religion, how people interpret it, how they choose to live their lives, and how it intertwines with governments and political rule. It’s interesting because I’ve been in the United States for 25 years, for most of my adult life. I’ve spoken more about the cultural aspect of my identity. In recent years, I’ve noticed that Muslim women, in particular, have started speaking out more about religion and its impact on them.
I want to support that voice and that experience because I was raised in the most radical Wahhabi country in the world, so I am all too familiar with the depth of the impositions of such a rule. I’ll share more later, but that’s an introduction.
Khadija Khan: My name is Khadija Khan. I’m a journalist and broadcaster. I am also an editor at A Further Inquiry, a Canadian-based magazine. My journey started back in Pakistan.
I was a very religious person for most of my life. I was brainwashed and conditioned into practicing Islamic rituals and beliefs. Many in the West can relate to the situation we have in Pakistan, where common, ordinary people are not well-educated about religion. Mostly, they are given cherry-picked examples and selective education that make them believe theirs is the best religion, their God is the best, and so on. I was raised the same way. At first, it was hard to question religion.
However, my questions about injustices and women’s rights violations in Muslim culture were always there. I wanted to raise those questions and find answers but was discouraged. I wasn’t allowed to explore that area, so I was led to believe it was all about cultural issues, not religion.
I started looking at these issues through the lens of patriarchy and cultural misogyny. But when I had the opportunity to move out of Pakistan, that’s when I began to consider the possibility that maybe it was religion. Why not talk about religion and religious beliefs, which are very much part of the culture?
Is it possible that culture and religion are the same thing and that we are making a false distinction between them? That’swhen I started exploring this area further. My curiosity led me to a place where I realized the root of the problem lies in religion — specifically, the religious beliefs, orthodoxies, rituals, and traditions that are causing these problems, especially women’s rights violations. The natural outcome for me was to abandon that religion.
As Jasmin said, it was never a choice. I was never given a choice to be a Muslim, so maybe I wasn’t a Muslim. It felt more like a condition imposed on me. When it came to abandoning religion, it wasn’t difficult for me. I was not emotionally invested in the religion or religious sentiments. For me, it wasn’t a big deal. The realization that I needed to speak up for women’s and minority rights was much more powerful. It made me grow stronger in my beliefs about secularism, human rights, and humane values. That’s how my journey began.
‘Mia’: It’s affirming to hear all of your stories because I connect to each of them in different ways. As Aysha said, being part of this community and this discussion is nice, so thank you.
Yes, some of the themes you’ve all touched upon also resonate with me. I was brought up as a North African, Middle Eastern woman exposed to Middle Eastern culture where Islam is deeply intertwined. For me, many inconsistencies became apparent.
I was disillusioned with how my experience as a Muslim woman differed from that of my Muslim male counterparts. That’s where it started for me — seeing those inconsistencies. It was always a source of tension, and when I tried to bring it up, I was often shut down, told I was being blasphemous and that my questions were inappropriate.
I struggled with that for a long time until I encountered other Middle Eastern women at university. I felt safe enough to disclose some of this, knowing there would be no consequences.
It wouldn’t go any further, and she shared some literature with me and said, “I’m not going to say anything. I’m here for you. Read this, and it will give you some answers.” I did, and it felt like someone had placed glasses on my eyes. It was very clear that it was okay to question these things.
I’m incredibly grateful for that exposure. It changed my life.
Jacobsen: To be clear on the transcript, the thematic question for today is:
With more ex-Muslim women becoming prominent and equalizing the gender space of ex-Muslim voices, would an organization or foundation for ex-Muslim women be useful? If not, why not? If so, what would be the most useful scope and organizational setup catering to ex-Muslim women’s professional and community needs?
With those backgrounds, anyone can go first. What are your initial thoughts about such an organization? As some noted, many men typically represented or were the faces of these movements, organizations, or individual voices, especially in the 2000s and 2010s. Jasmin, what do you think?
Faulk-Dickerson: This is a tough question. I’ll rant for a few seconds, and then please interrupt me and jump in, anyone. It may still be premature. Here’s why: Most of us were raised to believe that if you speak against the religion or leave it, the number one consequence is essentially death. Maybe everyone agrees, or perhaps everyone had the same upbringing, where it is justified by religious practice that death is the consequence of leaving the religion.
So the jump from slowly collecting voices, especially for women, to organizing something more structured comes with risks. Power is in numbers; when those numbers grow vast, there’s more courage to speak up. But I worry about being targeted. By speaking out, I’m putting myself out there as a target. When organizations or collectives form, they automatically become targets. That’s the first concern.
The second concern is that when you leave an ideology and form a second ideology, for me — and I know this may not be true for everyone — it can lead to another cycle of mob mentality, new ideology, and aggressive thinking. The greatest freedom and liberation come from not feeling the need to justify, explain, or align. We’re all doing it here because, unfortunately, there are firsts — people who must start speaking out. And here we are. Someone has to start.
But once the movement gains momentum and takes on a life of its own, it can create the freedom to normalize it. That’sthe goal for me — to normalize this. We don’t see this for other religions, where a movement has to happen for people to speak on behalf of it, yet here we are. I hope we get to a point where that’s no longer necessary.
Jacobsen: Any responses?
K. Khan: Yes. When I became an ex-Muslim, I didn’t realize there was a huge community. I was in Germany, and Germany is quite isolated in this regard. There isn’t a big ex-Muslim community. It could be a more vibrant discussion in German society.
There needed to be a community. I knew some people had abandoned Islam for various but valid reasons. But when I got involved with people in the U.K., especially the Council of Ex-Muslims (of Britain), I realized there is a community, and people are coming together to amplify this criticism of religion. It was quite heartening to see that. I became a part of their efforts.
I’ve been attending events and participating in discussions with them since then. It’s been a good experience, but there needs to be more of a sense of community when it comes to the dominant voices in the ex-Muslim circle. Not all dominant voices in the ex-Muslim community want to connect with ordinary ex-Muslims. For them, they are the face of the ex-Muslim movement. They are quite individualistic. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve noticed this.
These individuals are not interested in allying with others. It’s more like, “I can speak the best. I’m on the forefront.” I don’t mind it, but there’s a lack of association. That’s the reason we don’t see an organized community of ex-Muslims; instead, we see individual men being prominent in the mainstream discussions around these issues.
I’ve noticed some arguments, even catfights, on social media among them. They argue about their number of followers:“You have fewer followers; I have more. I have more experience; you have less. I was an ex-Muslim before you were.” It was like, “Wow, this is not our concern.” We all have individual personalities.
Today, I got to know these wonderful people — these three women — and I’m so glad to know you all. I feel honoured to be connected with you. Thank you so much, Scott, for giving me this opportunity. But it’s disappointing that we don’thave this kind of unity.
I’ve been working with Mariam Namazie here in the U.K. I see a sense of belonging in the efforts she and the people around her are making here. They organize with counterparts in other countries, host events, invite people, bring them together, and have discussions.
We need more of this; perhaps there is a real community. But as it stands now, it’s a community united in protest but not in identity, in my opinion.
They’re living in a much more porous space than I was. They can express viewpoints that differ from mainstream Islam. I have younger relatives who can express viewpoints I would never have been allowed to express when I was younger. I see many of my younger family members dressing in ways I would never have been allowed.
The culture has loosened a bit. It’s not quite as shocking to the system. You can exist in this gray area, and the margins of that gray area have become much wider. So, it’s entirely necessary to carve out a space specifically for ex-Muslims. But with the caveat, a lot has changed in the past 15 years, especially post-9/11.
Khadija, your point about separating the culture from the religion is important, especially for South Asians or Arabs, where culture is often paramount.
Everything in Islam supersedes culture, tradition, and everything else. So, for us, it’s a bit different. I feel like there has been a rebranding of Islam, particularly with the rise of “feminist Islam,” which I find truly bizarre.
The rebranding of the hijab as a feminist is especially perplexing — it’s just not what it is. Read the texts. So, I feel like if we kept the scope tight and focused on creating a counter-narrative to ideas like “Islam as feminist,” “Muhammad was the first feminist,” or “the hijab is feminist.” We would have some traction, some ground, some legitimacy — something we could sink our teeth into.
However, it could be challenging. I see this with EXMNA, where we try to keep the scope tight. We’ve talked about this, and scope creep is an issue. We try not to bleed into other areas; we’re nonpartisan and don’t let people take advantage of us or others. So that would be my one hesitation. If an organization did exist, it would have to be very specific about what it targets within Islam.
‘Mia’: As you asked initially, I struggled to hear. Honestly, I’m not entirely sure. Thinking back to when that might have been helpful for me when I first “came out,” I would have been quite fearful of being outed if you like. I found speaking with people I could see and knew would have my back more comfortable. I would like to know if it would have been helpful for me then.
I also agree with Aysha’s point that if such an organization existed, it would need to be specific, with a particular niche, agenda, and viewpoint. That would be my two cents.
K. Khan: There are young people, young women, and young girls who are denying or denouncing religion — in this case, Islam. As I mentioned, I went to an event and saw a packed room of youngsters.
These people, especially at that stage, were looking up to something. They wanted to see some role models. I’m not saying there must be an organization because when I became an ex-Muslim, there was no organization I was aware of. I wasn’t looking up to anyone else. It was my struggle. Thankfully, I was in a position where I could openly say, “I don’twant to follow this religion.” That’s it.
But I do believe some people need some association and guidance when it comes to abandoning Islam. We all know that leaving Islam is not a piece of cake. You are putting everything — even your life — at risk, especially when you make it public. Then, of course, there are more threats coming your way. It’s a huge change in one’s life, especially when they are young.
So, there should be some form of support. Still, I advise people to refrain from getting involved in the politics of any organization. I’m not just talking about ex-Muslim organizations; it’s been my experience that when organizations get involved in politics, they can become ruthless. They don’t care about your emotions, well-being, or reputation.
So, do not get involved in politics regarding any organization because you are already in a vulnerable situation. Taking inspiration from people is a good thing. It provides comfort, guidance, and useful information on what to do next. But do not get involved in politics. To be honest, I am not a part of any organization.
I’m working as much as I can in my capacity. I write articles, appear on national T.V., and do my podcast. I do as much as I can. I’m not a big name, but these are the efforts I can make in this regard. This is all I can do.
A. Khan: Also, the way people consume media has changed. 10 or 15 years ago, when we left Islam, social media was at a different level. An organization would have made sense for us because nothing else existed. That’s why Reddit was so huge for me.
But now, there are far more ex-Muslims on TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. They’ve created spaces for themselves without attaching or coalescing around a specific issue, topic, or even other people. That has changed. People are going more in the direction Khadija is talking about, where they are doing it themselves.
Faulk-Dickerson: I’ll also add that several points mentioned earlier were on point, especially for Arabs. Islam is deeply attached to our cultural identity, making it difficult to voice dissent. Even if you distance yourself or don’t practice, there’sstill a profound identity piece attached to it. I know several Muslim women who do not practice and don’t agree with much of the teachings, especially as modern, liberated women. Yet, they still consider themselves Muslim because it’stied to their identity.
There is a differentiation between a person of faith and a Muslim in Islam. You can be a believer, which in Arabic is“Mu’min,” and have faith, “Iman,” without necessarily following the practices of Islam. But there’s such a strong association with the identity piece that many people continue to identify as Muslim, even if they don’t practice. It’s almost becoming similar to how many Jewish people identify as Jewish for ethnic or cultural reasons, not necessarily religious ones.
Islam is starting to take on that kind of identity, which makes it harder to separate.
A. Khan: I agree.
K. Khan: Instead of having an organization, I would appreciate having platforms where we can get together, share ideas, and amplify our protests regarding certain issues.
That would be helpful for people who look up to role models in this community.
A. Khan: It’s more like a network than a foundation.
‘Mia’: While having others there is supportive, anonymity is still important.
What was nice about reading when I looked into it was that I could do so independently without any exposure. It would be important for some people if something can factor in anonymity. People consume things via blogs, YouTube, TikTok, etc., because they can effectively protect themselves against exposure. It would be important to consider that.
Jacobsen: As Aysha mentioned about finding Reddit, you can be anonymous, get all the information, and even interact anonymously on Reddit.
Jasmin: I want to take this discussion close to the main question. But we are to consider an organization, a system, or a network, and this may be controversial. What we need to address — more than Islam itself, because that will exist whether we like it or not — is the human rights violations and women’s rights violations; I’m more concerned about that than the actual religion.
What I’m even more concerned about is this modern Western spin on Islam and the defence of Islamic practices. I think that’s far more dangerous because it normalizes harmful practices. As someone mentioned earlier, it’s even “fetishizing” them.
This whole idea of using the identity of a Muslim woman as an empowerment tool is deeply problematic. I always have to disclose this to make it relevant to my conversation: I am a liberal. I used to identify with the left, but now, even aligning with that is problematic. And I know, Khadija, you said not to be concerned with politics. I 100% agree.
Unfortunately, we can’t escape it. It is so intertwined with everything. The whole movement on the left that created the term “Islamophobia” is deeply problematic. I’ll spend a second here if possible. The term “Islamophobia” is problematicfor two reasons.
First, it is racist in its nature. It assumes and insinuates that all Muslims are ethnic or racial minorities, which is not true. We don’t have any other phobia for any other religion. Islam is the only one that has received this label.
Second, the label “Islamophobia” puts Islam above all other prejudices and violations. It protects Islam above all other religions and actions, which is very concerning because no religion should be beyond questioning. It perpetuates what Islam has already created for itself — the idea that it’s above everything. That you cannot question it. That you’ll face danger or threats if you do. This label emboldens that message, which is what most former Muslims, ex-Muslims, and people who leave the faith want to deconstruct — a sense of liberty from the grip that Islam has on both practicing and non-practicing Muslims.
K. Khan: Yes, I agree with you, Jasmin, that we can’t escape these issues. Still, I don’t see them as politics because these are the real reasons we discuss them. For me, they are human rights issues. Whether they are discussed under the banner of religion, I don’t care. Whether it is a far-right ideology, Nazism, or Islamism, they are all the same when it comes to human rights violations.
So, I don’t see it as politics. I see it as a legitimate concern. People with a conscience, whether they are ex-Muslims or not, should be involved in these discussions and try to resolve the issues around them. Regarding Islamophobia, I agree — it’s a term that has been weaponized to silence dissent, whether outside or within the Muslim community, and to smear critics of Islam.
My biggest objection to this term is that it does nothing to protect Muslims as people. It’s a cover for Islamists and their radical and extreme views. They want to perpetuate women’s rights abuses, minorities’ rights abuses, and other human rights violations under the banner of Islamophobia. They want to gain privileges and concessions in Western societies, whether these are Muslim politicians talking about Islamophobia or some activists or newspapers.
Westerners are often gullible and politically correct. They are trying to make a utopia of multiculturalism work. They don’t see it working, so they want to make it work. The way they’ve found to make it work is by appeasing the so-called religious leaders of these communities. They think this will make the utopia work, but it’s not working, and it’s not going to work.
We are witnessing radical changes in Western societies around the world, and it’s going to make things worse because you cannot appease extremists. It’s a bottomless pit. You might please them once, but they will come up with another demand. This is what we have been witnessing in the U.K. They first went after one school’s headmaster, then another school’sheadmistress, and then gathered outside another school.
Now, this has become a norm in the U.K. Whenever a school does not act in line with their beliefs, they start intimidating the administration, pupils, and teachers. Death threats are involved.
Schools are being shut down, and these incidents have become more common. One of the reasons people were agitated was, of course, the rights violated by far-right thugs. There is no excuse for that; it should be condemned without any ifs or buts. However, the staged protests initially involved ordinary British people before these riots. They were concerned that one religion and community were treated differently than the rest of society.
These grievances surface when political correctness dominates political and social discourse. We have to talk about these issues, and we should never let bad-faith actors politicize them because they make it look like politics. No, it’s not politics.
For me, if a couple of ex-Muslims have aligned with far-right propaganda, they are mere individuals. They do not represent the courageous people who abandon Islam and put their lives at risk. They are opportunists, in my mind, individuals looking for an opportunity to politicize these issues. Otherwise, these are legitimate concerns, and we need to be vocal about them.
I know not everyone can be vocal, and I understand that. I respect their decision to remain anonymous and not get involved — that’s perfectly fine. But for those who can, we should be as vocal as possible.
Faulk-Dickerson: I want to add one other thing. I know, Aysha, you want to jump in. Everything you said is 100% true. Speaking of labels, “Islamophobia” is as problematic as “antisemitism.” Hear me out: antisemitism does not accurately address what it’s trying to convey, which might be anti-Zionism, anti-Jewish sentiment, or Jewish hate. Antisemitism, by the way, includes Arabs, so it’s an issue. As a half-Arab, I’m a Semite, and calling Arabs antisemitic or referring to anyone who is against Jews, Zionism, or Israel as antisemitic is problematic. It shifts the power dynamics and changes the narrative in a way that can be misleading. Islamophobia is becoming the new antisemitism.
K. Khan: I can’t entirely agree with that. It’s not like antisemitism. The term “antisemitism” was not coined with malicious intentions, as happened with “Islamophobia.” Islamophobia was created to define bigotry against Muslims, but it was never aimed at protecting Muslims.
So when we talk about antisemitism, yes, there are people who use it to silence dissent. I agree with that. But to say there is any equivalence between these two terms? No.
Faulk-Dickerson: I felt misunderstood, Khadija. I’m not saying they are equivalent. I’m saying that it’s a label that does not necessarily address the actual problem. When the term “antisemitism” is used to focus on anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, or anti-Zionist sentiment, it is not an accurate label. The word “antisemitism” refers to a group of people that includes Arabs.
So, I’m referencing that it’s not a label that speaks to the current issue. Islamophobia, yes, is focused exclusively on Islam, but it is also a problematic label. I’m using the correlation to point out that certain labels meant to address specific issues are ineffective. As an Arab, I can tell you that the label “antisemitism” is problematic. I know there is anti-Jewish hate, anti-Israel sentiment, and anti-Zionism. I’m not voicing an opinion on that. Still, I’m saying that when the word“antisemitism” is only associated with protecting Jews, it’s an issue because Arabs are Semites as well. That’s what I’mreferring to.
A. Khan: Thank you for that. No, I wanted to triple down on the concept that the word “Islamophobia” is so problematic. Ideas don’t have rights — people do. What Islamophobia does is immediately shut down the conversation.
Islam is due to the same level of criticism that any other religion gets. So when I hear from other Muslims, “Oh, well, Hinduism is this,” or “Christianity is that,” or if I express some discomfort within Islam, they ask, “Well, did you look at the scripture? Did you talk to a Mufti? Did you talk to a Sheikh? Did you talk to any Imam?” I want so badly to turn around and say, “Did you do that when you rejected Christianity or Hinduism?” Fair is fair. That’s why I much prefer the label “anti-Muslim bigotry” because it brings it down to the individual level — it’s about the person.
So, suppose you are behaving in a discriminatory way towards a person. In that case, that is different from voicing criticism against religion. I agree.
Jacobsen: I should add that I have seen individuals who might see the term “Islamophobia” and recognize its efficacy in preventing some criticism of Islam.
We don’t have terms like “atheophobia” widely recognized. People try to use that term, but it seems cynical and inappropriate. I use that particular example to highlight how other individuals might cynically attempt to prevent any criticism of their political or religious ideology using these types of terms — like “Hinduophobia,” “Christianophobia,” etc.
I could see this happening even within secular dogmas like communism or fascism, where people might try to stop criticism by using such terms. It’s not likely, but it could happen.
K. Khan: The point is that there are possibilities where even the term “anti-Muslim bigotry,” which is quite self-explanatory, could be used to shut down criticism of religion. For example, they might say that if you criticize the hijab, you’re dehumanizing Muslim women because they wear the hijab.
The work that we’re all doing by criticizing Islam starts here — we need to draw a distinction between criticizing ideas and bigotry against people. This distinction is something we all need to uphold because Islamists and some Muslims try to blur the line between the two. They feel bad when you criticize their religion, and they don’t want you to say anything negative about it, so they blur the line between criticizing ideas and bigotry against people to protect their religious beliefs.
For example, I’ve heard prominent people from the Muslim community give this absurd comparison: “What if you say something bad about my mom? I would feel bad.” To me, it’s like there’s a difference between a book and a mom.
My mom doesn’t care. My mom is my mom. Please say something nice about my mom, but you’re not obliged to respect her. If you say, “I don’t respect your mom,” I have the decency to say, “That’s fine. That’s your opinion. It’s all right.”
Faulk-Dickerson: Yes, I agree 100%. One of the biggest issues that women face, especially women — not men as much — who distance themselves from Islam, are no longer practicing, or are ex-Muslim, is the immediate question: “Have you talked to someone? Have you read the Quran?” Yes, I’ve read it in its original language. I went to a private school where, from kindergarten to 12th grade, you studied seven subjects attached to religion.
Whether it’s reading the Quran, memorizing the Quran, interpreting the Quran, studying the Hadith of the Prophet, explaining the Hadith, applying religious teachings, or understanding faith, these seven subjects are all focused on religion. Oh, and then there’s the pronunciation of the Quran — that makes eight. So you’re learning religion nonstop.
So, yes, I understand — I’ve read it. I have. That’s number one. Number two is the concern that women, specifically, are often unable to question, compare, or analyze because the moment they do, they are labelled sinners and accused of causing problems. This is deeply concerning.
And then, on the other side, you have the West defending something they don’t understand, empowering and encouraging something they don’t understand. That, to me, is probably the biggest threat. But then you have the “Muslim-lite” or“Muslim by label” individuals who still keep that title, which inflates the number of Muslims in the world. So, you hear about these billions of Muslims. On top of that, you have these vocal Muslim Western women who don’t consider themselves converts but “reverts.”
Look that up — I’m sure you know what that is. The idea is that you’re reverting to Islam because you were naturally born Muslim. Then, somehow, society corrupted you and made you a Christian. Now, you’ve reverted to your original faith, which is the faith that God wants. So, all these Muslim women from the West are lecturing those of us who grew up in that faith, who had no choice, and who have suffered the consequences of being completely subjugated and oppressed. That is truly the biggest threat. I think the threat comes from the outside far more than from the inside.
I’m not minimizing what’s happening on the inside, but that’s been a given for centuries and will continue as long as some outside voices and behaviours encourage and empower that ideology.
A. Khan: Yes, and I would like to add that South Asian Muslims have an added layer of complexity in that we are often told we are not reading the correct interpretation of the Quran because we do not speak Arabic. So, we rely on someone to translate Arabic into either English or Urdu. Then, if you go on Quran.com, you have your choice of ten different versions of the English interpretation of the Quran, which leads to arguments like, “Does the word ‘strike’ mean strike, or does it mean to hit with a stick no smaller than the width of your thumb?”
It’s utter nonsense. When I hear people talk about colonialism, I’m like, let’s talk about Arab colonialism in South Asia. Let’s talk about how we have been stripped of our culture, traditions, and language.
K. Khan: I’m so glad you brought that up.
A. Khan: When I was growing up, it was “Khuda Hafiz.” Then, as I got older, it became “Allah Hafiz.” Now, I hear people saying “As-Salaam-Alaikum” when leaving because it’s closer to what Arabs say. Even saying “thank you” has come into Islam’s crosshairs. I have relatives who now say “Jazakallah” instead of “Shukria.” We have become Arabized — it’s like the Arabification of our culture, and it is bonkers.
Faulk-Dickerson: “Jazakkala” is Islamic. We still say “Shukran” in Arabic, but “Jazakallah” is religious. Thank you. So that’s — wow.
K. Khan: We South Asians are more Muslim than Arabs. It’s not something to be proud of. It’s a shame. Every country or society has its own culture. Arabs have their own culture, and the cultural part is where people come together, enjoy, dance, and have a good time. I love these parts of all cultures, whether it’s Arab culture or South Asian culture.
What I object to is the oppressive parts of any culture. In South Asia, I can relate to what you said. For us, it’s never enough to learn about religion because it’s not our language, first of all. It’s been imposed on us. It’s not that South Asians are incapable of learning another language. Many South Asians living abroad speak two or three languages, if not more.
It’s about imposing something with aggression and abuse. Much abuse comes with that. Kids are beaten, and I was also beaten as a child by my teacher for not memorizing the Quran or for not pronouncing things properly. That fear, that intimidation. Somehow, they taught us to look down on ourselves — that unless we become a personification of Arab culture, we are not good enough as people.
So, because our culture is negative — our culture — exactly, we have no culture. If there’s no Islam, then we have no culture. That was so confusing for me as a child. There was a struggle because, for instance, in India, people were dancing, girls were learning dance and singing, and we couldn’t do it, even though we were the same people. How is it possible that their culture is this, but it’s not ours anymore? That was so confusing.
Regarding your point about Western liberals who are being politically correct and not supporting us and even trying to suppress our voices, it’s true that we are fighting on more than one front. It’s not just about radical Islamists. Yes, the fear of being targeted by Islamists is always there, but then there’s also the fear of being shut down by liberals in the West.
It’s not just a fringe group — many people say, “Why do you talk about Islam? Why do you talk about hijab? These Muslim women are wearing it willingly. Let them be. Stop talking about it.” They cannot understand it. I don’t buy this argument because they can understand. They have fought battles against religious tyranny here in the West. The tyranny of Christianity was no less cruel and brutal than that of Islamic regimes, whether in the past or present. It’s more or less the same thing. They’ve experienced it, and this is where I find myself most disappointed.
What we are up against — our fight and the challenges we face — instead of becoming our allies, they make us the target of their criticism. That is not fair. That is not humane, in my view.
A. Khan: This brings me to the idea of forming an organization or a network. One of the issues that bothers me is, again, World Hijab Day, which to me is like celebrating a minority within a minority. Women who choose to wear hijab are a fraction of the women who wear hijab. It’s wild. You’re catering to a specific, minute slice of Muslim women who choose to wear hijab, and you’re ignoring the coercive control through modesty culture — it’s a modesty cult. And then you’resaying it’s a choice. No, it’s not.
It’s not a choice when you’re told at nine years old that you can no longer wear skirts or shorts or that now that you’remenstruating, you must wear a hijab or you must cover yourself. It bothers me.
Faulk-Dickerson: My favourite argument when I speak to this is when I say, “How does it make sense?” And again, I grew up in Saudi Arabia, potentially the hottest country in the world. People tell me things are changing now. Great, I’mtalking about the general situation.
My answer when I say that is that people — whether they are from the religious community or the leftists defending religious choices — pose the argument, “Well, you wouldn’t run around naked in a cold environment.” Or, “You need to cover in the desert and the heat to protect yourself.” I’m like, “So one extreme and the other extreme equate? How does that even make sense?” The justifications defending these practices often come from the West. It’s inconceivable.
First of all, 25 years ago, when I came here, I would have never imagined that I would be arguing with Westerners the way I had when I was growing up with the most radical ideology. That radical ideology is now about censorship — about not being able to speak, not being able to question.
And, going back to the word “Islamophobia,” phobia, in general, is a fear of something. The accusation of calling people Islamophobes — that’s not what they’re saying. No one’s afraid of Islam. They’re not afraid of Muslims. People who are bigots and hate others for whatever reason — they’re not afraid of them.
They hate them. So you can say there’s hate. You can say there’s bigotry. You can say there’s any ism — prejudice or racism or whatever. That’s fine.
But the word “phobia,” whether it’s used in any context — even when you think about it as “homophobia” — is like, are you afraid of gay people, or do you hate them? It’s important to wrap your mind around the language as well. We allow this language to be perpetuated, and it creates an ideology. That’s the message there.
It’s not even about defending or protecting anything. It’s about creating a new cult mentality, mob mentality, ideology — whatever you want to call it — for more control and more power.
Jacobsen: Could such a network or community discussion board provide a bulwark for people to formulate and refine arguments and then deliver them online for others to see? So, do you have the anonymity Aysha mentioned on Reddit or people doing it alone? It could be something as simple as a community discussion or a resource page. It doesn’t have to have any discernible or definable main figures as the heads of it.
It could be a grassroots, bottom-up electronic formulation of a network that might be useful to people who are coming out, not feeling safe, but knowing or feeling something is wrong concerning family and community structure and ideology. They might not know how to crystallize those feelings into formalized thoughts.
Faulk-Dickerson: This would be hard to implement because, as we heard from everyone here, the nuances, details, backgrounds, and experiences are vast, complex, and different. It takes work to create a platform where these stories can all fit. I’m struggling with this one because it is so hard. When we’re on the other side, we all cohesively come to this, but when you’re approaching it initially. There’s no telling what drive or push led you to seek an out from it.
At the same time, what are all the traumas? What are all the complexes? What are all the impositions? What kind of shame did you grow up with? What kind of fear was imposed on you? It’s so complex that it’s hard to find a space to capture it all because grassroots movements also become ideological. So, I need help with this one.
K. Khan: Women, ex-Muslim women, are far more reasonable in articulating their views around these issues than ex-Muslim men. It’s obvious. It’s the truth. I’m not saying this to differentiate between men and women. Still, when I look at some famous ex-Muslim men, I don’t find myself being inspired. There are a couple of people I would look up to, but only a few. There are many prominent faces among ex-Muslim men. Still, ex-Muslim women, when interacting with activists, are different. Some activists want to make alliances, and some don’t because they are famous and want to be the only voices. They don’t want anyone standing with them or being connected with them. For them, it’s like, “Whatever I’msaying, all you have to do is say, ‘I’m with you.’ That’s it.” This is all they want.
So, for me, it was fine. I can distance myself from these people because it’s important to understand that we are fighting the same cause and ideology. However, it’s important to find common ground and treat each other humanely, making each other feel like our voices matter. It’s not just about “me, me, me” and nobody else.
I feel there are inspirational ex-Muslim women, and the concept of networking is more feasible, in my opinion than having an institution or organization. We are all individuals coming from different backgrounds. We have different views and beliefs, but yes, we are united in our protest against Islam.
This is the only thing that unites us. Our fight for human rights and these kinds of issues bring us together. These are the common grounds we share. We are all reasonable enough to have civilized discussions like this one. I have never had a bad experience with ex-Muslim women, to be honest.
Even though we may agree or disagree, the discussions are always reasonable and respectful. So, while ex-Muslim women may not be as prominent, they are still inspirational to me. If I had a choice between watching prominent ex-Muslim men or ex-Muslim women, I would choose ex-Muslim women because I find more common ground with them. I find them more reasonable in their approaches to dealing with these issues.
A. Khan: Same here. I’m not sure, Scott, how that would be much different from Reddit. But going back to the idea of whether this is relevant for ex-Muslims now, and considering gender or sex differences among people who leave Islam, I find that men struggle more and longer than women do. For men, Islam often roots them in their masculinity and gives them purpose. For women, you live under the oppression of men, so the idea of escaping and wanting freedom makes you more willing to walk through that door.
The period of disillusionment or disenfranchisement that you experience after leaving Islam is shorter and a little less painful for women than it is for men. I wonder if there’s still a need because women find each other more organically. For example, ‘Mia’ and I have known each other for 10-plus years, and I only recently learned that she’s an ex-Muslim, literally just a few months ago. But I feel like we find each other in more organic ways than men do. Men seem to need more of a formal setting to come together.
Jacobsen: That’s interesting because I go through waves of interest when I have time. Over the years, I’ve done a ton of interviews with ex-Muslims, and as we can all imagine, it’s mostly dudes. Interestingly, I noted that men have much more freedom of movement and financial wherewithal. They can go to another country or get out more easily.
So, I take the point you’re making. In that case, there’s this face-value paradox: Men may have the money and freedom of travel to get out more easily. Yet, in terms of their stature within the system of the religion, it’s a harder hit or a bruise to the ego. Reintegration into being “like everyone else” can be difficult. So, it takes more work for women to get out in the first place. Still, once they’re out, the individual psycho-emotional process is quicker.
K. Khan: I would also say that when I wanted to question religious beliefs, it wasn’t easy. I would think about the consequences and repercussions, which felt almost impossible. But for men, it’s not impossible. Even if they live in Muslim-majority countries, they can denounce religion privately, though making it public is another story.
Nobody can easily make it public in a Muslim-majority country. Still, men can live without strictly adhering to the core principles of religion. They can get away with drinking, adultery, and other things that, according to Islam, are liable to severe punishments, including the death penalty.
But for women, the control is so strict. Every single step you take involves thinking about the repercussions. If you’regoing outside your house, consider your father, your mother’s and your family’s permission, or whether your brother will be fine with it. There’s always something to consider.
These little, trivial things we have to take into consideration before doing anything because we have not been given any empowerment, any authority, or any say. We are acting like robots, doing what we are told to do. For us, it’s never easy to break these shackles. That’s the reason I have huge admiration for women, especially because I know it’s the hardest thing they ever come across in their lives — abandoning religion, denouncing it, and then making it public, which is even harderbecause there’s so much abuse involved.
I’ve received so many abusive messages, apparently from men. I’ve stopped checking my inbox on Messenger and Twitter because it shocks me. I don’t want to read those kinds of messages — they are so explicit and abusive. These are the things we have to face. And from family, neighbours, and the community, it’s a lot for women to take this step.
Faulk-Dickerson: Thank you, Khadija. That is such an important point. Men who are still considered Muslim can get away with anything. I don’t care what anybody says, but it’s the truth.
Women, whether they are in modern Muslim families, progressive modern Muslim families, religious or conservative ones — it doesn’t matter what level of social freedom or lack thereof a family has — the woman always has to adhere to a specific standard of behaviour. If a man misbehaves, it’s never about what kind of Muslim he is; that question would never be asked of a man. But for a woman, it’s asked every single time. Her behaviour is 100% tied to religious practices.
The other point I wanted to make is that, yes, Muslim men are also seeking a normal life and some level of freedom or normalcy, and they can find it a lot easier. For women, it is close to impossible. There is a checklist of things that a Muslim woman has to do to be a respected woman, to make things right by her family, by her father, and by the males in her family. No man answers to anyone. By law, the man has all the power over all the women in his family, including his mother. That’s the standard law of Islamic practices.
Some countries are moving away from that, and that’s progress. But that particular piece is crucial to differentiate between how women liberate themselves from oppression and how men do — it’s a given for them. It’s a no-brainer. No one questions a man’s behaviour.
A man’s behaviour or misbehaviour is always associated with and tied to a woman’s behaviour. So, if a man misbehaves, the woman tempts him, lures him, or makes himself available. It’s never the man’s fault. When a man misbehaves, a woman is involved, who is seen as the devil in his ear.
K. Khan: That’s true. Men always define a woman, and a woman is responsible for how a man conducts himself.
Today, we were having a discussion in the U.K. about sexual assaults on women on trains. Some people were proposing segregated carriages for women to protect them from sexual assault and such. I was on T.V. They asked me. I was against this segregation. For me, it was an extension of the same misogynistic mindset prevalent in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or other Muslim-majority countries and India — that whatever happens, it’s the woman’s fault.
They don’t think predatory men are the problem; they think women are the problem. So, they want to segregate women to protect them. Again, this is victim blaming, and I don’t see any real protection in that because sexual assault and violence against women are not confined to the boxes of trains. It’s a prevalent issue in society, even here in the U.K.
So, you cannot say that creating segregated carriages will protect women. It never works. In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, they have maximum segregation between men and women. Are women protected in those countries? “Yes.”
We don’t see many reported rape cases because women either don’t report rape or are accused of adultery if they cannot provide witnesses. People say, “Oh, look at Saudi Arabia, no woman is ever raped there, and no woman is ever raped in Pakistan.” This is so ridiculous. In societies where patriarchy and misogyny are so rife, it’s absurd to think that women are safe. I can never wrap my head around a level of absurdity.
Her father is a long-time human rights defender, and she and her sister founded Aware Girls, a women’s and girls’ rights organization in Pakistan when they were just 14. It’s not an easy context to deal with, but the last time I talked to her, they were getting some graduate degrees in Chicago. Her sister, Saba, was also involved. These contexts highlight that reports often involve extreme cases when they come out.
It also relates to Jasmin’s expertise–Saudi Arabia–and Khadija’s background in Pakistan, where many of the terrorist acts are linked to Salafi-Wahhabi interpretations of Islam. Yet, the so-called “Muslim ban” didn’t target Saudi Arabia or specific denominational interpretations like Salafi-Wahhabi. These distinctions aren’t being made, which is part of the black box problem.
By clarifying these distinctions, former Muslim women’s conversations and discussions could be helpful — not only to themselves but also to the broader discussion in the general public. No matter how this might end up, whether there’s a formal network or not, this gets the discussion ball rolling. Do you think there’s a benefit in at least portraying honest voices, authentic voices of women who have left Islam for a variety of reasons, regardless of their denominational background, to people in the West to humanize the image of people in countries they may not necessarily be acquainted with, but tend to have strong political and social views on, even racist views on?
A. Khan: The more voices we can put out there, the more we normalize the issue of women leaving Islam. As Khadija said, it’s incredibly difficult. Forget — well, not forget — but even putting the issue of sexual assault aside, sexual harassment within these communities is outrageous. When you talk about the low rates of reported rape, we often overlook the rampant sexual harassment on the streets in these communities. It’s absurd.
You are unable to leave your house. I’ve visited Pakistan. I’ve also lived in India. I’ve travelled in those women-only train cars. It’s disgusting because every time a train passes on the other track, men are hanging off that train, leering at you, making disgusting gestures, and catcalling you. It’s disgusting. What you’ve done is essentially create another form of hijab. You’ve said women are the problem; therefore, they need to be separated from society.
If men are the problem, why doesn’t hijab exist for men? Why is it my fault? Why is my body the issue? Why do I need to be the one isolated?
Jacobsen: Even if it’s not, this approach caters to a specific population. Part of these discussions continually highlights the gendered nature of coming out of these communities and ideologies.
K. Khan: I want to say, because I may have to leave soon, that there are very vocal ex-Muslim women, and there are ex-Muslim women who are not vocal but are still out there. Whenever they feel comfortable enough to come out and make it public, it’s up to them. There’s nothing that says they have to come out because being an ex-Muslim brings a lot of fear, intimidation, abuse, and the threat of being targeted by radicals.
Especially when we see that Western liberals are not entirely on our side, the situation for ex-Muslims is not very favourable. I was told by someone who is supposedly so liberal in their views, “You are going to receive these kinds of threats and abuse. Why don’t you stop talking about it? Just leave them alone and live your life.” It was so easy for that person to say. I was in shock for some time because I couldn’t expect this kind of talk from an Islamist or fundamentalist. Still, from someone I knew to be so progressive, liberal, and Western? I would never have expected that kind of view from them.
The situation for ex-Muslims could be more favourable for coming out and speaking on these issues. But, yes, those who can do it are brave and making a difference. I appreciate the presence of these women around me. Today, I’ve met three more women. It’s fabulous to see more and more women stepping up. We all have our journeys and will take our time to pick up the pace.
Faulk-Dickerson: I want to highlight that Scott took this conversation and brought it to the world, which is wonderful. Still, I think one of the most important points to highlight from this discussion is the fact that the West is hurting women in these communities — whether they are still practicing or non-practicing — more than their communities are. The reason why is that the whole goal of so-called Westernized, civilized, progressive, liberated governments or countries is to protect human rights. This is not seen as a human rights violation, but it is completely a violation of human rights.
It is appalling to me to be living in a country where I see Christians demonized, rightfully or wrongfully — I don’t have a judgment on that. But when evangelicals and Mormons, especially fundamentalist Mormons, are criticized for their practices — how they treat their people — it’s the same practice as in fundamentalist Islamic interpretations. It’s the same. So why have we empowered a woman wearing a hijab or, as Khadija said, adopted a “live and let live” attitude?
Why are we saying, “Let them be,” when this comes from the voices of people who have borne the consequences of being in that environment? Here, we are speaking about it, and we’re seen as demonizing the religion; we’re seen as problems in society. But the women who escaped the FLDS — the fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints — are heroes. They’re victims. Let’s hear them out.
I’m perplexed by the disparity between these two extreme ways of approaching women who are victims of religion.
Jacobsen: I’m picking up that strongly from this conversation. Suppose we’re going to have an ethic. In that case, it should be universally applicable, just as we do with human rights in general, which are specific ways of mentioning different facets of the principle of universalism.
A. Khan: Yes, Islam cannot get a pass anymore. That’s fundamentally what we all agree on. Islam cannot get a pass anymore.
K. Khan: That’s true. We are all speaking from our positions, and more and more people will emerge. They are coming out. The people we see converting to Islam are merely publicized — they are not a large number. I’m talking about 15 years back when I was in university, in a room full of young people. They were talking so negatively about the religion. This was about 15 years ago — a packed room full of young people mocking religious beliefs. It’s a tsunami. If they can hear it, it’s even better because they would be surprised.
Jacobsen: Another point mentioned earlier by Aysha had to do with the rise of “cafeteria Muslims” and “secular Muslims.” I remember seeing nods during the call when you mentioned the things that the younger generations of Muslim women are wearing — at least in North America, the United Kingdom, or Canada — things you would not have been allowed to get away with when you were younger, or at least in your community when you were younger. So, could it not necessarily be an ex-Muslim women’s network as a whole, but one integrated with more liberal, cafeteria, secular Muslim communities of women as well?
Faulk-Dickerson: I want to say something about this because, while, on the one hand, it’s great to see women being empowered and practicing their religion the way they want, I will say this from my personal experience. I have received much judgment from these modern, secular, cafeteria Muslim women. When I want to speak about my story, my upbringing, and my completely oppressive experience, their response is, “That’s not Islam. That is not how I practice it.”
And my answer to them is, “Well, that’s not like that anymore. Saudi Arabia has now come a long way.” Great. I’m happy about that. But my answer is, do we then erase history? Do we erase the voices of so many women who have gone through this? Do we silence victims and traumatized people — potentially current, still-traumatized people?
It baffles me that they say, “Well, that was 10, 15 years ago.” Yes, well, the Holocaust was 70 years ago, and slavery was over 100 years ago. Do we erase it? These are problematic historical atrocities that have occurred. Just because they weren’t genocidal in nature doesn’t mean that ideologically, spiritually, and psychologically, they weren’t genocides. It was absolute apartheid — what women experienced and continue to experience silently and quietly. They’ve just gotten creative with hiding it.
Now, they’ve masked it fabulously. They’ve rebranded it, and this new version 100% dismisses, criticizes, ridicules, mocks, and judges those of us who had a different experience. So, unfortunately, I can’t see an allyship or correlation with this modern version of Islam.
A. Khan: Yes, I would hesitate to ally ex-Muslims with secular Muslims in that way because I feel like — though I hate to pass judgment — there’s a disingenuousness in practicing faith that way. It irks me to no end, whether delusion or something else. Try saying that in a Muslim-majority country. Try wearing those outfits in a theocratic state. It’s not going to happen. And then try telling them that the version of Islam they’re practicing is not correct and that your version is. You’re not going to get far.
K. Khan: I agree with that. It’s hard to ally with more progressive Muslims. We can never find common ground unless we accept the reality, which is different for both of us. The concept of Islamic feminism is an oxymoron, in my opinion. There is no such thing as Islamic feminism. There is no concept of feminism in Islam. The same goes for progressive Muslims. Yes, suppose they are willing to understand the extremist and radical elements in their religion, the violations of women’s rights, and the violations of minorities’ rights. In that case, I am 100% for that. But if they want me to ignore the bad bits and only focus on the good bits, that’s not possible. I want to talk about the bad bits because those bad bits are impacting innocent people’s lives around the world. That’s not a compromise I can make on this issue.
A couple of people here in the U.K. are very practicing Muslims in every possible way, but I have good terms with them on this one condition. It’s not that I’ve told them they must be like this — they know it. If they are in any alliance with me, they cannot tell me that there are good bits in Islam and to ignore the bad bits. They know that. So, when discussing things or working together on any project, they know my point of view. I’m very clear that I won’t make any compromise on this issue. So, realizing reality is the first step in any relationship, if there is to be one at all. It was lovely to see you, meet you, and get to know you. Thank you so much. Have a lovely day or evening. Thank you so much, Scott.
‘Mia’: On allyship, to build momentum and ground, you must reach across and have enough people behind the movement. Okay. So, I don’t know the answer to that. Maybe I’m being optimistic, but this could be the start of a change where maybe “cafeteria Islam” is how things segue into a softer and more palatable version. I feel like Christianity has been watered down quite considerably, and they’re more receptive to critique now. This may be the start of it.
Jacobsen: That’s a good point. Christians have had strict delineations in their history of formal denominational splits. For example, some immigrant families from Holland to Canada — like my own — were Dutch Reformed or Dutch Orthodox. They moved to Ontario and then became Presbyterian. So, in my mind, Presbyterian is Dutch Reformed or Dutch Orthodox lite.
But I don’t see this ever happening in Islam. In all the years of doing these interviews, I’ve never heard discussions around “Sunni lite,” “Shia lite,” “Quranist lite,” or “Ahmadi lite.” Those are the titles; the only other category I see is ex-Muslim or former-Muslim. It’s a much different conceptual discussion than if I were interviewing people with an ex-Christian background.
Faulk-Dickerson: Part of it is because it’s harder to be “Muslim lite.” You’re either committed or you’re not.
A. Khan: Islam is too rigid.
Faulk-Dickerson: Exactly. So even folks who practice this so-called cultural Islam, where they’re not doing any of the rituals but still consider themselves Muslim, find it a lot harder to admit that. To say, “Yes, I’m a Muslim,” and then to add, “But I don’t pray, I don’t fast, I don’t do any of these things,” is difficult. You end up faking your way around that. You’re not going to say you drink openly. You either are 100% vocal about the fact that you’re not attached or associated with any of the practices and titles, or it’s the other way around.
‘Mia’: Thank you, everyone. Nice to meet you.
Faulk-Dickerson: Anyway, that’s where I was thinking — it’s easier for Christians because there are also 9,000 denominations of Christianity. With Islam, you’re either Sunni or Shia, and anything else is not considered legitimate or worthy of paying attention to or listening to scholars. It’s the Shiites and the Sunnis who fight over who has more power and control. The Sunnis have more power. In that respect, the Sunnis have completely monopolized the entire conversation. So, will we see that level of progress? We’re already 1,500 years into the religion, so it seems unlikely.
Jacobsen: Part of it is off-topic, but part concerns the linguistic fractionation of the Christian religion. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin produced the King James, New International, and more. I’m looking for a time when there will be a 21st-century lingo interpretation of the Bible, where Jesus says, “No cap.” There is some truth there. I have nieces, so I can see that happening. But I’m imagining, “Jesus was Sigma.” His most Sigma moment was flipping the tables of the money lenders. Anyway, with Islam, you have Arabic, so it’s a much simpler formula to make an argument for its textual analysis.
Falk-Dickerson: Not to interrupt, Scott, but you know this and have come across it — the Quran is supposedly untouched and unaltered. It’s the only word of God that has not been altered or touched, and it’s meant for all time. It is the last and final word of God. So, it set itself up nicely.
Jacobsen: I will credit the Baha’i because — what’s the literal translation of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas? It’s not just the holy book; it’s “The Most Holy Book.” Wow, you win.
Faulk-Dickerson: But actual Muslims — let’s say, Sunnis or any Muslims who are non-Baha’i — do not consider Baha’isto be Muslim. It’s like how some Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian. So, Baha’is have taken a completely different route. They are not received or welcomed by Muslims. Let’s make that clear.
A. Khan: Do some people consider Baha’is Muslim? Because I’ve never heard that.
Faulk-Dickerson: Baha’is consider themselves a delineation of Islam, like Sufis. They define themselves as part of Islam.
Jacobsen: In all of my interviews with ex-religious people, religious people, etc., no one has anything bad to say about the Unitarian Universalists. No one.
My friend defines himself as a Quranist Muslim. I like talking to people; it’s much more engaging than reading a peer-reviewed article. Those are only going to be read by specialists in their dialect. We’ve been conversing since cave paintings, so it’s a much easier delivery system. However, the linguistic system evolved. It’s an easier way to communicate.
Jacobsen: Jasmin opened by questioning whether it was premature. So, Khadija mentioned media hounds and the lack of association. People are fighting over follower counts online. She saw these people as media hounds. She didn’t want to associate with them, especially when she saw them arguing over follower counts. Knowing Khadija, she likely looked at the actual tweets. So when she says that there are people — famous or moderately famous — taking the “ex-Muslim” title as their brand and fighting over follower counts, she’s likely highlighting that as something to avoid for the sake of efficacy and seriousness.
Aysha, you mentioned “cafeteria Muslims” and “secular Muslims.” You talked about younger relatives who took that route. There’s a question of whether a space needs to be carved out. Both of you seem to lean toward saying it’s either premature or uncertain if space is needed post-9/11. Now, post-9/11, your point mainly revolved around the re-racialization of South Asians and Arabs. So it wasn’t just an American issue; now it’s part of the conversation.
A. Khan: Yes, I’ve spoken about this often, but 9/11 happened when I was a freshman in college. Many of my South Asian and Muslim friends essentially had to decide between being either South Asian or Muslim. They chose religion over culture, becoming more religious because they were being asked, “Is this Islam? Is this what Islam asks people to do to non-Muslims — essentially attack or kill them?” They didn’t know the answer. Like many Muslims growing up in the West, they’d been fed a specific version of Islam that said, “Islam means peace,” and so on.
What I’m referencing is people becoming more religious, eschewing their cultural and racial identity, and being absorbedby Islam on a larger scale.
Jacobsen: That’s another thing I’ve seen come up — ‘Mia’’s point about the fear of first coming out. So, there are at least two angles to that. You could have an association, network, or organization to contact. Still, at the same time, you’re at risk of being identifiable. What are your feelings on that? The risk factors for women coming forward and the fear around that.
A. Khan: It’s real.
Jacobsen: Yes, it could be a serious roadblock for women publicly identifying themselves as ex-Muslim or even questioning Islam. I see some merit in creating a platform where people can contribute anonymously, but that feels disjointed and incohesive. I’m unsure how else to get around it other than what EXMNA does: screen people before allowing them to join community groups. It’s arduous.
Faulk-Dickerson: Part of the issue is that you’re attracting people looking to target you. It’s easy for someone to create a false identity, join these communities, and then target vulnerable individuals. There’s so much spyware, and then there are bots — you’re not protected or safe. For those of us speaking out more openly, we know the risks. That’s why I say the power is in the collective. Once you have too many women speaking, it becomes harder to silence them. It’s like being attacked by a swarm of flies — you can catch one or two. Still, the world is watching unless you eradicate them all simultaneously, which is also possible.
Jacobsen: Scope was another good point. It had to be narrow, which was also Aysha’s point. The idea was to focus on a specific issue without escaping Islam. Here’s a follow-up question combining two points from ‘Mia’ and Khadija: How do you create a network with an appropriately narrow scope without becoming “political” or “ruthless”?
Faulk-Dickerson: Yes. Wrapping it around human and women’s rights is the only way. The only way to address this particular issue is to start by addressing it as a human rights issue, a women’s rights issue, and a women’s protection issue. It can include other religions, abuses, or atrocities, but the focus should be clear. Aysha, you mentioned that many don’treport abuses because they go nowhere, and quite the opposite — it often turns against you.
Jacobsen: Yes, that’s just a footnote in the larger point that most abuse is not reported. I did a case study on the Canadian military during their sexual assault scandal. Several other developed countries have had similar issues with their military. The report done by the military themselves found that most cases weren’t reported. When they were reported, the victims didn’t think anything would be done. Over half of serving members said they didn’t think anything would be done even if it were reported. So, in most cases, they try to deal with it at a local level without involving bureaucracy.
Faulk-Dickerson: That’s an interesting point, using the military as an example, because that’s exactly what religions can do — they become so militarized that they’re a one-ideology process. You can’t go against it, no matter what. It’s so powerful, like the military, that you can’t question or criticize it.
Jacobsen: Yes, it’s a regimented structure.
A. Khan: I was thinking about what’s happening in Iran with the hijab situation.
Jacobsen: Islam is tightly identified with Arab cultural identity. Jasmin, that was your point. At the same time, any platforming of former Muslim women as role models would be good — that was Khadija’s point. So, if Islam is tightly connected to Arab cultural identity in general, for individuals — particularly women — who leave Islam to be then platformed and to speak out on areas of acute human rights abuse that they or people they know have experienced or to recite relevant evidence-based statistics, could women like that provide a good role model and voice for other women who are much more hesitant to come out, either from fear or not wanting to be in front of the camera?
Faulk-Dickerson: Yes, I often say this when I give talks — Arab women are the most silenced women in the world. That’s not in any way dismissing other women, other Muslim women, not at all. But Arab women have the double whammy of historical culture, which was oppressive even before Islam. Back in the day, in that part of the world, they buried newborn girls alive. So there’s always been this kind of oppressive ideology in the region toward women. Then, you add the religion, which conflated itself with the traditional practices of the region.
Let me also disclose that Arabs have wonderful characteristics. There are wonderful things about Arab culture. I’m not in any way accusing the entire Arab region or the entire Arab ethnicity of being horrible. Quite the opposite — they are beautiful, generous people. But when those in power have some advantage in taking control and utilizing this level of oppression, it becomes a problem.
We don’t hear enough from Arab women. We hear from Muslim women who are not Arab speaking out, and thank goodness for them. We do hear from whether they’re still Muslim women, ex-Muslim women, secular Muslim women, progressive Muslim women — whatever that is — who are non-Arab. Once they’re out of their region, they’re somewhat protected.
But Arab women have an immeasurable fear. In the region, they are so brainwashed that even when they’re outside of the region, they can’t speak. So, it would be great to see more and more Arab women speak up. I get private messages from young Arab women and older Arab women all the time. They appreciate that I and a few other Arab women speak out. Still, Aysha, I wonder if you’ve encountered more Arab women as opposed to Muslim women who are not Arab?
A. Khan: Yes. As you were saying that, I was trying to think back to how many of the ex-Muslim women I know who are public are Arab. I would say very few. Interestingly, the vast majority of them are probably South Asian.
Faulk-Dickerson: Yes. Part of that is because the governments of the South Asian countries are not as powerful as those of the Saudi government or other Arab governments with such a global reach. They have such a strong relationship with the U.S. The U.S. will align itself with the Saudi government and play this game. Still, it will necessarily be different with the Pakistani or Indonesian governments. So, it is political. As much as we try to escape it, this is very political.
A. Khan: Yes. That’s an interesting point.
Jacobsen: I could hear a potential critique, however. Someone might say, “Why would you want to focus on the ethnic background of an ex-Muslim or former Muslim woman? Isn’t this tokenizing the ethnic background of this individual?”
Faulk-Dickerson: Yes. We don’t necessarily need to focus on it, but we do need to give voice to it. I’m not saying we need to focus on Arab women or that we need Arab women to lead this. That’s not at all what I’m saying. What I’msaying is that highlighting the fact that Arab women’s voices are not as prominent and that they are visibly silent starts to unpack the deeper issue, if that makes sense.
A. Khan: Yes. That’s what I understood from what Jasmine was saying.
Jacobsen: Jasmine, you made a point that was new in the conversation space that I’ve heard, and it’s true — Arabs are Semites, too. Hello?
A. Khan: I’ve heard that before.
Jacobsen: You’ve heard that before?
A. Khan: Yes.
Jacobsen: So, what do you typically hear in response to that?
Faulk-Dickerson: The immediate response is, “Well, that’s not what it means here. When we talk about antisemitism, we are talking about Jews.” And my response to that is that I am in no way saying that Jewish hate or anti-Jewish sentiment isn’t real. It’s real. It’s problematic. I want all people to be safe. I want Muslims to be safe. I want Jews to be safe. I want Arabs to be safe. I want Israelis to be safe. I am in no way arguing against that. What I am arguing is that this particular label — antisemitism — is extremely manipulative and divisive because I grew up being told to hate the Jews and, in the same breath, being told that Jews are our cousins. Well, which one is it?
Jacobsen: That’s a good one.
Faulk-Dickerson: Yes. The problem, especially with this conflict, and the problem that Arabs have had historically in the last 100 years, is 100% tied to Zionism, not to Judaism as a faith at all. Jews and Christians, to Muslims, are people of the book — they are believers. They’re all part of what’s called in Arabic, “Ahl al-Kitab,” which means the people of the holy books, the three Abrahamic religions. So, we are not taught to hate Jewish or Christian people of faith. Still, in modern history, we are taught to hate the Jews because of their ties to Zionism and Israel and the whole conflict in Palestine. One issue is political, and the other is religious, which is why you’ll hear many religious Jews and rabbis defending the Palestinian people or defending Muslim people because they recognize the difference between the two. I know that’s not the topic we’re focusing on here, but I’m trying to explain how this happens.
Jacobsen: This is what happens. Yes, it’s long-form for a reason. When I was growing up, I lived in a small town in Fort Langley, British Columbia, Canada. It was the founding area of British Columbia and was a small arts and farming community. Over time, the largest private university in the country opened up there. It’s evangelical in orientation, much like having Liberty University five minutes down the road. That’s the vibe.
I often joke that I look like someone who was meant to be a youth pastor or a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Pete Holmes has a similar joke about looking like someone who should be playing a guitar with a rainbow strap, rapping about the Lord. So, I get the look.
I was evangelical for about two months. I was in drama class and a loner kid. I wrote two plays, one of which was named While Away Hogwash. The drama teacher was a former addict — nothing against him for that — and he was a flashy guy. He was married and was the one who led us to church. He was that guy.
He had a son who was also flamboyant, and later, after high school, the son came out as gay. People were like, “Whoa, surprise.” He was in drama, so there were some stereotypical expectations, but it was still a moment for everyone.
We had an all-boys group where we’d read together. I remember reading a chapter like John 1: “In the beginning was the Word…” I read the whole book. I remember someone saying, “You’re making it look bad.” After reading quite a bit, it became clear that it was nonsense, so I left. Pretty much immediately after that, those friends were gone, too.
I understand the mentality of when you leave — you’re leaving not just a belief but also a social group. Those people were probably quietly told not to hang out with me anymore. Coming from an alcoholic family, I noticed a similar sentiment in that kind of abusive structure. If other parents found out about it, they would distance themselves. It’s a social deterrent.
I noticed a similar pattern in many stories of people leaving faiths. It’s a conscious social deterrent: “Don’t hang out with them anymore.” It’s not just that you might leave for another country; even within the community, there’s a deliberate distancing.
When I left, there was no ethnic colouring to it. It wasn’t like an African American single mother leaving the black church and being considered to have lost her “black card.” Some humanists who are indigenous in Canada and have stopped believing in the Creator and the spirituality around it still take part in cultural practices like smudging. In some communities, they are now considered not indigenous anymore, or in American terms, not Native American anymore.
My experience didn’t have any of that ethnic colouring. I wasn’t considered “not white” or anything like that. I didn’teven have to take on the title of ex-Christian. I didn’t have to play by the theological label game of Christians. Even when I’vewritten critical articles about my hometown, I haven’t been called “Christianophobic.” I’ve critiqued the university; I’vecritiqued the churches.
I’ve critiqued the main religious-based recovery programs there. I received the longest email I’ve ever received from the son of the co-founder of that recovery program, which ended up with me interviewing him — a long story.
I share these contexts to make it concrete and specific, to show that I didn’t have to deal with some of the issues others face. When we bring up Arab or South Asian issues, it’s clear that Arab communities may be more restricted, leading South Asians to come forward more prominently. While men are becoming more prominent, women often feel more fear in these situations. I didn’t feel fear when I left my faith; I felt the pain of losing friends. That was a big loss, but I moved on.
All these issues, including the socio-political game of labels, didn’t come up for me. Whether you call yourself ex-Muslim or an organization like EXMNA uses the label, you’re engaging with the language games of that theology, especially when it’s Anglicized. When you critique it, you’re playing that same game, and then you’re called Islamophobic. The consequences people face are a strong reason to continue conversations around grassroots organizing for women leaving the faith, whether they’re Arab, South Asian, or anyone else.
Aysha, you mentioned you’re still determining whether such spaces are needed.
A. Khan: It’s so dependent on individual circumstances. For example, I don’t fear physical harm from my family, even though I’m still closeted. I fear their disappointment, and that’s enough to keep me silent while still creating space for advocacy. Women are more resilient in their apostasy because the stakes are higher, and the other side offers something better than what they currently have. That’s why, anecdotally, I hear more from men struggling with leaving. They feel the acute loss of family, community, financial, and emotional support. For women, it’s often so dire that they’re more willing to cut ties, as I have in my life.
Faulk-Dickerson: This resonates because women often have nothing to lose. Conversely, men go from having power, prestige, and freedom to suddenly being alone, with no idea how to be resilient or handle being judged or told they’rewrong. Women grow up with these challenges ingrained in their psyche, so it’s another battle for them. This difference in experience is spot on.
A. Khan: Women have little to lose and much to gain, so they’re willing to bear the challenges. Islam imposes compulsory practices on men, while women have more flexibility due to biological factors like menstruation. For men, leaving the faith can feel like a total loss of self, as Islam roots them in their masculinity. They are traditionally seen as the head of the household, the law-givers.
Jacobsen: Armin Navabi and I did an in-depth series of interviews, one of which was about his mother passing away. She prayed for Atheist Republic, which was great. Still, his story also included a moment from his teenage years when he attempted suicide. He was running the line of logic for eternal well-being and saw that as the way to get to heaven. So, those cases are extreme. Yes, they might go on YouTube and crack jokes. Still, there’s a big path behind it — literally a kid likely dealing with depression and suicidal ideation.
A. Khan: Yes, the other thing is that Islam almost promises men so much more than it promises women.
Jacobsen: It promises men more because it promises men and women.
Faulk-Dickerson: Exactly. You’ve got to get those 72 virgins somewhere.
Jacobsen: Now, I’ve heard — this is a small point — but I’ve heard one interpretation that those “72 virgins” might be “72 white raisins.” Is that correct?
A. Khan: Please stop. No. Who would even want that?
Faulk-Dickerson: And by the way, we focus so much on the 72 virgins, but we don’t talk enough about another part of the Quran that mentions men having beautiful young boys as well. Ayesha, have you ever seen that?
Faulk-Dickerson: The word in the Quran is “Ghilman,” which means young boys in Arabic. The Surah says there will be a circulation among the young boys as if they were pearls that are well protected. Of course, the interpretation is that these young servant boys are just there to help and serve, not for sexual purposes. But if you Google it, you’ll see discussions among Muslim men asking if this means they can have sex with them in heaven. It isn’t comforting, especially when you consider that we often focus on the virgins but ignore the pedophilic undertones present in some interpretations of Islam. This is also why I say there’s no difference between FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints) and Islam in some aspects.
Jacobsen: I’m working on another project featuring the stories of a couple of women who have suffered clergy-related abuse within Orthodox Christianity. One of the women was a victim in her early twenties, which became a scandal, and the other was assaulted a year and a half ago in her early forties. She’s married, has a child, holds a doctorate in neuroscience, and works at an institute. She’s now committed herself to studying the brains of trauma survivors and cadavers, including those of sexual abuse victims, potentially.
In her research, she’s found that the brains of these victims show not only dysfunctional changes but also structural changes. This suggests that the entire neurological system among victims of such assaults becomes dysregulated. The long-term impacts of this are still not fully understood, but you can imagine the consequences. We’re working on cataloging the research and the voices of people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to clergy-related sexual abuse within Orthodoxy, the second-largest denomination of Christianity.
Faulk-Dickerson: Western women who convert to Islam. Aysha, I’d love to hear what you’ve experienced if you’veencountered some of them. But when I asked them, “You had all the freedom in the world; why did you choose Islam?” The answer I often get is, “I was lost, and Islam tells me everything I have to do. I don’t have to worry about anything. I wake up in the morning, and it’s all laid out for me.”
Yes, it’s all laid out for them. They feel protected and safe. No one will abuse them. They don’t have to worry about drugs, temptation, sex, alcohol — all of that is forbidden. It keeps them on track. This is why so many people convert to Islam in U.S. prisons — because it’s so rigid. It gives them a path forward because it creates a structure they never had before. Everything is off-limits, and that’s what they need.
Jacobsen: I’ve interviewed Muslims who are of relative prominence in Canada. Some issues they might bring up include how anyone who presents as Middle Eastern, whether or not they are Muslim, is often assumed to be Muslim and faces Islamophobia — or, more accurately, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment. Suppose a community were formed where women could share stories, coordinate, and network to make them more resilient and less easily targeted. How do we prevent what has unfortunately happened in some secular communities over the past 20 years? How do we avoid encouraging anti-Arab, anti-South Asian, or anti-Muslim sentiment in the advocacy work while protecting women who have come out of difficult circumstances?
A. Khan: It’s not possible to completely avoid that storm. We have to weather it and walk through it.
Faulk-Dickerson: The conversation often misses the socio-economic aspect. We focus on ethnicity, race, and religion but forget the economic disparities within the Muslim world — especially within the Arab Middle Eastern world, which has significant disparities between countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, and others like Egypt, Algeria, and Libya. Then you have Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and Turkey, somewhere in the Middle. Then there’s Iran, which is the enemy of almost everyone. The socio-economic piece is crucial because, within the Muslim world, there is extreme prejudice based on these disparities.
This doesn’t necessarily answer your question, but it’s all conflated. You can’t escape any of these labels or attacks. I’mhalf Italian. I look more like my mother’s side of the family than my dad’s. My dad was fair-skinned, Northern Arab, so I could easily pass or hide. Still, the moment my background comes out, the narrative, the conversation, and people’sreactions to me change. So, you can’t escape it. Aysha, do you have any thoughts on this?
A. Khan: No, I have no idea how to answer that question. It’s tough. I genuinely don’t.
Jacobsen: This is the preferred flavour of conversation, with each of these identities as a flavour. In North America and Western Europe, generally right now, that’s newer. It also ignores the wider and more important question: is it true? People are leaving generally because they don’t find Islam to be true. They think Islam is false, and so they leave. So, in terms of how you identify, ensuring people are treated with dignity and worth and that their human rights are respected and not abused is important. Yet the fundamental point with a lot of these questions is that most people are leaving, not just because they’re abused or oppressed, though that may be part of the narrative. In my discussions, a lot of the time, they’re arguing that Islam is false, that they don’t believe the premises, and that it seems ridiculous to them.
Faulk-Dickerson: That’s a privileged position. For many, that comes from a space of privilege — they are hyper-educated, probably progressive, and from families that have lived a somewhat modern, westernized life. I would say I fall under that category potentially, from my family’s perspective, because my family was not religious. So, from that standpoint, yes, I am privileged, educated, and intellectual. I was able to make this decision. But suppose I look back at my upbringing, culture, and society I grew up in. In that case, it’s easy to forget the trauma when you’re rationalizing it, intellectualizing it, and philosophizing it. It’s easy. But for most people who leave, that isn’t even an option. You don’tweigh those two things as an opportunity. It’s running for your life. That’s from the Arab perspective. It may differ slightly from the South Asian or North African perspectives.
A. Khan: Yes, exactly. That’s a very Western perspective, but it is a choice between life and death in South Asia and the Middle East.
Jacobsen: I’ve noticed that much work is being done campaigning against allegations of witchcraft in Africa. This is relevant, so don’t worry; it’s not off-topic. In interviews with people in Africa who are humanists, atheists, or agnostics, the only ones who don’t bat an eye when I bring this up are those who have had to deal with periods of not only European Christian colonialism but also Arab Islamic colonialism, and the precolonial superstitions before either of those. You get these witchcraft allegations, typically against older women or the disabled, who are often prejudiced against, sometimes even killed, because they’re claimed to be possessed by demons or practicing witchcraft. In the West, we accept discussion about European Christian colonialism more in public conversation. Yet, we do not critique Arab colonialism in history too without unjustified personal attacks. African freethinkers don’t deny the history because they’ve experienced it. So, what parts of the conversation do you typically find are almost taboo for ex-Muslim women to express when they’re coming out here? In a sense, they leave. It’s a reason that’s percolating so subterraneously that it doesn’t come up in a formalized or conscious way.
Faulk-Dickerson: From the person who leaves or from the judgment around them? The person who leaves. Personal?
Jacobsen: Yes, the person, the individual who leaves.
Faulk-Dickerson: Yes. So, the hardest piece for some is, “What if it’s all true and what if I’m going to hell?” You’re so brainwashed with the torture that’s ingrained in you. You’re taught that torture begins the moment you enter your grave. It’s like a horror movie: demons and angels come to you. If you are good, the angels speak to you; if you are bad, the torment begins. You hear the footsteps of the people who buried you walking away. Immediately, you come back to life and feel everything around you. For me, I never paid much attention to that, but I know it traumatized my sister. She still worries about it, asking, “What if it’s true?” So, you’re essentially trying to deconstruct this idea that the moment you die, the torture begins and continues for eternity. That’s one of the hardest things for people who have been deeply indoctrinated in the religion.
For others like me, as much as I heard it, it went in one ear and out the other. But the hardest part for me was that I could be a target. You could put your life in danger just by speaking against it.
A. Khan: Yes, I would have to second that. I can’t think of anything that’s like a taboo in the way you described it, like witchcraft — something that would still trigger you in a way. I can’t think of anything specific.
Faulk-Dickerson: Although the devil is a big part of it, It’s always the devil. You’re told the devil is there, that the devil possesses you, that he’s whispering in your ear. She is whispering in your ear. So, there are these demons and voices that are said to take over your sanity and purity. That’s a piece of it that many people worry about. Another taboo thing that could be considered is the concept of the evil eye, which is also present in South Asian and Southeast Asian countries, but especially in the Arab world, particularly the peninsula. It’s called “hesed,” which translates to the evil eye in Arabic. It’smentioned multiple times in the Quran. Someone casting an evil eye spell on you is like black magic — envy that manifests into a curse or despair.
A. Khan: I need to hop off because I have a meeting, too, but thank you so much, Scott. If you need help with anything, I’m happy to assist. Jasmin, it was lovely meeting you. I’m so happy you were able to join.
Faulk-Dickerson: I should mention that “hesed” translates to envy. It’s considered envy.
Jacobsen: One typical argument is about Ayesha being married at 6. I vaguely recall someone saying, “Oh, he was saving her from a bad circumstance, so the way to protect her was through marriage under a male leader.”
Faulk-Dickerson: But do people know who Ayesha was?
Jacobsen: No.
Faulk-Dickerson: Aside from being his wife, she was the daughter of his best friend, Abu Bakr, who later became the first caliph of Islam after Muhammad’s death. This was a power move. Abu Bakr married off his daughter to secure his position as the next leader. It was all about consolidating power. According to the records, Muhammad married Ayesha when he was 53, and she was only 6. He had 11 wives in total. The title given to his wives was “Umul Mu’minin,” meaning “Mother of the Believers.” Ayesha was one of the first, maybe the third, wives and was particularly influential. She was the youngest and stayed by Muhammad’s side until his death. She is credited for many of his sayings (hadiths), which she narrated. These hadiths, where Ayesha is the narrator, are considered undisputed because she was the closest person to him. She is the only female figure whose voice is prominently heard in Islam.
In the Quran, the Virgin Mary is the only woman officially mentioned, and there’s a whole Surah dedicated to her. It is interesting when people mention Mary as an important figure. Still, she is revered only because she is the mother of Jesus, not because of who she is independently. Jesus had to be born of a woman, so Mary was elevated.
Ayesha and the Prophet’s wives, by default, are mentioned. Still, it’s not as if they were strong feminist figures in the sense we understand today. They were influential, but all in service to Muhammad, not for themselves.
How do they justify this? That could be a whole new session in itself. This topic is vast and would be worth focusing on in detail. If you want to delve deeper into this subject, check out Nuriyah Khan. She’s a British-Pakistani who runs a podcast. I’ve been on her show, and she’s one of the few who openly critiques Muhammad’s practices and character. Many of us are still cautious about speaking out publicly due to the real dangers, like fatwas. But Nuriyah is fearless in talking about it openly.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Jasmin.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/15
Dr. Martin “Marty” Shoemaker is a trained clinical psychologist and, currently, a Humanist Chaplain at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Multifaith Centre) and Vancouver General Hospital (August, 2014-Present). Previously, he worked as a psychologist and instructor in organizational behaviour.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you are in a session with a client or an individual seeking your services as a humanist chaplain, this experience may differ significantly from many religious, supernatural, or theological perspectives. In such contexts, the frame of reference often includes a belief in an afterlife, extending the perspective to infinity. For humanists, however, the afterlife is either an open question due to the absence of evidence or is pragmatically considered nonexistent based on the same lack of evidence. This difference constrains our perspective to a finite lifespan—if one is fortunate, 80, 90, or perhaps 100 years, barring any major accidents. Given this, how does this difference influence how you guide that session with a client when you are engaging with someone one-on-one?
Shoemaker: I am not necessarily focusing on my personal experience here, as I have not been working at the hospital for long. I did encounter some of these experiences during my time as a psychologist when I visited people in the hospital, though that was in the capacity of a psychologist, not as a chaplain. I had yet to be requested as a chaplain, as I had just commenced my duties in that role. Most of what I have heard and read on the subject is not derived from my personal experiences, but it remains highly relevant because chaplains working in hospitals, particularly in palliative care or end-of-life situations, often face similar challenges.
When they are interviewed for such roles, they may be posed questions that I have yet to encounter, given my work in a university setting. One such question is, “How can you assist a dying patient if you do not believe in heaven or an afterlife?”
I have conversed with chaplains who have been asked this question in interviews and seen it discussed in books that provide training for chaplains, particularly secular ones. The assumption underlying this question is critical: if one cannot support a person’s belief in the afterlife, there is a risk of causing them to lose hope, thereby becoming a negative influence in their final days rather than a positive one.
However, this assumption does not align with the evidence or the experiences of secular chaplains who have worked in palliative care. Indeed, the evidence does not support it at all. In England, David Savage discusses this matter in his book, noting that the National Council for Palliative Care conducted a research study 10 or 15 years ago. They inquired, “What constitutes a good death?”
Ironically, the variables that people prioritized placed religious needs at the bottom. The foremost need was to be pain-free or to have pain under control, followed closely by the presence of family and friends and receiving proper care from doctors and nurses who understand their needs. Other variables that ranked higher than religious concerns included:
the desire to die in a place of their choice
having some control over the situation
maintaining dignity as they approach the end of life
Religious and spiritual needs were the last priorities in that particular survey.
Thus, regarding priority, the chaplain is not necessarily confronted with the pressing question of providing hope through religious assurance. The fear of death is often greatly overstated. Studies conducted by psychologists and palliative care researchers indicate that the fear of death tends to be a minor concern, even among those diagnosed with cancer or life-threatening illnesses, and it diminishes as people age.
Consequently, the notion that the afterlife is a critical existential question for those who are dying is not supported by the evidence. When a hospital administrator or a chaplain colleague inquires how you can be helpful to a patient without believing in an afterlife, you may respond by stating that, based on your experience and research, the issue of an afterlife is rarely raised by patients nearing the end of life. If it does arise, it is typically brought up by a family member, friend, or spouse concerned about the individual’s commitment to their faith. More often than not, the family worries, not the patient.
Therefore, as a chaplain, you should focus more on supporting the family members at the bedside, helping them navigate their concerns, which are more pressing to them than to the patient. It is important to recognize that asking someone who is dying, “Are you right with God?” or “Are you going to heaven?” could be more harmful than not raising the question at all.
Jacobsen: Do you believe people are inadvertently harmful in this way?
Shoemaker: I can only imagine what would happen if my brother, who is three years older than me, were at my bedside as I was dying. He might bring up such questions, but I suspect he would be more concerned about me than the specifics of religious doctrine.
If he were to say, “Oh, Marty, I’ve been praying for you. I hope that I will see you again in heaven one day,” I would probably smile on my deathbed and say, “Don’t lose your grip on the comfort of your life over that hope.” I will likely be there if there is an afterlife because I have lived a good life. If there is not, we will not be able to converse anyway. Thus, it would surprise me if someone in my family were to raise such concerns about the death of a non-believer. I certainly counsel people to be extremely careful about that. However, conversion advocates and conservative Christians believe that one can be saved on their deathbed. There are stories in that inventory of individuals who have lived very “sinful” lives, who, on their deathbed, praise God for some leniency and whatever else. If that brings them comfort, let them do it. I am okay with them doing that at the end of life if it provides them with some psychological relief.
I do not have a problem with it. Nobody will know the outcome; it is a nonessential result. However, if it gives them a moment of comfort in their last few moments, I support it. I would certainly never stop them from doing that.
Jacobsen: But at what point does playing into those falsehoods or fantasies become improper or potentially harmful? How does one draw that line?
Shoemaker: It is interesting because I have not faced that situation with anyone who is dying, but I do know of a patient I worked with who was a priestess. She wanted to be trained to work in the church. She was an openly lesbian woman. She owned that identity and had a same-sex partner. She was concerned because there were passages in the Bible, and people in her church knew that if she was gay, even in the Lutheran church, which is reasonably liberal, there would still be judgmental sects within the Lutheran church.
As my patient, she was concerned that she might be asked, “Are you not living a life of sin? And here you are, working for the church.” We discussed this matter extensively. We even talked about the historical context of why the Christian church had outwardly become anti-gay. In reality, the Bible has a lot of gray areas regarding homosexuality because the formal homosexuality practiced in Greece was different. They employed male homosexual prostitutes and exploited them because they were often enslaved. That was the type of homosexuality they were addressing, not a loving relationship. There is some evidence that suggests that it is possible that Paul was married and that he had forgiven such things. We discussed that it was a gray area, and she needed to approach it with kindness and understanding, recognizing that the person asking the question was the one who was afraid.
She did not need to be afraid to answer that question while being a loving partner to her gay lover. I emphasized that the primary concern should be how you treat people, not their sexual orientation. That was the approach we took in therapy, and it helped to some extent. However, she also thought that God was observing everything she did, so she became somewhat paranoid. She recoiled a bit from that idea when I suggested that I was not certain God was concerned. There is so much evidence to the contrary, yet she left therapy shortly thereafter. Perhaps I confronted that issue a little too quickly. So, I have not faced this issue directly with any of my students.
Jacobsen: Are you referring to issues as a chaplain, specifically at the university, or do you mean in general? Do women come up with different issues than men?
Shoemaker: That is correct.
Jacobsen: Are you speaking generally, or are we discussing the difference when talking to women versus men in hospitals, etc.? So, focusing on the university system so that we can isolate the discourse. Mixing university and hospital contexts would be confusing. So yes, focusing on the university setting and any differences between men and women, if any exist.
Shoemaker: Yes, certainly. Additionally, there is naturally a vast overlap in concerns as well. The age difference between those you work with may also vary, particularly in hospital settings, especially palliative care. In hospitals, you are dealing predominantly with individuals who are quite elderly or very ill at some stage of their life. In contrast, at universities, the age range is typically between 18 and 25, although you also have contact with staff and faculty. Occasionally, they introduce themselves. I have lectured in some philosophy classes.
In terms of whether there is a gender difference when individuals identify as male versus female when they come to speak with a chaplain, I would say that, as a general rule, when men come in to talk, their inquiries tend to be more inquisitive, philosophical, and almost academic in nature. They often want to discuss topics related to their classes and how these fit within a humanist worldview. Our discussions often revolve around non-believers versus believers and how they were raised. Thus, the conversations are probably more philosophical in their approach.
When women come in and dare to speak with an older white male chaplain, it is usually because they are experiencing some form of problem. They may struggle at home with a sibling, brother, or parents. Additionally, we have students from overseas. I have had sessions with Islamic students from Palestine, Lebanon, and even, in earlier days, Saudi Arabia. These students often felt bullied, particularly if they wore the hijab and openly dressed in Islamic attire. They felt uncomfortable due to how people looked at them, interacted with them, and sometimes avoided them.
Therefore, I believe that women who come in, or those who identify as female, are often struggling with something while at school, away from their parents and family, and need support. I have also had several Islamic male students come to me, particularly from conservative Muslim homes. They came to Canada with friends living in the Greater Vancouver area and struggled with the open society here. They had read books and articles and spoken to friends who questioned how Islam could be a worldview that would hold up in modern times. As a result, they began to question their faith. They were not apostates yet, but they were struggling because they were still living at home, where their families put much pressure on them not to deviate from their beliefs. They were afraid to discuss their doubts with their families. Although they were already atheists, their families were unaware of this.
I did have some male students who were struggling, trying to find a way to fit in at home. I organized a support group at Tim Hortons for these young men, where we met several times to support one another. Eventually, they were able to find solutions for gaining independence and moving out of their homes.
Jacobsen: Do you think it was easier for the men to move out and gain independence than women?
Shoemaker: Certainly, yes. I have observed a second-class situation in large Muslim families, where there are many children, and the parents, even those who have been here for several generations and have experienced Canadian freedom, struggle with the idea of their children staying at home. Women, in particular, would be in a much more tenuous situation. First of all, if they were wearing a hijab, it would be very difficult to find employment in some environments. We have had issues with government jobs and public service jobs for Islamic women wearing hijabs. There are even laws in Quebec aimed at eliminating religious symbols in public service, including wearing crosses around one’s neck, to present a secular image and avoid tensions with clients.
So, generally, they have a harder time gaining independence, at least until they marry. Once married, they can choose a partner who might be more supportive. However, for their parents to bless that partner, the individual would likely need to come from the same background.
Jacobsen: How is your interaction with other chaplains in the Multi-Faith Center? How does that work? It can be difficult for some to work in such a diverse environment if they believe they possess the only truth.
Shoemaker: Yes, the multi-faith philosophy is centred on not proselytizing. It is not about preaching your truth to colleagues, students, or staff. The multi-faith environment functions as a space for plurality; some places, such as Harvard, refer to them as “pluralism hubs,” but they do not use the term “chaplain” in the traditional sense. As a result, you must be able to respond clearly and directly when someone asks you about your beliefs, but without attempting to impose them.
You might pose an interesting question to someone if you have gotten to know them but do not challenge their faith. Your role is functional and utilitarian—to support and assist people within the university environment. The goal is not to challenge any worldview unless they request it. The necessary skills include being accepting, a good listener, understanding, and well-read in the philosophy and religion of different people. When someone says to you, “This is our last rites ceremony,” or something similar, you must know what those things mean.
The chaplain must serve as a sympathetic educator, capable of expressing ideas and engaging in discussion, but primarily within the context of the person in the room. I have a close colleague on campus at Richmond who works with me—he is a Lutheran pastor from Brittany who now lives in Winnipeg. We have a good relationship, and we both enjoy talking. However, I know we do not always agree, but we still get along well because we focus on our shared goals.
The multi-faith setting is bold but pragmatic. It focuses on service rather than reconciling all differences within a particular political stance. This is similar to a political party aiming to win an election without erasing all differences within its platform.
Jacobsen: What is your recommendation for people interested in connecting with humanist chaplaincy?
Shoemaker: Do you mean those interested in becoming a chaplain or those wanting to speak with a humanist chaplain?
Jacobsen: Both.
Shoemaker: Our biggest challenge is making people aware that we exist and are available. Once people find us, it usually is not an awkward moment—unless they mistakenly think we are part of the Humane Society and assume we only take care of dogs and cats. The word “human” has caused this confusion several times—laughs—so we clarify that we work with humans. Our issue is not about how to interact with people once they seek us out; it is about helping them find us in the first place because humanism is still a hidden worldview in many people’s minds.
If you have not read much philosophy or are unfamiliar with the broader spectrum of democratic worldviews, you may not even know what a humanist chaplain is. A study by a sociologist who is also a Presbyterian faculty member found that the majority of students—60%, if I recall correctly—knew what an atheist was, about 40% to 30% knew what an agnostic was, and only about 10% knew what a humanist was. So our issue is visibility—being found and being able to represent our worldview and our role publicly. That’s why I am writing a chapter in an upcoming book for FirstNet Press; we need to get the word out there. We have a lot to offer.
Jacobsen: What about the training programs? How are those progressing?
Shoemaker: The training program has been running for four years now. We have begun by ensuring that those who learn about us—whether through the website, talks given by chaplains, or articles written by people like you—know how to reach out. There is an application form when they inquire with the Humanist Canada Chaplaincy Committee. Once they complete that form, they are reviewed and asked to join a humanist organization nearby or one that resonates with them so they can start to build a sense of belonging within a group that identifies with humanism. This process allows them to learn about the issues, understand who we are, and form relationships.
This is how it all begins, as many are unfamiliar with our institutions and groups. After that, they receive a significant reading list on humanism, covering topics such as the history of humanism, the philosophy behind it, and chaplaincy, as well as our history. The reading is substantial, and they can also choose to become an officiant because chaplaincy and officiant roles are different. One can become a chaplain without being an officiant, which involves responsibilities like officiating at weddings, funerals, baby naming ceremonies, etc. These roles are separate, although there has been discussion about combining them.
Currently, the roles remain separate, and each has its requirements. We do have individuals who are officiants and are now applying to be chaplains, and some chaplains may apply to serve in different areas where they wish to contribute. These roles can complement each other, but they are not mandatory. Once the reading is completed, applicants must ensure they are affiliated with a humanist organization. After completing all the necessary steps and filling out the application materials, including submitting a resume and explaining why they want to become a chaplain and how they fit into the role, we conduct an interview.
The interview process lasts about two hours, and I have conducted several of them. During the interview, we delve deeper into those questions to determine whether they fit the role, assess their motivations, and gauge how well they align with the position. After this process, they are eligible to join the cohort of chaplains. They can engage with the application process while also participating in discussions with other humanist chaplains through a Zoom group run by Marie-Claire and a few others who are part of the cohort.
Marie-Claire Khadij, of course, is North America’s first military humanist chaplain. The cohort engages in intimate group discussions. Then, they undergo a four-session training program, which begins on a Saturday and runs for four consecutive days. During these sessions, we cover various aspects of chaplaincy, including creating strategies for different service areas such as universities, healthcare facilities, prison chaplaincy, and the military. Each area is thoroughly covered so they understand the nuances of each environment.
We also conduct role-playing exercises to simulate situations they might encounter in hospitals or military settings, helping them understand how to respond effectively within their governing worldview. This is in line with our multi-faith philosophy. At the end of the training, candidates are either approved or placed on an extended regimen that may include additional readings and courses, particularly if they struggle in some areas. Once they meet all the requirements, they are accredited and receive a certificate. I received mine years ago, and it proudly hangs on my wall.
That is the process. Afterward, they join the network and can volunteer or pursue a paid position. If you want to be a paid chaplain, Scott, you generally need to work in a government or prison—most often a hospital. To do this, you must undergo clinical pastoral education, which involves a two-year program. Tony had eight months of clinical pastoral education and found it challenging, but most people complete the program. Some may choose to continue, while others might stop there.
If you pursue chaplaincy in the military, the training is different, but if you want to work as a volunteer as I do, the requirements are less stringent. I volunteer as a chaplain for students because it is a volunteer role which does not require the same level of formal training.
Jacobsen: Marty, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.
Shoemaker: Yes, I’m glad you got what you needed, and I also got what I needed.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/14
Patrick Woodcock is the author of 10 books of poetry and countless reviews. His work has been translated and published in 14 languages. Since travel is so essential to his work, Mr. Woodcock has lived and worked in such diverse countries as Iceland, Poland, Russia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, The Sultanate of Oman, Saudi Arabia, Colombia, The Kurdish North of Iraq and Azerbaijan. Within Canada he has travelled from the West to East coasts, as well as working as a volunteer for almost a year with the elders of Fort Good Hope, NT – 20km south of the Arctic Circle. His seventh book Always Die Before Your Mother was shortlisted for Canada’s ReLit award in 2010 and reached the number one spot on the Globe and Mail’s bestseller list. His 8th book Echo Gods and Silent Mountains was extremely well reviewed all over the world and was called “…the most beautiful, deep and touching collection of poetry written on Kurds by a non-Kurd.” by the Kurdish media network, Rudaw. He has read at International poetry festival’s in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Slovenia, the Kurdish North of Iraq, Azerbaijan, England, The Republic of Georgia, Tanzania, Kenya and Canada’s Winnipeg International Writers Festival. While living in Colombia he read at the Ibague Poetry Festival, The XVIII Medellin International Poetry Festival and was the first poet from outside of Latin America to ever read at the Bogota Poetry Festival. Patrick’s ninth book of poetry You can’t bury them all which is set in the Kurdish North of Iraq, Fort Good Hope, NT Canada and Azerbaijan was published by ECW Press in 2016. You can’t bury them all won the Alcuin Society Book Design Award for Poetry and was shortlisted for the JM Abraham Poetry Award in 2017. After living for two years in Tanzania as a volunteer at Baraa Primary School, Arusha, Patrick moved to the hamlet of Paulatuk in the Inuvik region of the Northwest Territories to work while completing his new manuscript Farhang Book I which was published by ECW Press, Toronto, Canada, September 5th 2023 and called by CBC Books one of Canada’s must reads in 2023. The album “Bill Pritchard Sings Poems By Patrick Woodcock” was released by Tapete records May 5th, 2023. He now lives in Iqaluit, Nunavut where he is the Instructor/ Coordinator for United for Literacy while completing Farhang Book II. Because his work can never escape the politics of where he resides, he is also a member of PEN Canada.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Patrick Woodcock, a Canadian migrant writer, whose new book of poetry Farhang Book One was just published by ECW Press. You have a long history with the Kurds. I have a medium-length, on-and-off history with some Kurds, mostly those based in the West, primarily the United Kingdom and the West Coast of Canada. You got involved with them around college or near the end of college. How did that influence your path?
Patrick Woodcock: I made my first Kurdish friend while attending university in 1993 but did not make it over to the Kurdish North of Iraq until I moved there in 2010 to work and write.
Jacobsen: How did that evolve?
Woodcock: I was teaching and writing in Colombia for a couple of years; then, I started looking for where I wanted to go and write next. This was when I decided to go. My mother had passed away. I didn’t want to go there when she was alive or she would have worried too much. So after Colombia, it became a priority for me to go. I stayed for a little over two years and finished a book called Echo Gods and Silent Mountains about this time.
Jacobsen: Did you primarily stick to Kurdish north while there?
Woodcock: Yes, I was only in the Kurdish North of Iraq. In Iraq, there’s an autonomous zone in the North for the Kurds. I lived throughout that area only. I would not have been safe outside of it. But within it, I was fine.
I started in the capital, Erbil, known as Hawler, where I was teaching. Then, the school I worked for asked me to move to another city to teach and manage that school, so I moved to Duhok, which is further north. From there, I progressed to Zakho, close to the Turkish border where I worked at the University of Zakho. While in these three places and with my Kurdish friends, I explored as possible.
When I mention the North, I’m referring to the entire Kurdish region in the North of Iraq, not just a specific part of that area. As I travelled, I relished the differences in geography, dialect, vegetation and climate. As expected, it was extremely dry and barren, but there are also mountainous areas. The landscape is dominated by two colours: the beige of the land and the dust in the air, which constantly lingers unless disturbed by a sandstorm or some brief rainfall, and the incredibly blue skies due to the rarity of rain. I was there during a hailstorm, which was such a novelty that it felt like a festival for my friends and colleagues. We all danced in it.
Jacobsen: How did you experience living in such a different environment?
Woodcock: I enjoyed this aspect because this was the first time I had lived in and explored such a region, despite being in the Middle East before. The Kurdish North of Iraq is unique, especially considering its history and ongoing conflicts. But in the North, beyond the landscape, you’re quickly reminded that this is a different part of the world due to the numerous armed checkpoints. You can’t drive for hours and hours like in Canada. Their roads and highways are filled with armed checkpoints. When you arrive at one they tap your window with their rifles, check your ID, and then let you go. I never had any problems, and it didn’t bother me at all. It actually calmed me and made me feel safe.
During these trips with friends, or when I was first introduced to the area, we always had Kurdish music playing. I would listen to music, admire the countryside, and visit the various communities and historical sites like Halabja. There are subtle differences as you go southeast towards Sulaymaniyah, where you’ll find more greenery and a more lush, wild atmosphere. The dryness intensifies as you move further north and northwest. But if you go northeast towards Amadiya, you’ll encounter higher elevations where you might even see snow on the peaks. It’s an incredibly beautiful place to explore.
Jacobsen: Was the original plan to stay for two years, or did this become an extended trip?
Woodcock: I always intended to stay for two years or more. I’ve never just taken a vacation; I’ve always moved to a country and stayed there for as long as possible.
There were some transitions through work—adjusting and finding things once I was there. Working in education allows me to move somewhere and have a base so I can write. While there, I met Kurdish writers from the Duhok Writers’ Union. I attended their events, read for the union and the mayor in Duhok, and they translated some of my poetry and short stories. I would read in English, and they would read in Kurdish. I could easily have stayed longer.
There were more things I wanted to see, but obviously, my time on earth is finite, and I needed to work on the book I was writing there and move on to somewhere else. I moved back to Canada and then volunteered in Fort Good Hope, in the Northwest Territories, for a year while completing the manuscript and some poems that appeared as the first section of the following book You can’t bury them all.
Jacobsen: When it comes to the Yazidis, you had an interesting experience in terms of getting connected to a prince. What’s the story?
Woodcock: I was transitioning between jobs. Since I lived in Zakho, I would drive into Duhok to see lawyers because I needed paperwork to move from one job to the next. It took a lot longer than I expected. By the time I arrived in Duhok, I would be extremely hot and exhausted because the taxis didn’t have air conditioning, so I’d have to sit with the window down, bathing in the heat for an hour or so.
The head waiter at the restaurant of the hotel I would go to while waiting to see the lawyer—or after seeing the lawyer—was a prominent member of the Yazidis. I got to know him, and he took me to his village, where he was the Yazidis’s representative and head. Then, one day, he called me and said their prince had returned, he would sometimes be in London, and he wanted to meet me. So I went to this heavily guarded house, met and sat with him. I had already visited Lalish, their temple and the most sacred place in the world, and he invited me to travel their again to meet the rest of his council who were having a feast.
It was quite amusing because I had colleagues who were Yazidi. They couldn’t believe I had gone to Lalish because they had never been. Then I told them, “Yes, I also know the prince. We talk on the phone.” They didn’t believe me, so I showed them—he was on my phone’s speed dial.
That gave me a new level of respect amongst them. I brought a few of my Yazidi friends from the university on a trip there to meet him. It was brilliant.
Jacobsen: How do you integrate living in a foreign space? The experiences, the stories, the food, the culture, the observations, and the time to write, so that you have a coherent and comprehensive perspective firsthand of a culture. How do you make sure that’s done authentically—showing the good, the bad, and the parts of the culture that might not be widely known, some of the history where there’s high fidelity because it’s an active, living part of the culture?
Woodcock: I’ve always wanted to write about the good and the bad of everything I see because it would be artificial if I didn’t do that. I’d be polishing it and lying.
I’m not out with expats or people from other countries when there. I work there, which means I’m in the system. Because I’m working, I’m dealing with visas, healthcare, and everything else. Then I have my students and I get the privilege of meeting their families. I talk to as many people as possible and travel anytime a trip, a walk or picnic is offered. I would go anywhere and keep an extremely detailed journal.
I always carry a recorder with me to capture sounds. I also carry a camera to capture the colours, street signs, and architecture, anything that might be gone or transformed later. However, I rarely finish writing anything while I’m still there. I’ll begin a piece, but once I leave and get some distance, I reevaluate it and see what stands out now that I’m away. Usually, the final edits are done somewhere drastically different from where I was initially and also completely different.
The internet has been brilliant because I didn’t have it when I started writing. It used to be hard to fact-check or get back in contact with people. Now it’s a lot easier. With digital cameras as well—when I first started in 1993 I had to use cameras with film, so you never knew which photo would turn out because you had to get it developed first, and so much can go wrong when they are developing film quickly for you.
I also had to figure out where to buy more film which is hard if you are not in a city or town. Today, with a digital camera, I can take 500 photos in a day and then get rid of the ones I don’t need, and everything I need to write is there. I have the photos, the audio recordings, journals, and my memory. I piece it all together, let it ferment, and then edit it until it becomes what I want it to be.
Jacobsen: When it comes to that process, when you’re home and reflecting on your travels, how do you integrate those experiences, especially when you’ve moved out of the area where you were researching and living among the people of that culture? For example, you moved to the Northwest Territories after living in Kurdistan. How do you reflect on those experiences, reintegrate them, and refine the overall narrative in your writing?
Woodcock: Many of my stories and poems will come together while working on them alone. I’ll have a text and ideas. For instance, the first time I saw Amadiya, I knew I would write about it. So there are things I know and others that come together later. Many come to fruition when I start talking to people in my next location about where I was just weeks before.
I remember, for example, having a conversation in Fort Good Hope which is fairly close to the tree line. The closer you get to the tree line, the smaller the trees are, and even though they are old, they’re much smaller. I was volunteering with the elders and began to talk about these smaller trees with one of them. That led me to tell him stories about the trees in the Kurdish North that were also small. Then I pointed out something that many people might not know, which is that when Saddam Hussein sent planes to bomb the PKK or other Kurdish freedom fighters, they would drop chemicals to kill the trees so they could see the cave openings where the Kurds were hiding. So many of the small trees you see in the news are small because they are young.
So, one discussion about trees in the Northwest Territories led me to talking about trees in Kurdistan, which gave me a new direction and idea for my writing. Then I’d started talking about the war and the importance of caves. Within those stories, something clicked, and I went home and began something new. Some things are set when I leave a country or location—like “this, this, this, and this will all be written about.” But at other times, I’ll have a stack of paper and let it come together as I’m reading through it and talking to people. Their reactions and interest guide me a lot.
Jacobsen: What are the qualities of Kurdish culture that stand out across all its different aspects—whether it’s food, dance, religious or philosophical beliefs? What are some of the consistent themes?
Woodcock: I’ve lived abroad for 32 years now, and the Kurds are one of, if not the most, artistic community I’ve ever been a part of. Their love of music, dance, and literature is second to none. You can trace part of this passion to the fact that great art often comes from resisting and rebelling against repression. When you have to entertain yourselves to keep hope and your sanity alive, creativity flourishes. I learned this from the Irish side of my family.
The first people I met when I left Canada to write and teach were in Poland. My colleagues had created a mime troupe for theatres. It wasn’t because they loved mime; but because the Russians arrested them and censored everything they wrote. So they thought, “Let’s do it without words and try to convey the same message.” Artistically, the Kurds are wonderful. As I mentioned, Kurdish musicians and dancers participated in my last two book launches in Toronto. The Kurdish ‘Dilan Dance Company’ in Toronto just performed at my last book launch for Farhang Book One and it was incredible. I adore them.
Kurdish generosity is overwhelming. I joked with my friends in Toronto that there were certain streets I wouldn’t take in the Kurdish North when I had to go to a store because people would call me in for tea whenever they saw me. It felt rude to say no, so I would take different routes because I didn’t want to offend them. But it’s a lovely thing. If your day is overwhelmed by generosity, then it’s not a bad day.
Jacobsen: What is the ethic of Kurdish culture? What is the overriding value system?
Woodcock: I’m hesitant to generalize too much because the Kurds I’ve met in the Republic of Georgia, Kurdistan, Canada, or those from Iran, all have different focuses. However, one consistent trait is their sense of honour and respect for family, which I find incredibly inspiring. There’s also a strong sense of pride and shame among my Kurdish friends. They feel deeply ashamed if they make an error or try something that doesn’t work out and such pride when it does.
They have a passion to keep pushing forward optimistically. If I was in their situation, I don’t know if I’d have that optimism. When you’re surrounded by countries that do nothing but try to repress you, and then Western governments use you during military campaigns only to abandon you, I’m surprised there’s any optimism. But my friends still have it.
If it wanes, gets stretched and occasionally breaks, it gets fixed. It always gets patched back together. They’re an incredibly strong, resilient people. When it comes to faith, it’s faith in each other. They believe in each other, and this helps them get through the constant betrayal of others. The Kurdish community is an extended family making sense of the horrors surrounding their desire and need for a nation to call their own.
Jacobsen: How does it work for someone with European heritage, from Canada, with English as a first language? How does that impact your experience of coming into the culture, integrating, being accepted, learning about the culture, etc.?
Woodcock: There was certainly no negative impact. As I mentioned, I was often the only foreigner in many places I went, and they were eager to stop me on the road and ask, “Why are you here? What do you think of it?” Usually, if not the first question, the second would be, “What do you think of the Kurdish people?” Because I work as a migrant writer, I want to know as much as I can about the culture I’m living in—what they believe, what they eat, how they get their food, how they built a city on a mountain. As I learned these things and they got to know me and I’d been there for a while, they would say, “You’re almost a Kurd.” I wrote a poem about a sandstorm and my friend showed it to a colleague who was shocked when he learned a Kurd did not write it. That was a great compliment.
When the power went off at my place, I’d say, “Wait, the government power’s off, so the generator will kick on in five, and then there’s another generator.” You learn these little things. I’d talk to writers and ask about differences in dialects as I moved around the area. It’s a small area compared to Canada—where we have this endless expanse of land —but there are distinct provinces and with noticeable differences. I could hear the difference in the intonation of the language and their preferences for music. I knew that as I moved southeast, I’d encounter a different cuisine with fresher fruit because the land is more fertile, whereas, in the drier regions, it’s brought in.
Electricity is extremely expensive and sporadic, so in the north near Turkey I always went to the market for fresh food. They were lovely and welcoming, and they wanted to practice their English with me as much as I wanted to learn Kurdish, which was difficult because the language was not fully defined. If they had their own country, it would be different. I was told that a group of academics in New York were working on an official Kurdish language that could be used. I don’t know how that has progressed, but most people wanted to practice their English and simply talk about life.
The smile on their faces when they would grab my hand—a stranger would walk up, grab my hand, and ask, “Why are you here? What do you think?” They wanted to know me and were obviously unaware I lived there. They thought I must be a tourist passing through, so that they would bombard me with questions. It was lovely. I never had a boring day. There was never a day where something didn’t happen that didn’t make me richer as an individual, a better artist, or a better person. It was certainly a high point in my life.
The Martian Inside Meis part of a long collaboration with Norwegian writer Tor Arne Jørgensen and a compilation of our work to date. This is intended as a free public access resource.
Acknowledgements
The reason for this title is because, my search for answers to who I have, has thereby led me forward towards the unknown, where the feeling of my surrounding environment feels foreign and thus presented as alien. A state of desolation, whereas sensations of a landscape are created by endless entanglements and strange events which in turn provide the opportunity for a widening spectrum. To be an explorer in one’s own mind, where one is met with horror, wonder, emotions, hidden talents and, not least the fear of confrontation of who one really are, is, therefore, to be labelled as the Martian inside me.
Tor Arne Jørgensen
To Tor for the expansive collaboration and wide range of topics covered within his extensive remit, particularly schooling the young, which is ever-present and important.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by Tor Arne Jørgensen
My first encounter with the high intelligence community was back in 2015. The experience I had then was one of absolute joy, an ecstasy of finally coming home to one’s own. A place where one could be understood and accepted as equals. Imagine wandering through life in search of oneself. Many of us, and not just those with high intelligence, but all of us, search for something more, something that is mysteriously hidden from us. And then to find what you have been searching for so endlessly long, has such an inexplicable aura about it, something that cannot be described with just a few simple words. They become, as the saying goes, inadequate…
The fact that words are not sufficient is manifold reinforced for those who feel no boundaries, or see within what is considered extreme. Our brain is, in my opinion, our next step in evolution. What does one think of then? Well, regarding our physical self, yes, much remains, but not in any way near what remains to be understood of all our intellects. The mysteries of the brain, our hitherto unexplored field. It may seem like a lot of nonsense to view it this way, but if one reads between the lines, everything appears so much clearer, but only for the chosen few.
Evolution is many things, can be so much more than what we are left with when we hear the word. History put under the microscope is very much like putting time on hold. Joy, hate, laughter, and sorrow, each and every one of them clocks out only to clock in again and again. Logic was long all that mattered to me, nothing could surpass its all-encompassing wonderful being. The years following 2015 saw the hunt begin to devour whatever came my way. Becoming the best was all that mattered; everything else could wait. Can an IQ test be addictive, sitting hour after hour solving the unsolvable? At the time of writing, one looks back on the madness. No money to earn, no one who cares. Not in any way close to what athletes are left with, perhaps not so strange … Remember to read between the lines, dear reader.
At the end of the road, one can say that it was all worth it. The confirmation I sought was answered, for better or worse. The happiness I thought was secured proved to be so, but the time it lasted did not meet expectations. The hours that disappeared, I never found again, lost like everything else. Here I could have ended my journey, but what comes next is the certificate I acquired along the way. Divided into pieces, it tells what comes next, who I was, who I met, and who I am left with on my own little wondrous, lost, wonderful island. Not big enough for little me, but big enough for a whole world.
Before I finish, take with you three small texts from my first book «74» that describe my three stages through life, and finally a line that sums it all up.
Wondering about the unknown elements within yourself and in your surroundings
One of the most common feelings at a young age is the sense of one’s mind spinning out of control, where you sort of lose all touch with the outside world and your place within it. In this first part of the book, I will try to focus on the problem that many young people find themselves in, a time plagued with desperate attempts to find answers to some of the biggest questions in a young person’s life, questions like “Who am I to myself?” and “Who am I to you?”
Just remember that the people you surround yourself with will, whether you like it or not, shape everything around you for better or for worse, all while you are right there at the center of it all, like a sun that the planets just whirl around. As your life is about to take off, everything feels like a complete mess both outside and within. Questions will surface, questions like: How on earth am I going to survive? Am I going to lose myself completely right from the get-go? Am I going to make it despite all the setbacks I will surely face as I plough through life?
As I have read through various research articles about the human brain not being fully developed until it reaches 25 years of maturity, this research suggests that before this age, the autopilot is set to max, where everything not best tested is just that, and to its fullest at any cost that may or may not come next. As an adult watching on, this is a reality at its worst, as we can easily envision the consequences of their actions as we are forced to relive them all over again. While these unruly youths, from their point of view, think that we adults don’t understand anything at all and just keep their pedal to the metal, leaving their yet-to-be-discovered responsibilities in the dust.
“If only the world didn’t have to hurt so much.”
It is like two worlds speaking two very different languages. Two worlds that only want to inflict pain on each other, but of course that’s not true. The two worlds are just set adrift in different directions in the hope of one day finding themselves stranded on the same beach together, filled with mutual understanding, newfound love, and respect for each other.
As many young people tend to say:
“Why should we learn things that we will never have use for? What’s the point of living the life you never got to live? Our lives are not your lives, we would never ask you to live our lives, so don’t ask us to live yours. We are not your second chance to relive everything that was worth caring for nor to relive every opportunity missed.
We just want to live our lives the way we want to live them, on our terms only. If only you adults could somehow understand, when we say that we need to find out who we are for ourselves, society just needs to come to terms with the fact that this is how it is, just accept it, no ifs, ands, or buts.”
The chaos that occupies their young minds is there for a reason; it is their undefinable spark. So, just let them find their own way, no matter how painful it may feel. Only then can they be able to identify who they really are and where they must venture next, guided by the spark within them that will lead them towards their understanding of enlightenment. Remember the saying “The road is made as we go.” So let them envision their own nirvana, then and only then can we at some point later in life rejoin on the other side where we will once again speak the same language as we once did.
Exploring adventure, intimate feelings, and your darker side
Just as historical moments from time to time tend to throw the world off balance, life too, in much the same manner, also has this tendency to tip us over. Meaning that every decision accumulated from early age onwards will, at different stages, pave itself a new direction or decide to stay on the same path as before. What I would like to convey in this second part is the inevitable importance of dealing with what meets us when we as individuals are at a loss of where to go next. The choices that can topple us when we least expect it — just when everything seemed to be planned out, disaster strikes. This is where the battle between good and evil comes to be a very definite reality: who will I end up as, who am I at the very core, shall I embrace love or drown myself in self-hatred?
Question to you all:
Have you ever thought about taking a real good look into the mirror and being completely open to what or who may stare right back at you? To risk facing the scariest thing of all, as you could easily be your own worst nightmare, and if so, how to contain it? Do you cover it up so no one will be the wiser? What would you do if this were the case…?
Whatever your answer may be, the truth of the matter is that we have been forced through millennia of generations to reveal our true colors come what may. Many people, myself included, know all too well the lure of the unknown darkness, where we just want to consume everything that comes in our path just like a giant black hole that engulfs everything within its reach, oblivious to the notion of right or wrong.
At this stage, the choices we make must be treated with the gravest importance because the reality we now face in adulthood shapes the end version of us. It is at this point in life that we must confront our inner demons much more so than before. As mentioned earlier, “are we able to contain our inner demons or not? Are they to be embraced fully or kept tucked safely away?” These are just a few of many major decisions each of us must assess through our lives in various degrees. The choice between being naughty or nice.
Curiosity, life’s end, family, love, and friendship.
As I’m about to hand in my keys, I find myself looking back, and what I discover is that the life that once felt like an eternity passes far too quickly. A time that once was in abundance is now reduced to just a few sacred moments soon to be scattered to the four winds. As an introduction to this final chapter of my book, I will begin by asking questions about the meaning of life and reminisce over lost love eroded away by time. I will also talk about the importance of family values and long-lasting friendship, all the important pieces that make our lives worth living.
As we get to a certain age, more and more questions keep popping up, questions like: How will the near to far future look, and what will happen to us next when we are faced with the ultimate climax, i.e., the inevitable ending that awaits us all, the very thing that everyone does their best to block out? Why are we forced to see ourselves weathering in the same way that time sees itself ebbing away until only a single grain remains desperately clinging to whatever hope was left?
As a reminder of how we came to be, i.e., the origins of what we all take for granted. Animals, people, flowers, trees, land, sea, indeed all between the heavens and the earth. Why is it that all life except our own is blissfully unaware of the fate that awaits at the end, our own mortality, the only thing left that will not succumb to our will? On that occasion, I feel that the following question is most appropriate:
By what right were we created, fully aware of what we must face when life decides to give up? What was the grand plan of making us living witnesses to our own demise? Is this not the ultimate sign of cruelty, afflicting this kind of pain upon us humans? Could we not just wander through life oblivious to everything around us like everything else?
Were we not deemed worthy enough for you to grant us the gift of blindness to life’s ultimate sacrifice? If you only did as any great author will do when he or she gives life to a story, they hold back from revealing the book’s true intentions until just a few leaves remain. Then at least many of us would be spared the horrors of dealing with the notion of death every single day. A daily reminder of how fragile life can be, whereby with a snap of a finger all can be lost. Is life really meant to be as fragile as it’s portrayed to be?
As the saying goes, prayers heal all wounds, both the wounds we see on the outside and the wounds we never get to see, the ones that linger on the inside. I wonder, is there also a prayer for cheating at the ultimate cost?
As I look upon memories that flip through their greatest hits, I keep reminding myself that the best memories are the ones that are shared with everyone around. “To love thy neighbor as thyself” is for me to love everything and everyone that loves me back. Remember that a full life is a life shared together with the love of your life right by your side, as you watch your perfect offspring as they take to their wings in your forever prayers.
As my glass now reads empty, I would like to add:
To my eternal friends, you who took me under your wings, I will never forget you. As I now come to my end, let me just say, give your all to the ones you hold dear, and life will take care of the rest. Maybe we are the lucky ones, lucky in the sense to be able to reflect on all the joys and all the sorrows that have made us who we are. If we are in some way able to hold onto this notion, then perhaps death is not so hard to swallow after all, whether life has led us astray or not.
I want to include a saying that came to me in the shelter of the night. I couldn’t let it go, and in many ways, it summarizes how I experience the world around me. I hope it makes sense. It goes as follows: Here’s the proofread version of the line:
Who then interprets those who refuse to be read by those who refuse to understand?
Image credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Tor Arne Jørgensen
Some Smart People: Views and Lives 5 is part of a long series for more than a decade on the high-IQ communities. The following are acknowledgements and the foreword for this volume by Anas El-Husseini, Hindemburg Melão Jr., Sudarshan Murthy, and Veronica Palladino. This is intended as a free public access resource.
Acknowledgements
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 1: Manahel Thabet for being the first in this series and giving a gauge on the feasibility of this project, and to Evangelos Katsioulis, Jason Betts, Marco Ripà, Paul Cooijmans, Rick Rosner; in spite of far more men in these communities, it, interview-wise, started with a woman, even the Leo Jung Mensa article arose from the generosity of a woman friend, Jade.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 2: Claus Volko, Deb Stone, Erik Haereid, Hasan Zuberi, Ivan Ivec, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Monika Orski, and Rick Rosner.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 3: Andreas Gunnarsson, Anja Jaenicke, Christian Sorensen, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Florian Schröder, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Graham Powell, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Krystal Volney, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Owen Cosby, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Sandra Schlick, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Thomas Wolf, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Jørgensen.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4: Björn Liljeqvist, Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Sandra Schlick, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Justin Duplantis, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Marios Prodromou, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick G. Rosner, Thomas Wolf, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Arne Jørgensen.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 5: Anas El-Husseini, Anthony Sepulveda, Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, Heinrich Siemens, Hindemburg Melão Jr., Jason Robert, Julien Garrett Arpin, Justin Duplantis, Marios Sophia Prodromou, Matthew Scillitani, Mhedi Banafshei, Rick Rosner, Sudarshan Murthy, Tiberiu Sammak, Tor Arne Jørgensen, and Veronica Palladino.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by Anas El-Husseini
Today, everyone is excited about Generative Artificial Intelligence, or GenAI. Well, most people are, but a certain minority are just watching closely and anxiously, waiting for the moment where they get to say: “I told you so! AI will be the end of us!”.
When computers were introduced decades ago, people were afraid that they were going to lose their jobs to those computers. Moving fast-forward to the present, it seems that computers, and technologies created around them such as the Internet, created more jobs than they have taken away. People started to use those technologies to automate their work, as those machines did not replace humans, and more and more job types continued to come into existence.
Once again, people today are using the new technology, GenAI, to facilitate their work. They are using it to automate their tasks. But here is the problem. The risk, this time, is not just about humans losing their jobs. Unlike computers, which are just machines that can solve complex problems using simple logical operations, GenAI has one additional and very significant feature: the vast accumulated human knowledge fed to it.
The concept of GenAI is not a new one. Artificial intelligence has been around for quite a while. What is new is the continuous feeding of information, in an era where humans were able to digitalize data in all forms. GenAI has been trained with those datasets to be able to predict with high accuracy the words of answer, the pixels of an image or a video frame, and the sound waves of an audio output. People of all kinds started relying on this seemingly miraculous tool, and all of a sudden both an idiot and an intelligent person are able to deliver an informative and intelligent answer to virtually any question asked. The reliance on such a tool started to make people lazy, as they delegate tasks they were capable of doing themselves. Their brains were effectively relieved from doing the heavy lifting, and succumbed to spending more time on entertainment and relaxation.
Surely enough, a brain is like a muscle, and the less it is used the less it retains its original power and potential. Taking that into consideration, GenAI, still being fed in the future by data generated by humans, will become subsequently less and less intelligent as a result. An imminent decrease in I.Q. is likely bound to happen to both humans and the tools they have become so reliant on.
This leads me back to this book, the 5th volume of “Some Smart People: Views and Lives”, which is a collection of intelligent human thoughts and opinions gathered by Scott Jacobsen. I believe that one point of salvation for the future of humankind is the preservation of intelligent thoughts and views portrayed by intelligent people, as illustrated in the interviews throughout the volumes of this book. Perhaps one day, a new generation, looking back at the state of decay that happened to its predecessor, will pick up the slack and focus on improving the organ that the humans were once most proud of having it more developed: the brain.
Foreword by Hindemburg Melão Jr.
In a world with increasing access to information and opinions, some of the voices that most deserve to be heard are those that dare to delve into the intricacies of the human spirit and the understanding of Nature in creative and unusual ways. In this context, Some Smart People: Views and Lives 5, by Scott Douglas Jacobsen, offers a collection of interviews with some of the leading figures in high-IQ societies; it is a mosaic of insights from great names such as Tor Arne Jørgensen, Veronica Palladino, Marios Prodromou, Rick Rosner, Heinrich Siemens, Matthew Scillitani, Claus Volko, Erik Haereid, and other prominent intellectuals, who share their opinions on a variety of subjects.
Each interview is a window into the lives of these thinkers, who comment on childhood, daily life, dreams, insecurities, discrimination and many other aspects of life, providing the reader with the experience of getting to know the intimacy of some of today’s great geniuses up close.
The book is permeated with several curiosities and anecdotes that provide glimpses into the less visible aspects of high intelligence, revealing how much geniuses are also human in certain aspects, how much they are superhuman in other aspects, and how much they can present weaknesses, especially in childhood and adolescence, being victims of bullying and other forms of oppression.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen’s meticulous curation and thoughtful questioning illuminate each conversation and make “Views and Lives 5” a unique and inspiring work, a stimulating source of knowledge and wisdom.
For anyone interested in intelligence, this is a must-read.
Foreword by Sudarshan Murthy
First and foremost, I would like to express my regards to Mr. Scott Jacobsen for inviting me to write a foreword for Some Smart People: Views and Lives 5. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Scott Jacobsen as he is the pioneer in creating In-Sight Publishing journal which is interested in High IQ people and that too which is not-for-profit. This journal aims to give them a platform where they can put forth their thoughts and ideas. We see that high IQ people are a largely neglected community and sometimes people make fun of them as can be seen from ancient times. Today there is no concrete platform where highly intelligent people are given opportunities to utilize their talent and potential to do something creative for the benefit of society.
For starting this In-Sight Publishing, we should all be grateful to Mr. Scott Jacobsen.
I want to mention here the name of Mr. Paul Cooijmans who has greatly written on various aspects of intelligence and psychometric testing. I consider him as the pioneer in creating unique intelligence tests and evaluation. His thoughts on intelligence are commendable.
I am a member of one of his highly honourable society “The Glia Society.” When I was admitted to his society, I was the only Indian in that highly difficult to join society. I am grateful to him for that. Some of his best tests are the “The Marathon,” “The Labyrinthine Limit,” “Test of the Beheaded Man” and so on and on. Each one of his tests will test the extremities of intelligence.
I request Mr. Scott Jacobsen to include a biography and interview of Mr. Paul Cooijmans in the subsequent editions.
I have given several intelligence tests, and my IQ range is between 145–155 and I am currently working as pharmaceutical research scientist in one of the pharmaceutical companies in India. I developed a wholesome medicine for gastric ulcer patients because I considered the current therapy as one sided and it was published in the journal.
I think and would like the world to realise the potential of highly intelligent people by providing them opportunities to showcase their talents in all areas of creativity and to honour them for their exceptional abilities.
Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to people like Scott Jacobsen who have shown interest in the study of intelligence and developing and publishing this journal. I hope this will help in creating awareness and importance about high intelligence as a specialized trait.
I wish all the very best for his upcoming Journal.
Thanks, and regards,
Mr. Sudarshan Murthy,
Bangalore, India
Member of Glia Society and other High Intelligence Societies.
Member of World Genius Directory
Foreword by Veronica Palladino, M.D.
Having a brain is a blessing, if it works faster and better then it is a double blessing. We should all be grateful because knowledge, language, understanding are the most significant aspects in everyday life. We should not make fun of high range IQ societies’ world and intelligence tests because they are not a self-celebratory tool but an effective practice to know ourselves and start towards a more mature elaboration of intelligence. Intelligence is the way to connect to wisdom, it is the epiphany of truth.
According to me it is fundamental to thank Scott Douglas Jacobsen because he is the voice of talented people. Each interview is conducted with care and focuses on a precious and unique aspect of brilliant minds. Each page is a gift.
So every person has the relief of intelligence. Genius is superior evanescence.
“Genius and madness have something in common: both live in a world that is different from that which exists for everyone else.” -Arthur Schopenhauer-
Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4 is part of a long series for more than a decade on the high-IQ communities. The following are acknowledgements and the foreword for this volume by Kirk Kirkpatrick, Marios Prodromou, Rick Farrer, and Tor Arne Jørgensen. This is intended as a free public access resource.
—
Acknowledgements
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 1: Manahel Thabet for being the first in this series and giving a gauge on the feasibility of this project, and to Evangelos Katsioulis, Jason Betts, Marco Ripà, Paul Cooijmans, Rick Rosner; in spite of far more men in these communities, it, interview-wise, started with a woman, even the Leo Jung Mensa article arose from the generosity of a woman friend, Jade.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 2: Claus Volko, Deb Stone, Erik Haereid, Hasan Zuberi, Ivan Ivec, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Monika Orski, and Rick Rosner.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 3: Andreas Gunnarsson, Anja Jaenicke, Christian Sorensen, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Florian Schröder, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Graham Powell, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Krystal Volney, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Owen Cosby, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Sandra Schlick, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Thomas Wolf, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Jørgensen.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4: Björn Liljeqvist, Christian Sorenson, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Sandra Schlick, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Justin Duplantis, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Marios Prodromou, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick G. Rosner, Thomas Wolf, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Arne Jørgensen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by Kirk Kirkpatrick
The journey of intellectual exploration is one that often leads us through unexpected terrains — challenging our preconceptions, broadening our understanding, and, at times, humbling us with the complexity of the questions we seek to answer. Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4 serves as both a guide and a companion on this journey, offering a collection of conversations with thinkers who are not only intellectually gifted but also deeply committed to the pursuit of knowledge. It is within these pages that the collective insights of some of the most remarkable minds of our time are brought together to engage in dialogue, challenge assumptions, and inspire deeper reflection.
As one of the individuals featured in a volume by Scott, I can speak firsthand to the thoughtful and rigorous nature of the conversations that form the foundation of this book. What makes Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4stand out is its ability to bring together a diversity of voices, each offering unique perspectives on a wide array of topics — ranging from artificial intelligence and philosophy to the nuanced political and social landscapes we navigate today. This is not a collection of abstract theories or distant musings; it is a vibrant, living discourse that invites readers to actively engage with the ideas presented.
Reflecting on my own experience in participating in his projects, I was struck by the genuine curiosity and intellectual openness that underpinned each discussion. The depth of the questions posed allowed for a level of introspection that is rare in many intellectual exchanges. It is one thing to engage in intellectual debate; it is another to truly explore the contours of one’s own beliefs, experiences, and understanding in a way that invites others to learn alongside you. This is what makes Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4 so special — it offers not just answers, but the opportunity to walk through the thought processes of those who have spent their lives in the pursuit of knowledge.
For those of us who have had the privilege of being part of these volumes , it has been an opportunity to share insights gained from years of study, work, and personal experience. But more than that, it has been a chance to reflect on the broader impact that our collective intellectual efforts can have on the world around us. Whether discussing the ethical implications of emerging technologies or the complexities of global political systems, the conversations in this book are deeply rooted in a desire to make sense of the challenges we face as a society.
In my own contributions, I focused on the intricacies of human behavior, intelligence, and societal structures — areas where I’ve spent much of my life both observing and engaging. But what struck me most during the conversations was how interconnected these topics are with the broader intellectual landscape. Every thought, every idea, builds upon the contributions of others, and it is through this network of ideas that we begin to see the larger picture. The intellectual community represented in this book is a testament to the power of collaboration, of shared knowledge, and of the collective pursuit of truth.
Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4 is more than just a compilation of interviews — it is an intellectual experience. The minds featured in this book, including my own, come from a range of disciplines and backgrounds, each bringing a unique perspective to the table. But what unites us all is a shared commitment to questioning the world around us and seeking deeper understanding. The diversity of thought is not just a reflection of our varied experiences, but an invitation to readers to challenge their own thinking and expand their intellectual horizons.
One of the most compelling aspects of this book is the way it navigates the tension between knowledge and wisdom. Intelligence, after all, is not merely about the accumulation of facts or the ability to solve complex problems; it is also about understanding the implications of those facts and recognizing the human element that underlies every intellectual pursuit. Whether we are discussing advancements in artificial intelligence, the future of political systems, or the ethical dilemmas that face our society, the human dimension is always present. It is this blend of intellect and humanity that makes Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4 such a valuable contribution to the ongoing conversation about our world.
For readers, this book is an invitation. It is an invitation to engage with ideas that may challenge you, inspire you, and, at times, make you uncomfortable. It is through this discomfort that growth happens, both intellectually and personally. As one of the contributors to the project, I can say with confidence that this book is not meant to provide easy answers but to provoke thought, spark curiosity, and encourage deeper reflection on the issues that matter most to us as individuals and as members of a global society.
As I reflect on my own journey, both within these pages and beyond, I am reminded of the importance of intellectual freedom — the freedom to explore new ideas, to question established norms, and to engage in meaningful dialogue with others who share a passion for learning. This book embodies that spirit of intellectual freedom, offering a platform for voices that might otherwise go unheard and providing readers with the tools to think critically and independently about the world around them.
To those about to embark on this intellectual journey, I offer a word of advice: approach these conversations with an open mind. Let yourself be challenged. The ideas presented here are not meant to be digested passively but to be actively engaged with. Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4 is a book for those who are unafraid to think deeply, to ask difficult questions, and to seek out new perspectives.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge Scott Douglas Jacobsen for his dedication in bringing this project to life. His commitment to fostering intellectual discourse and creating a platform for diverse voices is evident on every page. Through his work, we are reminded that the pursuit of knowledge is not a solitary endeavor but a collective one — one that requires us to listen, to learn, and to grow together.
As one of the contributors, I am honored to be part of this intellectual community, and I look forward to the conversations that this book will undoubtedly spark in the minds of its readers.
Foreword by Marios Prodromou
I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to Scott Jacobsen for dedicating his time to interviewing some of the world’s brightest minds. Not everyone has the ability to bring out the best in high-IQ individuals, but Scott excels at it. He has an exceptional eye for detail, and his challenging, thought-provoking questions lead to fascinating discussions. I feel honored to have contributed even a small part to his publication.
I am confident that readers who engage with his work will gain valuable insights into the thinking and behavior of intelligent people. Scott’s interviews encourage subjects to explore their inner selves and articulate their feelings openly. It has been a pleasure to collaborate with him, and I highly recommend this series to anyone interested in the subject of intelligence. Even those who may not consider themselves high-IQ individuals will find that many of the interviews resonate with them and inspire them to read the entire series.
Thank you once again, Scott, for your time, and a special thanks to all the readers who have embarked on this journey through the series.
Foreword by Rick Farrar
Several years prior to having any involvement or interactions with many gifted individuals, I read Larry Niven’s sci-fi book, “Protector”. A couple of postulations concerning highly intelligent beings in the book stood out to me. To paraphrase, having a given set of tools and circumstances, sufficiently intelligent beings would all reach the same conclusion, since there is always one best answer to a given set of conditions. The second premise is that sufficiently intelligent beings would typically have little free will, since their intelligence would always allow them to see the best path forward. If you can always see the best solution then the choice is already made.
So, armed with these expectations, I sallied forth into various groups of high IQ people, hoping to meet throngs of people who were like minded and typically agreed on most everything.
And, oh was I wrong.
Diversity in this group of humans seems to be the second most common defining quality (after intelligence, of course). I mentioned this observation to a friend in the high IQ world, and she put it very well. People pushing the far end of the IQ normal curve are typically pushing the far ends of other normal curves as well (in beliefs, thought, priorities, goals, etc.). And not necessarily the same ones or the same ends of the same curves. Not that this is a bad thing. They are deep thinkers. There is a richness to it.
It turns out that there isn’t one right answer. There are a myriad of them. Much like the old story of several blind men feeling different parts of an elephant and therefore describing the animal differently.
There is a library in Copenhagen, Denmark, that has a significant twist from what one would expect when they think of a library. The Human Library allows you to check out a person (from a list of volunteers) instead of a book. In their case the people whom you check out are actually physically present.
Here, Scott has brought you an equivalent experience in print, with thoughts and experiences of people with a rarity in terms of reasoning abilities and intuitiveness. Rather than being clones of each other, high IQ people are quite unique, exquisite individuals as you will soon discover.
Enjoy!
Foreword by Tor Arne Jørgensen
It is a great pleasure for me to write the foreword together with Kirk Kirkpatrick for this fourth edition of Some Smart People: Views and Lives 4. Scott Jacobsen and his work to keep the fire burning in all of us who navigate the land of high intelligence is an achievement in itself. Scott and the work he does make him regarded by the high intelligence community as one of their own. For a long time, I have observed from my small home up here in the cold north the amount of work he puts into his articles. I am very impressed by his professionalism, perseverance, dedication, and persona. Scott, what an impressive job you do, kudos to you!
What, then, about those of us who move within these circles? Are we all alike on the scale from lowest to highest, and what will become of the concept of IQ, something that lies in the borderland between curiosity and authenticity? It should be known that the fall height is enormous for every mistake that is said or written. What is done right, no one cares about, neither inside nor out. What are we left with when the lights go out? Have we become something more, or are we stripped bare of all honor, whatever honor that might be?
Happily unaware of what is to come, I will leave my small mark. The path is made as we walk, we set the course, and stride toward the unknown. What I have found on my journey, I have taken with me, just like Askeladden did on his journeys toward the land of happiness. Through valleys and over dizzying heights, all those I have met on my way have found a place in my heart, many but not all, we follow in this edition to the promised land that is WIN.
I will conclude with my quote that was used in my first book, “74.”
Who then interprets those who refuse to be read by those who refuse to understand?
Some Smart People: Views and Lives 3 is part of a long series for more than a decade on the high-IQ communities. The following are acknowledgements and the foreword for this volume by Claus Volko, M.D. and Graham Powell. This is intended as a free public access resource.
—
Acknowledgements
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 1: Manahel Thabet for being the first in this series and giving a gauge on the feasibility of this project, and to Evangelos Katsioulis, Jason Betts, Marco Ripà, Paul Cooijmans, and Rick Rosner; in spite of far more men in these communities, it, interview-wise, started with a woman, even the Leo Jung Mensa article arose from the generosity of a woman friend, Jade.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 2: Claus Volko, Deb Stone, Erik Haereid, Hasan Zuberi, Ivan Ivec, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Monika Orski, and Rick Rosner.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 3: Andreas Gunnarsson, Anja Jaenicke, Christian Sorensen, Claus Volko, Dionysios Maroudas, Florian Schröder, Ronald K. Hoeflin, Erik Haereid, Giuseppe Corrente, Graham Powell, Guillermo Alejandro Escárcega Pliego, HanKyung Lee, James Gordon, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Krystal Volney, Laurent Dubois, Marco Ripà, Matthew Scillitani, Mislav Predavec, Owen Cosby, Richard Sheen, Rick Farrar, Rick Rosner, Sandra Schlick, Tiberiu Sammak, Tim Roberts, Thomas Wolf, Tom Chittenden, Tonny Sellén, and Tor Jørgensen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by His Lordship of Roscelines, Graham Powell
First off, my interviews with Scott Douglas Jacobsen have been pleasurable and intellectually exhilarating. The discussion points have concerned my voluntary work as the editor of the World Intelligence Network magazine WIN ONE, which I revamped in 2019 as Phenomenon magazine.
The editor’s job is artistic, logistical and time-dependant. The primary work of an editor is to make any content as warmly appreciated as possible, be that by amending the text, adding subheadings, or by placing the content in an appealing order that flows from one topic to another. This last task is, I think, the most significant one that an editor can make.
Over the years, it has often made me smile when I have recalled the diverse circumstances in which I have performed the editing process, my adventures in Europe, the Middle East and Africa bringing about their own challenges, especially when each publishing deadline got close.
Creating an opus has always meant producing something that the editor scans thoroughly, particularly for errors and precise information. Most often, however, due to the time constraints, I have not explored the deeper meanings and consequences of increased knowledge as fully as I would have liked. Enter stage left, Scott Douglas Jacobsen.
Scott has always been supremely well prepared, and he has produced questions that are profound and stimulating, which is a rare aspect to interviews, and something I am sure the discerning reader will discover during their exploration of this book.
Hence, implicitly, this book is a chance for readers to broaden their knowledge base and to gain access to the thought processes and interests of highly intelligent people from varied cultures and societies across the world. For this, I thank Scott for the work he is doing and wish all the readers of this book a challenging and rewarding experience as they head towards the final page.
Foreword by Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Claus D. Volko, BSc
It is my pleasure to write a foreword to one of the editions of “Some Smart People: Lives and Views”. Scott Jacobsen is one of very few people who are deeply interested in highly intelligent people, regardless of their social status, and gives them a platform where they can present their thoughts and ideas. For this, the high IQ community ought to be grateful for him. As a matter of fact, many highly intelligent people have not achieved a social status that would make them relevant for the mainstream media. Michael Ferguson wrote an essay about this phenomenon, called “The Inappropriately Excluded”. It states that with an IQ above 140, chances to become a university professor, a physician, a judge or anything else with a high social status are lower than for people with an IQ between 130 and 140, and the higher your IQ, the lower are your chances. This is a phenomenon which makes me personally sad. I myself have at least had the chance to study and graduate with an M.D. and an MSc degree, but when I sent my resume to research institutions I also got rejected. In the end I managed to get some papers published thanks to my late friend and mentor Dr. Uwe Rohr, whom I had met at Mensa. Uwe was also highly gifted and had bad experiences with academia. He repeatedly stated that in academia people with revolutionary ideas are not wanted because they disturb the system. That was why he had a hard time in his life himself.
One of the papers I published together with Uwe is called “Model approach for stress induced steroidal hormone cascade changes in severe mental diseases”. As the name suggests, it presents a model of how severe mental diseases are caused by changes to the steroidal hormone cascade, which are themselves caused by stress. For this paper, I conducted extensive literature research. My own unpublished paper “Symbiont Conversion Theory” is a generalization of Uwe’s ideas on how these diseases could be treated.
I am aware that not all highly intelligent individuals are interested in science and research, and on the other hand it is also questionable if high intelligence is really required for these endeavors. Personally, Einstein has been a role model for me, and it is often said that he made his achievements in theoretical physics only because of his high intelligence. That is why I, having sensed that I am more intelligent than most people, have been interested in science since childhood.
But probably the general public overestimates the power of intelligent people. Due to the political system, intelligent people actually have hardly any power. The system in fact perpetuates itself since brainwashed people make decisions based on what they have been told to do, and they pass these brainwashed opinions on to the next generation. The results of the elections do not really reflect what the voters are thinking but what they have been told to think.
In reality, highly intelligent people are more of a fringe group, which would be hardly heard by others if there were not courageous people like Scott Jacobsen. Again, thank you very much for what you are doing.
Some Smart People: Views and Lives 2 is part of a long series for more than a decade on the high-IQ communities. The following are acknowledgements and the foreword for this volume by Erik Haereid from Norway. This is intended as a free public access resource.
—
Acknowledgements
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 1: Manahel Thabet for being the first in this series and giving a gauge on the feasibility of this project, and to Rick Rosner, Evangelos Katsioulis, Paul Cooijmans, Marco Ripà, and Jason Betts; in spite of far more men in these communities, it, interview-wise, started with a woman, even the Leo Jung Mensa article arose from the generosity of a woman friend, Jade.
For Some Smart People: Views and Lives 2: Deb Stone, Kirk Kirkpatrick, Rick Rosner, Dr. Claus Volko, Ivan Ivec, Monika Orski, Hasan Zuberi, and Erik Haereid.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by Erik Haereid
I want to thank Scott for an excellent work over many years, and something as rare as collecting free thoughts from people of high intelligence; without editorial correction. I have not seen the likes of that anywhere. Editorial offices tend to present material that reinforces norms and established truths rather than challenging and exploring them. Together with all the other interviewees over more than ten years, I would like to thank him for giving us the opportunity to express some of our opinions and thoughts.
In this second part of the series, we meet personalities such as the charming and highly intelligent, self-ironic multi-artist and self-proclaimed “Dumbass Genius” Rick Rosner from the USA, and the knowledgeable and insightful Austrian Claus Volko. We get to know the leaders of Mensa in Sweden, Monika Orski, and in Pakistan, Hasan Zuberi, and the experienced Deb Stone from the USA; i.e. she is an actuary, like me. The very intelligent Kirk Kirkpatrick from the USA is also in this volume, and not least the mathematician, IQ test creator and one of the most noble and unifying figures in the high-IQ world; Ivan Ivec from Croatia.
People can be roughly divided between those who try to reinforce the existing and those who find it painfully necessary to create new habits and patterns. This division applies to smart people to the same extent as the rest. The question is how the individual uses his abilities and will. Do we imitate others? Are we afraid of compromising the norms? Or do we dare to challenge the establishment?
If one is to use high intelligence for something sensible, then it must be to push oneself to think and ask difficult questions, such as: What is right and what is wrong? Why should I change anything? What is wrong with following my desires and inclinations? Should I put more emphasis on the ego or the community? What are the consequences, in the short and long term, for one and the other?
As an intelligent person, you are also well-equipped to stop your inclinations, ask critical questions and give some answers that can lead to new and perhaps slightly better habits. We like to see ourselves as a species that evolves us and the world for the better. But what is “better”? Are we self-critical enough in relation to the way we live our lives; politically, economically, socially, in terms of education…? Are not many of our institutions based on old habits; on patterns we should strictly re-evaluate, seen in the light of our own history?
When Mensa was established shortly after World War II and its unbearable suffering created by human stupidity, selfishness, fear and greed, in 1946, part of the motivation was to gather the smartest people on earth to prevent future war. Has Mensa lived up to this ambitious goal? Or are Mensa, and other high-IQ societies, playgrounds for the egos of intelligent people?
Was the DJ who used his power to play John Lennon’s “Imagine” during this summer’s Olympic women’s beach volleyball final between Brazil and Canada smart? Many will think so. He achieved what the referee tried and failed to do; to calm tempers between the teams. The DJ was able to stop the escalating argument between the Brazilian and Canadian performers, with a single move; by playing a simple song everyone associates with peace; including the volleyball players.
Self-criticism is a difficult exercise; painful, introspective, and needed now more than ever. This is where the smart can play a significant role. I hope that everyone will take on this task in the future. And that this great and comprehensive series by Scott can help to influence that.
Some Smart People: Views and Lives 1 is the first is a long series for more than a decade on the high-IQ communities. The following are acknowledgements and the introduction for this volume. This is intended as a free public access resource.
—
Acknowledgements
To Manahel Thabet for being the first in this series and giving a gauge on the feasibility of this project, and to Rick Rosner, Evangelos Katsioulis, Paul Cooijmans, Marco Ripà, and Jason Betts; in spite of far more men in these communities, it, interview-wise, started with a woman, even the Leo Jung Mensa article arose from the generosity of a woman friend, Jade.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Foreword by Scott Douglas Jacobsen
I have immense gratitude for the members of these communities to interview them, individually and in groups, over more than a decade. I tend to come back in waves when time and finances permit to work on this theme. I did not expect to work in this niche more than a year, probably, at the outset.
However, several opportunities and areas to explore for further writing and interviewing came to the fore, whether new societies or high scorers. For the most part, these communities are merely one outlet for expressing intellectual abilities, so one facet of their lives.
The interviews in this volume and in the associated, upcoming volumes in this larger series comprise more than a solid decade of commitment into interviewing members of these communities from all over the world, all different backgrounds, and a wide range of high-range measured abilities.
A potential central benefit in this work will be the evolution of knowledge and perspective through these interviews as represented in the interviews themselves, i.e., a representation of growth from learning through my mistakes and then a lessening ignorance.
Which is to say, a good life goal for me, each day: Try to be less dumb today than yesterday. The material presented is chronological. If I missed someone, I apologize, please let me know. I am not infallible and simply made a mistake. This error can be corrected.
Lastly, I can only re-emphasize rather than add: Without the generosity and kindness from many people in these communities, I would neither continue exploration of these communities nor compile these into a thematic series of public resource.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/13
Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean born philosopher, Humanist, apatheist, academic researcher and educator. He is also into human rights struggles and active citizenship as the founding leader of a Social Democrats Association (SODA) a youth civic movement which lobbies and advocates for the inclusion and recognition of the young people into decision making processes and boards throughout the country anchored on Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, Strong Institutions). He is also the acting president of Humanists Zimbabwe.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Regarding your activism, what were the key moments when you began to achieve effectiveness?
Tauya Chinama: Indeed, my journey to becoming an activist or an active citizen is a long one, and it began before I identify as a humanist. During my advanced secondary education (2010 – 2011), I became involved with the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (CCJP), when they were conducting a program on peace and reconciliation following the disturbances of the 2008 Zimbabwean harmonised elections. The subsequent violence after the 2008 elections left many people injured, and some even lost their lives. Through the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace (CCJP), I was introduced to activism and active citizenship, reflecting on the experiences people endured in 2008, even though I was too young to participate fully at the time, being under 18. However, by 2010, during the reconciliation period, I had reached the age of 18 and became more engaged and aware. Thus, my involvement in activism began, marking the start of my journey as an active citizen.
Jacobsen: In the context of Zimbabwe, what type of social resistance do you encounter when engaging in conversations?
Chinama: The situation has evolved today, but when I first became an active citizen, the environment was far from easy. The risk of victimization was significant. As I mentioned earlier, we were engaged in a peace and reconciliation program, which implied that there had been severe disturbances before that time. Consequently, there was widespread fear among the population. It was not an easy path and required considerable courage, not merely interest. Interest alone, without the courage to act, would not have sufficed. It was essential to have the courage to express oneself, coupled with the practice of due diligence and prudence—knowing what to say, how, and where to say it. When one began to express political views, particularly in the early stages of my activism, it was common for people to refrain from engaging in political discourse. However, circumstances have changed. I underwent a priesthood formation with the Divine Word Missionaries from 2912 to 2018. Shortly after leaving priesthood formation, I identified as a humanist and got involved into active politics in 2018. I even stood as a parliamentary candidate Joyce Mujuru led coalition called People’s Rainbow Coalition (PRC) but my political party was People’s Democratic Party (PDP) for my constituency in the rural area of Gutu West. Although I did not win the seat, the experience was valuable. I continued my political endeavours and in 2023 harmonised election, I served as a presidential election agent for the Citizens Coalition for Change. Between 2018 and 2023, with some colleagues we founded a youth civic movement to amplify young people’s voices. The movement advocates for the inclusion and recognition of youth in decision-making roles and processes, grounded on n the Sustainable Development Goal 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions). The organization is known as SODA, which stands for Social Democrats Association. This is the background of my political involvement and and active citizenship. In Zimbabwe the issue of human rights is particularly critical; Oppression remains pervasive, especially under the current government of President Emerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa, where there is significant repression of dissent, including against members of the opposition party, civil society and individual active citizens.
Jacobsen: How does this ongoing repression impact the importance of maintaining the ability to speak out, particularly as it also affects political leaders?
Chinama: The repression persists, even under what is now termed the Second Republic or the new dispensation. However, as a humanist, I have learned the art of engagement. A common issue among government operatives and opposition activists is that we often adopt an aggressive approach. Confrontation, however, invites an oppressive system to display its full strength against you. Drawing from a humanistic perspective, I have sought a more effective way to engage with such a system. I have learned to communicate in the language of those in power.
Jacobsen: You mentioned earlier that you prefer dialogue over confrontation. How did this approach influence your activities within the organization you mentioned, SODA, particularly during the lead-up to the 2023 election?
Chinama: Yes, I prefer dialogue than confrontation. Through the organization SODA, which I mentioned earlier, I engaged with the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) during the build up to the 2023 election period. I was involved in writing letters of SODA, advocating for the introduction of a maximum age limit for for presidential and senatorial candidates, arguing that the absence of such a limit, while having a minimum age requirement, was discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of the constitution inclusion. After submitting a number of petitions, I received responses encouraging us to approach Parliament and other relevant ministries. On one occasion before engaging Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, on August 12, 2021, as a way of celebrating heroes day, defence forces day and international youth day, we wrote petition to parliament which was rejected and dismissed on procedurals issues as indicated in the hansard. However, the Hansard inaccurately recorded that we had been informed beforehand, which was not true. I engaged with the Speaker of Parliament Hon Tatenda Mavetera, who was acting on that day and pointed out the misinformation through her Twitter account, and she responded that whatever was recorded or said while sitting in speaker’s chair is deemed to be true. This response stemmed from a perception that I was being confrontational, although my approach was reasonable, prompted by the failure of dialogue.
Jacobsen: How do issues such as arbitrary detention and unfair trials affect the risks you face as an activist?
Chinama: The issue of arbitrary detention and unfair trials is deeply troubling and has become commonplace over the years. Many community activists have become victims of this, including prominent figures like Job Sikhala, an opposition politician accused of inciting violence, and various journalists such as Hopewell Chin’ono. Often, these individuals are detained for extended periods without due process, with courts delaying justice while the authorities exert their power. In light of these challenges, humanists and activists must engage in human rights advocacy and active citizenship by implementing various theories of change. Last year, I participated in an online training program on theories of change conducted by Ayni institute, which provided me valuable insights. Different theories of change exist, some of which do not endanger activists’ lives, especially when dealing with a government prone to use force when it perceives a threat.
Jacobsen: What about unlawful attacks and killings? How do these risks impact your approach to activism?
Chinama: The reality of unlawful attacks and killings weighs heavily on the decisions I make as an activist. Sometimes, I feel compelled to step back, but I cannot abandon my commitment to humanity. I realize that to challenge the system effectively, one must create a new system. However, creating such a system as a humanist in a predominantly religious country is incredibly challenging. Over 80% of Zimbabweans are religious, and even political parties and leaders often emphasize their religious affiliations. For instance, during the 2018 election, the current president frequently stated that “the voice of the people is the voice of God,” implying a theocratic connection to his party. This religious influence is also present in the opposition. The main opposition party CCC at the time of preparing for 2023 harmonised had a section on forms for which was asking, “What have you done for God?” among other questions about one’s contributions to the community and country. As a humanist, these questions put me in a difficult position, forcing me to diverge from the expected norm, that same very move was also criticized by a number of academics. The above scenario presents a dilemma and struggle to fight ruling government’s oppressive nature while fighting internal opposition deficiencies. My rights as a non-religious opposition individual are not respected at times.
Jacobsen: What do you mean when you refer to the challenges you face within political movements or parties?
Chinama: In Zimbabwe, it is often seen as problematic for a person my age to dream of becoming a head of state or holding significant political power. Such aspirations in my view should be openly encouraged in a democratic society. Unfortunately, in Zimbabwe, democracy poses challenges for the people, and the barriers to political participation are significant, both in opposition and ruling parties it’s tough to be open and challeng a sitting president.
Jacobsen: Have you been involved in any work related to women’s and girls’ rights, children’s rights, or egalitarian movements?
Chinama: Yes, although our work on children’s rights has been limited, we have focused on youth rights. As I mentioned, I am the founding team leader of SODA, a youth civic movement that advocates and lobbies for including young people in decision-making boards and processes. This movement is anchored on peace, justice, and strong institutions. By “strong institutions,” we mean institutions that include everyone with a stake in policymaking. This includes engaging with Parliament and collaborating with women’s and youth organizations. However, when it comes to collaborations us budding civic movements face challenges from some well established organizations because they may only reject you if they perceive you as lacking value or having something to contribute. In Zimbabwe, there is a growing issue with what we call “cashvists.” These individuals have established organizations and positions as activists but have strayed from their original mission of fighting for the people. Instead, they begin commercializing their struggle, focusing on financial gain rather than genuine activism. This has led to internal conflicts within civil society organizations, where resources are misused or fought over rather than utilized effectively for the cause. This is a significant challenge we face.
Jacobsen: What about the issue of forced evictions in Zimbabwe? How do you approach this ethically, considering the practical realities people face? Often, ethical arguments are made from a theoretical standpoint, but the practical implications are crucial. For those facing forced evictions, how does your humanist and freethought perspective guide your approach to this issue?
Chinama: Forced evictions in Zimbabwe are indeed challenging and rooted in the complexities of property and land ownership laws. In Zimbabwe, all land belongs to the state, and the laws are often established in ways that can be oppressive. When oppressive laws are in place, they inevitably lead to oppression. The government justifies its actions by asserting that the land belongs to the people, yet the people suffer when these laws are enforced.
Jacobsen: So, when the government designates land for mining or commercial projects, how does that impact communities, and what ethical considerations are involved?
Chinama: The problem is that the government often does not consider the ethical implications when designating land for economic activities such as mining or commercial projects. They view any piece of land as available for economic use without considering the impact on the communities that rely on that land. This creates significant ethical dilemmas, particularly when people’s homes and livelihoods are at stake. As a humanist and freethinker, I believe these issues must be addressed with a focus on the rights and well-being of the affected communities, ensuring that their voices are heard and their needs are prioritized in any decision-making process. People often relocate from their original land to another area, but the problem arises when the government fails to consider compensating these individuals or providing them with a suitable place to settle. As a result, people are removed from one location for a particular economic project and end up in worse conditions than before. This raises the question: Was this done for the benefit of the people, or was it to serve the interests of a few individuals in positions of power. Under the current president’s leadership, the administration needs to prioritize justice. Many Zimbabweans now in political exile are afraid to discuss politics. Unfortunately, some of these individuals engaged in similar practices during their time in power, displacing people to pursue their projects. The land issue in Africa, particularly Zimbabwe, is complex and cannot be resolved through protests alone. It requires the implementation of strong legislation, strengthening institutions, and efforts to ensure that our courts operate fairly and our Parliament takes action. It is crucial to guarantee that Zimbabweans are not evicted arbitrarily from their ancestral or commercial land. This can only be achieved by working within the system to create lasting change.
Jacobsen: What about the European Union sanctions imposed due to the continued intimidation of political opposition and government critics in Zimbabwe? These sanctions have been criticized for restricting democratic and civic space. Senegalese President Macky Sall has called for lifting these sanctions, but in the broader context of your work, do you believe these sanctions effectively prevent the intimidation of the opposition?
Chinama: The issue of sanctions is one of the most challenging topics in Zimbabwe. It often divides opinion, with opposition supporters generally favouring sanctions and ruling party supporters against them. From a humanistic perspective, I do not believe that the sanctions are benefiting the people of Zimbabwe. Instead, the sanctions have become a convenient excuse for the government to abuse power and resources, blaming the sanctions for the country’s problems. If I could advise the European Union or other international actors, I suggest exploring alternative ways to assist Zimbabwe rather than relying on sanctions. The sanctions have contributed to greater suffering and have allowed the ruling party to use propaganda to gain support from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and even the African Union (AU), portraying themselves as victims of external interference. Activists and opposition members in Zimbabwe, need to learn how to engage with the government effectively because the sanctions have not achieved their intended goals after more than 20 years. Instead, they have worsened the situation, enabling the government to play the victim card and further disconnect the opposition from the local population. It is time to find a more constructive way to engage with the Zimbabwean government.
Jacobsen: What do you think about wrapping up for today?
Chinama: My advice to the opposition in Zimbabwe, civil society organizations, activists and government of Zimbabwe. It’s high time they work in unison using one language, sharing ideas for the progress of the country because perpetual fights will never take us anywhere. At the moment Zimbabwean political actors and other stakeholders are like people speaking to each other in incomprehensible tongues.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/12
Mr. Fady Boctor is the President and Chief Commercial Officer of Petros Pharmaceuticals. He has over 20 years of experience in the pharmaceutical industry, across a wide array of functions including brand and portfolio marketing, sales channel optimization, product portfolio strategy development and new product launches. Mr. Boctor has driven significant revenue growth for specialty biologics, mainstream Men’s Health product lines, rare/orphan disease therapeutics, and substance abuse rescue modalities. Mr. Boctor has worked for companies such as Forest Pharmaceuticals, Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Adapt Pharmaceuticals (Emergent Biosolutions). Mr. Boctor has his BA in International Relations from Hamline University, Masters in Diplomacy from Norwich University and his MBA from the University of Manchester Business School.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re with Fady Boctor, President and Chief Commercial Officer at Petros Pharmaceuticals. You’re bringing E.D. therapeutic over-the-counter products to the market and developing pathways for future therapies. Some of these involve many neologisms. When you’re working as the head of Petro Pharmaceuticals, what are you doing to develop a pathway for future OTC therapeutics over time?
Fady Boctor: There are a couple of key points to highlight. One aspect is the prescription-to-OTC market, where we take a product that’s already a prescription medication—mature, well-established, and currently only available by prescription—and switch it to over-the-counter. That’s half of our effort. The other half involves innovative medications never considered for over-the-counter access. It’s an entirely new frontier, a new horizon in the prescription-to-OTC transition.
So, to put it differently, you might recall products like Mucinex or Claritin, which were once prescription-only but are now available OTC. Since 1974, we’ve seen about 104 such switches, covering roughly 50 years. That’s about 100 products that have transitioned from prescription to OTC. While that’s a significant portion, we’re looking to take this further by developing products that couldn’t switch without some technological assistive device or innovation—enhancing their potential for appropriate self-selection by consumers, eliminating the need for a prescription or a medical intermediary, and expanding access to critical medications as over-the-counter options.
That’s the nuance of our mission: transitioning prescription medications to OTC, but with a particular focus on innovative medications that require technological advancements to make them suitable for OTC. We’ll delve deeper into this as we continue our conversation. One interesting point is that over the past 50 years, with just over 100 prescription-to-OTC items, the average is only about two switches per year.
Jacobsen: Has the transition rate from prescription to OTC increased or remained fairly stable and slow?
Boctor: Some might disagree, but it’s been fairly stable. Recently, this year, we saw Opill and Narcan switch from prescription to OTC, but many argue that should have happened long ago. We’ve generally seen an average of 2 to 3 switches per year and, in some cases, none. From my perspective and analysis it’s been relatively stable. This might soon change with the recent technological advancements and the FDA’s opening of new opportunities.
Jacobsen: Why did the FDA decide to open that door? Typically, bureaucratic institutions like the FDA move slowly, so this decision must’ve taken a long time to materialize.
Boctor: That’s true. Since 2012, and even before that—though notably from a public milestone in 2012—the FDA indicated an interest in nonprescription utilization regulations, known as Nonprescription Drug Safe Use Regulatory Expansion (NSURE). They’ve explored and entertained this concept for more than ten years; some would argue even longer. What’s changed now is that we’re on the brink of facing a major physician shortage across the country. The U.S. is one of the most conservative and restrictive countries in the world when it comes to access to critical, chronic, pharmaceuticals, especially for diseases that are relatively easy to self-diagnose and self-manage.
For instance, if you have heartburn, you don’t need a physician to tell you to pick up an antacid. If you have a urinary tract infection, it’s fairly self-diagnosable, yet you still need a prescription to get the right medication today. COVID might have been a catalyst, highlighting that the American public wants to take control of their healthcare and mobilize without the restriction of needing a physician’s appointment. All these factors—the long-standing demand and the more recent COVID-influenced necessity—have driven the push to switch more products to over-the-counter status.
We can now add an assistive technology component to ensure safe utilization and expand the range of OTC candidates and prospects.
Jacobsen: I’ve interviewed experts in evidence-based medicine. They often emphasize the importance of values and preferences in shaping the medical decisions that citizens want and ultimately make. The United States is quite different from other countries in this regard, as it places a higher value on autonomy and individual preference over equity. How does this shift in the market—this opening of pathways from prescription to OTC—affect the overall market dynamics and the corporate commercialization of these products?
Boctor: You’ve touched on a critical word there—autonomy. Autonomy, self-empowerment, and self-care are fundamental in this context. We’ve entered an age where, if you look at platforms like Amazon, you can buy something and have it delivered within 24 to 48 hours. It’s that simple. And in healthcare, the demand is no different. People want autonomy. They want empowerment. They want self-care.
Now, overlay that with the current U.S. healthcare landscape, one of the most restrictive healthcare environments globally. The clash is between this newfound American ideology of autonomy and self-care and the most restrictive healthcare system. The tension between these two forces is growing, and changes are imminent.
Jacobsen: There are gray areas, however. At what point is it reasonable for individuals to make self-diagnoses and feel empowered? At what point does this empowerment cross into dangerous territory, where self-diagnosis might be harmful because it lacks the expertise required to make such decisions? That’s such an important and complex topic to navigate.
Boctor: Absolutely. Let me frame it this way—it’s fascinating how you can address two issues simultaneously. You can empower the consumer to engage in self-care without putting the entire responsibility of self-selection in their hands. That’s where technology-assistive devices come into play. They help solve many of the concerns you’ve raised.
How do we ensure that consumers can diagnose themselves with a clinically validated tool already used in healthcare settings but now embedded in the technology available at a retail pharmacy for OTC use? The consumer may have symptoms, say x, y, or z. But before they act, they must interact with this technology, which, within five minutes, helps confirm their diagnosis. It also educates them on potential comorbidities that may require further follow-up with a physician. So, we’re expanding their knowledge base. The technology might, for example, suggest that what they’re experiencing could be a heart condition and recommend seeing a doctor for a cardiovascular workup.
That’s where we find the sweet spot. We can confirm and validate diagnoses, educate consumers about their health, and flag potential underlying conditions that warrant a doctor’s visit. The FDA will likely support this, but they will draw a hard line if these safeguards aren’t in place or the potential for harm exists. In that case, they’ll block us—and their conservatism is justified in those scenarios. They want to ensure that if we’re making a positive impact in most, if not all, cases, we can proceed. Otherwise, they won’t allow it.
Jacobsen: The FDA must consider numerous factors. For example, if a patient needs to be literate enough to properly read and understand a drug label for something that’s moved from Rx to OTC, that could be a concern. Which leads to the question of the FDA’s timeline, this window, is there a set time limit, like ten years, for companies to prove the efficacy of their OTC products before the FDA closes the door? Or will they keep it open indefinitely, basing decisions on emerging evidence?
Boctor: So far, there’s yet to be a specific indication that the FDA has established a strict timeline. Did the FDA hire you to ask that question? Because one of the things they’ve been particularly emphatic about is addressing low literacy levels. That brings me to the next question: Do we have sufficient data from behavioural studies regarding low literacy in these contexts?
And how does the FDA assess the behaviour of these different groups, particularly those who may not fully understand the content? How can you make your product better understood by individuals with low literacy and other subgroups or special populations that might be particularly sensitive to your product?
You’ve touched on a key concern. There are sensitivities and cautions to consider, and it’s great you picked up on that. We are currently working hard to align with FDA and ensure these subgroups are included in our research around comprehension and safe use. As for the timeline, there’s no indication that this window is narrow. The first movers in this space will set the stage for the prescription-to-OTC switch for years to come. We’ll likely see some low-hanging fruit, like Claritin, Mucinex, and antihistamines, continuing to be switched in different formulations, such as Flonase, with different devices and variations. But we’re really talking about this new window you’re referring to, specifically called Additional Conditions for Nonprescription Use (ACNU).
The FDA is working on providing a definitive policy around this. It’s a proposed rule, with October of this year set as the timeline for public release. Once it passes as policy and as a formal program, we believe it will be here to stay. Potentially, dozens of products under prescription restrictions will gradually convert to OTC.
This is no small feat, and it’s not simple. Each product will likely take anywhere from 5 to 12 years to complete the necessary studies—studies that must demonstrate that the labelling is well understood, that consumers can appropriately self-select the product, and, crucially, that they will use it correctly without adverse effects. That’s the essence of the actual use trial. So, it’s a lengthy and complex transition, but as of now, there is no deadline for specific drugs or formulations to be transitioned.
Jacobsen: The literacy aspect is something I’ve read about in the Canadian Encyclopedia, which states that one in six Canadians are functionally illiterate. I don’t know if it is the same definition with how it’s used in the U.S. However, Canadians generally score higher on the PISA than the U.S. So if one in six Canadians is functionally illiterate according to a reliable source, I expect an even greater factor in the U.S., where it could significantly impact key life and health decisions. The FDA will certainly be more thorough in their assessments than an independent journalist might be. But you’re right to note the range of times—4, 6, 12 years. Which types of products will take the longest to convert? Which have the biggest hurdles ahead of them?
Boctor: It’s an interesting question. The class we’re currently working on—the PDE5 inhibitors, which include erectile dysfunction treatments like Viagra, Cialis, and our product, Stendra—is one of the most challenging. Cialis has been trying to go OTC, and Pfizer attempted to do just that over ten years ago. Some records suggest it might have taken them as long as 15 years to explore the transition to OTC for this class of medication.
So, as a prime example, this class is one of the slowest to convert. If we succeed here, it will open the door for other, less complex products. I don’t expect the other classes to be as difficult as this one, but the fact that this class presents such a significant challenge means that success here could pave the way for easier transitions in the future.
Jacobsen: Are there potential interactions or cumulative effects between substances that go from prescription to OTC, which might pose risks if not carefully managed? For instance, someone might need both medications in prescribed doses rather than just OTC. Is that part of the FDA’s considerations and the companies looking to make these changes for overall efficiency?
Boctor: Absolutely, that’s a great question. When we started this process, we closely examined the prescribing information for our product in this class. The restrictions typically focus on interactions with other prescribed medications. When we presented this to the FDA, highlighting warnings about concomitant use with other prescribed medications, they responded by broadening the scope. They instructed us to include warnings for prescribed and non-prescribed substances, including supplements.
So, to answer your question directly—yes, the FDA is considering everything under the sun to ensure that as other products transition from prescription to OTC, they are covered by comprehensive warnings and precautions. The entire market is now increasingly all-inclusive in terms of warnings and cautions.
Jacobsen: Could there be applications of information and communications technology, like an app, to make this process more efficient? I’m not necessarily talking about the distinction between prescription and nonprescription, Rx and OTC, or the doctor-patient relationship in terms of care, but more about a digital intermediary that could ease the transition. The upcoming and current physician shortage could mitigate some of the severity, especially in a virtual context.
Boctor: That’s a great way to put it. That’s exactly what it is. We’re developing a proprietary web app, but it’s far more complex because it falls under the software category of a medical device, which involves an entire encyclopedia of regulations, criteria, and specifications. It’s a web app designed to function as a learned intermediary driven by algorithms. As patients answer questions about their medical and medication history, the algorithm scores their responses similarly to how a physician or other learned intermediary would.
So, you’re correct—this isn’t a pure OTC switch where you grab the box, maybe read the DFL (Drug Facts Label), and hope for the best. These are relatively safe drugs, so even with some misuse, it’s unlikely to be life-threatening. However, with these nuanced drugs, the questionnaire serves as a critical decision-making tool. Even though we’re empowering the patient to make a purchase, we’re still qualifying them to ensure that gaps in their knowledge, layperson assumptions or misconceptions are captured and accounted for.
If someone isn’t an appropriate candidate for the product, the app will suggest they consult a doctor before using it and restrict them from purchasing it. That’s the beauty of this new frontier.
Jacobsen: If the patients will self-report their data through an external app to physician or medical facility databases, this might raise concerns about the security of their vital medical information on a potentially less secure platform.
Boctor: The platform is subject to all the same HIPAA cybersecurity standards required by the FDA for medical device approval, so that aspect is secure. We also don’t intend to host, save, or store private consumer information. We don’t integrate with any larger EHR (Electronic Health Record) systems, medical history databases, or medical records. That could change in the future, and those discussions are ongoing. This is still the nascent stage or genesis of this development. The future could involve integration with a patient’s medical history, where they could opt-in to access their medical records, making it easier to purchase medications without a prescription.
It’s strictly about answering questions as honestly and accurately as possible. To verify the patient’s identity, we have some qualification elements, including A.I. and machine learning, but we only must retain or host their information for that day.
Jacobsen: What impact do you foresee on reducing healthcare costs?
Boctor: The impact is potentially huge. One of the best resources on this would be the Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA). They’ve conducted several studies on the subject, and the numbers are significant—likely in the billions. If I remember correctly, CHPA has suggested for smoking cessation Rx to OTC switches, that savings could be around $1.9 billion. I’d refer you to CHPA for more detailed information on that.
Speaking of smoking cessation and impact on healthcare costse, , increased utilization is likely intimately correlated with improved healthcare outcomes and costss. When nicotine products like Nicoderm switched from prescription to OTC, utilization for smoking cessation increased by 150 to 200%, which is majorly beneficial. Moreover, they anticipated a $2 billion social benefit for the healthcare market. As more people quit smoking, many associated health conditions—such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular issues, and respiratory problems—begin to improve almost immediately. Consequently, there’s a significant reduction in urgent care, emergency room visits, and serious emergency admissions. Their estimate suggests that the savings from just this one case could be as much as $2 billion per year.
Jacobsen: Have we covered all the relevant points? Is there any core area I’ve missed?
Boctor: You had some unique and insightful questions. We’ve covered it all. Thank you very much for your time.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts.*
*Updated November 10, 2024.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Entemake Aman claims to be a super genius, because he is a member of the Olympiq and Mensa Associations, the theoretical threshold for Olympiq is 175 (SD 15). He claims that his IQ is around 199 (SD 16) because ‘he has done some IQ problems correctly that no one has ever done correctly’ on the SLSEI. Aman discusses: American high-I.Q. societies; high-I.Q. culture and constitutions; educational systems; and some personal notes.
Keywords: American media influence, artificial intelligence test development, G-factor intelligence tests, High-IQ societies, I.Q. test security measures, Mega Society Constitution, Mensa child prodigies.
Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5)
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Have you had any luck getting onto CGTN? I doubt I can help in that department–outside of my reach.
Entemake Aman: I am not getting anywhere in that department.
Jacobsen: How did the American media look to you after the article was published? Thank you for noting some questionable behaviour in scores in the Asiatic region, at least with one individual, several received documentation from another.
Aman: American media is more authoritative and influential. Geniuses are often honest, and we all hope there are no liars in the circle of high intelligence.
Jacobsen: When you look at different examinations in the U.S., what ones seem to tap the g factor?
Aman: The SAT and GRE are the only I.Q. tests in the United States that measure children’s G-factor.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the recent positive and negative developments in the high-I.Q. world in Asia? There tends to be more focus on the Americas and Europe.
Aman: I am only looking at the high I.Q. circles in Europe and the United States because I suspect there have been scammers in the high I.Q. circles in Asia since 2012.
Jacobsen: You have more of an affinity for American culture than me. What do you like about it? I tend to be more lukewarm about it.
Aman: I like American movies, the culture of I.Q. testing, the culture of educating gifted children, and the emphasis on creativity.
Aman: The High I.Q. Society asks only for I.Q. There are no other requirements. I would guess that only 0.1% of the people in the high I.Q. association are problem characters. If they are no longer members of the Mega Society, then the Mega Society may focus more on moral aspects.
Jacobsen: I would agree. It is a handful or less than a handful, or less than 0.1%. The vast majority have been excellent and kind to and with me, whether in word or deed. As a practical example, they have been generous with their talents and time in expressing their views in interviews for over a decade. Are there any emerging trends in the approach to I.Q. testing?
Aman: There are a few new trends in I.Q. tests. They have only one purpose: to measure the G-factor. So, it is all about the ability to find patterns.
Jacobsen: How will the high-I.Q. community evolve over the next decade?
Aman: I prefer supervised I.Q. tests, like Stanford Binet. Hopefully, there will be better I.Q. tests in the next ten years. The most important thing for the I.Q. society is whether its members’ I.Q. is qualified.
Jacobsen: Are there any unique challenges the American high-I.Q. community faces compared to other regions?
Aman: Members of the American High I.Q. Society is doing reasonable quality control, but some answers to American I.Q. tests have been leaked. I hope the American I.Q. test is changed to a paper I.Q. test.
Jacobsen: How has digitalization impacted networking and collaboration within the high-I.Q. community?
Aman: Digitization makes it easier for knowledgeable people to communicate. However, it could also lead to the leakage of answers.
Jacobsen: Are there specific regions where high-I.Q. communities are particularly active or growing?
Aman: America. Because America values I.Q.
Jacobsen: How does the high-I.Q. community support the development of young talent?
Aman: Mensa often reports on child prodigies under seven, bringing them to society’s attention. Mensa also has some social benefits. Some companies may focus on whether someone is a Mensa member.
Jacobsen: Have any recent debates or controversies within the high-I.Q. community?
Aman: I have not been paying attention to the High I.Q. Society has been controversial for a long time.
Jacobsen: What role do you see artificial intelligence play in the future of high-I.Q. communities?
Aman: Artificial intelligence may be able to design brilliant questions for people.
Jacobsen: How do different cultural attitudes about I.Q. in different parts of the United States seem on the outside?
Aman: Most states have rules for gifted children. In 1961, California became the first state to legislate meritocracy education.
Jacobsen: What seems like the different cultural attitudes towards intelligence and high-I.Q. communities in the States?
Aman: Supportive. Because the United States values I.Q. the most.
Jacobsen: From your analysis, you claimed to have answers stolen from your computer after it was hacked. What is how hacking is done?
Aman: That is one thing I regret and am sorry for, Jon. I should have deleted the answer from my mailbox. He probably planted a computer virus.
Jacobsen: How can test-makers protect themselves and their answers, especially from hacking and cheaters?
Aman: The authors no longer provide email addresses to the testers. Instead, submit using a paper envelope, like Mega Test.
Jacobsen: If we were to ignore paper and pencil tests, what qualitative metrics would you have noticed in gifted and talented people? So, words, deeds, and other non-test markers of higher I.Q.s—those that indicate the g factor—I am curious how you see these as culturally and individually emergent.
Aman: Geniuses often have good character, quick thinking, and original thinking about every problem. They also like to talk to themselves sometimes.
Jacobsen: Are there aspects of American culture you find in Asian cultures now?
Aman: High-I.Q. societies have also emerged in Asia.
Jacobsen: Would it be helpful for high-I.Q. societies that are more established to implement ethical guidelines?
Aman: That doesn’t help the High IQ Society.
Jacobsen: On constitutions, what about inclusion in refined constitutions for expulsions of individual members on the vote of the membership? I know the Mega Society included a clause for expulsions in itsConstitution–”Drafted by Chris Cole and Kevin Langdon; ratified January 1, 2001; amended August, 2005,” Article IV. Elections in Paragraph 7:
Any member may call for the expulsion of any other member at any time. An expulsion vote shall be held only if after the call for expulsion has been seconded by another member. The member whose expulsion is proposed shall be entitled to up to eight pages to present a defense in the issue following the appearance of the second to the call for expulsion (which may be the same issue in which the original call appears), which shall also contain a ballot, and every member shall be entitled to present up to two pages for or against the expulsion. Expulsion of a member shall require two-thirds of the votes cast on the expulsion. The member whose expulsion is proposed shall be allowed to vote in the expulsion election.
In the Mega Society’s ~42-year history, it has been used only once to expel a member. The expulsion from the Mega Society was based on vastly overwhelming “votes cast” against the expelled member’s defense case. After the subsequent expulsion from the Mega Society, removal from the mailing list, deletion from the listing on the website, and so on, the then-former member later sent an email to the Mega Society claiming withdrawal from the Mega Society, and then later publicly claimed to have voluntarily resigned from the Mega Society.
You don’t have take it on faith. You could email the Mega Society or a representative.
Aman: It is a good idea. It raises the moral level of the I.Q. Society. It can make their communication more positive.
Jacobsen: What can high-I.Q. societies do to stop the leakage of test answers and maintain test integrity now?
Aman: I.Q. test questions are not published, and paper envelopes are used. The test creator’s email number is not provided. Periodically check to see if the answers are leaked.
Jacobsen: What are the positive things Mensa is doing to foster young people, nurture young talent, and keep the spirit of the high-I.Q. societies alive in positive contributions to community building, which so many of these people crave?
Aman: Mensa’s advantage is supervised testing. It can identify gifted children and help them find a platform to communicate.
Jacobsen: Specifically, how could A.I. help develop hard test questions for people to separate intelligent people from brilliant people?
Aman: Artificial intelligence may have higher I.Q.s, be proficient in psychology, and create complex I.Q. tests for people.
Jacobsen: How could online platforms be more robust in terms of security and prevention of cheating? The Adaptive I.Q. Test comes to mind from a team in the Mega Society.
Aman: Artificial intelligence may be able to help solve this problem, with any leaks about I.Q. test answers automatically blocked. The team should switch I.Q. tests regularly.
Jacobsen: Could high-I.Q. societies do with more diversity?
Aman: No need. Paying attention to the quality of members is the most important.
Jacobsen: How do you perceive the role of digital platforms in shaping the future interactions of high-I.Q. communities?
Aman: Increase the risk of I.Q. test questions being discussed and leaked.
Jacobsen: What measures can high-I.Q. societies implement to prevent the leaking of test answers and ensure test integrity?
Aman: Use paper envelopes to test; do not reveal the questions.
Jacobsen: What are some fundamental cultural differences you have observed in attitudes toward intelligence across various regions in the United States?
Aman: For example, in junior high schools in suburban St. Louis, gifted classes are similar in the difficulty of teaching knowledge to ordinary classes, but they pay more attention to cultivating students’ practical and hands-on skills, often organizing science experiments and speech competitions. On the East Coast, where the pace of life is much faster, it is different. Maryland’s gifted class advocates advanced education, children have more homework, and small and medium-sized tests are standard.
Jacobsen: What are the most significant ethical guidelines that high-I.Q. societies should consider adopting?
Aman: Abide by the laws of the state.
Jacobsen: How might artificial intelligence contribute to developing more challenging I.Q. tests, and what implications could this have for test fairness?
Aman: I do not think it affects fairness.
Jacobsen: Are there any high-I.Q. communities outside the United States and Europe that you find particularly noteworthy or growing in influence?
Aman: Not found. I think the American High IQ Society is the best in the world.
Jacobsen: What qualitative traits have you observed that indicate high intelligence beyond traditional I.Q. test metrics?
Aman: No other indicator surpasses I.Q. tests.
Jacobsen: How do you see the evolution of high-I.Q. societies over the next decade, especially regarding inclusion, diversity, and ethical practices?
Aman: The diversity of I.Q. society does not matter. What matters is the quality of members of an I.Q. society. There will probably be more good tests in the next ten years, and members’ ethics will get higher and higher.
Jacobsen: What positive contributions do organizations like Mensa make to support young talent within high-I.Q. communities?
Aman: Regular meetings, monthly magazines. Some countries may have social benefits. Large companies may require Mensa membership.
Jacobsen: In what ways could online I.Q. testing platforms improve their security measures to prevent cheating and maintain credibility?
Aman: Using an envelope paper I.Q. test, the author of the I.Q. test question regularly investigates whether there is a possibility of giving away the answer. Keep the test questions secret.
Jacobsen: Can you share your personal journey in high-IQ societies? How being a member has influenced you?
Aman: When I joined Mensa, I had a high-quality circle. But it didn’t affect me that much.
Jacobsen: How being a member has influenced you?
Aman: I met some successful people. The effect on me is that I have an easy circle to communicate with.
Jacobsen: How has being part of high-IQ communities affected your relationships, both personally and professionally?
Aman: I found Mensa to be generally of higher quality than those around me. They have better characters. I prefer to talk to them.
Jacobsen: What are the subtle ethical challenges high-IQ societies face today?
Aman: The High IQ Society needs more supervised IQ tests.
Jacobsen: How can they address them?
Aman: Establish supervised examination rooms. Like the Stanford Binet test and the Mensa test.
Jacobsen: Are current ethical guidelines in high-IQ societies effective?
Aman: Effective.
Jacobsen: How could they be improved?
Aman: The most important thing is to obey the laws of the country.
Jacobsen: Besides test security, how can technology enhance collaboration and networking in high-IQ communities?
Aman: Technology has made it easier for members of high-IQ societies to meet.
Jacobsen: How can artificial intelligence improve communication and collaboration among high-IQ society members?
Aman: Artificial intelligence can help find members of highly intelligent associations in a particular country.
Jacobsen: How can high-IQ societies promote cultural diversity and inclusion among their global members?
Aman: The High IQ Society test requires no knowledge. It only requires a high IQ.
Jacobsen: How can members of high-IQ societies use their abilities to make meaningful contributions to society?
Aman: Studies mathematics, philosophy and physics.
Jacobsen: How can high-IQ societies encourage members to apply their intelligence to solve real-world problems and help their communities?
Aman: The High IQ Society creates different hobby groups.
—
[Update November 10, 2024: Upon further investigation, an old certificate of the Extreme Sigma Society of United Sigma Korea founded by HanKyung Lee, M.D. stated:
Extreme Sigma Korea (E.S.K) – High IQ society
Membership Certificate
Extreme Sigma Korea (E.S.K) is an International high I.Q. society located in Korea, founded on July 25, 2012, by HanKyung Lee, M.D., with the aim to gather people who have a high level of intelligence above I.Q. 220 sd24 or I.Q. 175 sd15 of the unselected adult population. The society Genius Member (G.M) is granted to individuals having achieved the required cognitive performance.
We certify that Marco Ripà Is Honorary Member (H.M.) of E.S.K – High IQ society
E.S.K Honorary Member: 021318eskhm Date Issued: 30 July 2015
Sigma Korea is an International high I.Q society located in Korea founded on July 3, 2007 by HanKyung Lee, M.D which has various groups according to cognitive performance; Three Sigma Korea (T.S.K) ≥ IQ 172 sd24 or IQ 145 sd15, Four Sigma Korea (F.S.K) ≥ IQ 196 sd24 or IQ 160 sd15 and Extreme Sigma Korea (E.S.K) ≥ IQ 220 sd24 or IQ 175 sd15 of the unselected adult population. The aim of Sigma Korea is to gather the people who have high level of intelligence and provide an intellectual discussions in forums that TSK, FSK, ESK members are allowed to share ideas and opinion for intellectual life.
Sigma Korea high IQ society may have important meaning enough as one of I.Q societies in the world. Korea always have been top I.Q ranking country in the world by official statistics and reported academic resources. If you participate in this project is to gather the people who have high cognitive performance located in Korea, you would be a member of the best IQ country society in the world. In the history, Korean couldn’t help using their brain to keep identity and survive against others, and consequently this environment help people to do their best in intelligence. It is well explained considering geopolitical factors have utilized for scientific research as well as the humanities field in academia like anthropology with sociobiology. That is this society is just for the people welcome to intellectual work.
USIA has signed the IQ Olympiad Foundation partnership.
The IQ Olympiad is an intellectual growth platform that everyone can participate in by refining and sharing IQ tests around the world. Users can access different types of IQ tests here, which can meet intellectual needs and challenge human intelligence limitations. The IQ Olympiad is a decentralized platform where users create and provide IQ test content themselves and users become consumers of IQ test content. The founder of the IQ Olympiad Foundation is Ronald K. Hoeflin, PhD, who is the founder of the Mega Society.
Kim’s Intelligence Test (KIT-1) is a verbal associations high range IQ test developed by YoungHoon Kim in 2022. Please send your answers to bryan@iqolympiad.org, along with your full name, nationality, age, gender and all prior I.Q. scores. Valid answers are single words, and you can send one answer per question. Scoring fee is “free” of charge if you join the IQ Olympiad Forum : https://forum.iqolympiad.org. KIT – 1 supports two attempts and raw score will be reported in both of them according to the current norm.
Therefore, according to their official statements, IQ Olympiad and the United Sigma Intelligence Association listed each other as partners and featured YoungHoon Bryan Kim in their communications.
Circa December, 2019, Jonathan Mize’sGod Versus Language published in December, 2019, cites a number of acknowledgements, including Mr. Christopher Langan and Dr. Gina Langan of the Mega Foundation, and YoungHoon Kim, among many others of the Mega Foundation community:
I am no doubt indebted to numerous members of the CTMU community, including of course Christopher Langan himself. Various members have assisted me in as diverse things as the inclusion of the ever-so-challenging to conjure “unisect symbol” (thank you Raj Dye!) to the genesis of cover design ideas (Adam Haas) and the development and consideration of various topics analyzed within the book. I am indebted to the following members of the community for providing thought- provoking material and engaging in stimulating conversation about topics related to the book: Gina Langan, Jesse Franckowiak, Alexis Pantelides, Dylan Catlow, James Bowery, Arek Sobiczewski, Eike Freidank, Quest Quinn DeWitt Brown, Ethan Swofford, John Rice, Bernard Skomal, Aaron Esbenshade, Martin LoBretto, Martin Ezeugwu, Jason Jackson, Micha Szczsny, Lennox Niece, Zachary Auf, Daniel Falk, Charles Ringer, Matisse Mallette, Richard Jefferson Yorke, YoungHoon Kim, Megan Lorrayne and Johnny Yiu.
Kim served as the Senior Membership Officer for the Mega Foundation until 2020. In the same year, he joined the Mega Society as a member. As of August 2024, Kim is no longer listed as a member of the Mega Society. Verification can be obtained through official Mega Society channels: https://megasociety.org/#officers.
Hi, before saying my story, I appreciate talking with this journal and being a part of your interviewee series. To put myself shortly, I have studied philosophy and theology in Korea University and Yonsei University, which are called Sky Universities (or Ivy league in South Korea), as well as studying B.M. piano in a music College.
My full-memberships may be the most interesting. The scores are accredited by some professional psychologists, of OLYMPIQ Society, Mega Foundation for IQ 175, sd15 and Epimetheus for IQ 160, sd15, I am also working as a president in the United Sigma Korea with ESK, IQ 175, sd15 society, which was founded in 2007 by Hankyung Lee, M.D…
…Graduating from high school, firstly, I attended B.M. classical piano in one music college (university). Completed 2 years out of 4, I changed my major to humanities and studied a variety of fields on the academic degree B.A. programme in Korean Ivy league, called, as noted, the Sky Universities. Additionally, I also completed a diploma in London. Now, I am preparing to attend Ph.D. programme in Harvard University, Graduate School…
…Next year, I will apply Harvard with a few of the prestigious graduate schools. I said, on the former question, about my academic journey from studying music to humanities. That is my next step to be a professional scholar. I am sure that you will see I am studying and researching in there, as always, soon…
…Most of the societies I am involved with have the qualification of the professional psychological test by a psychologist. This is far from several societies that just accept non-professional and even online IQ test. If we acknowledge, by any possibility, non-professional IQ test could measure the human intelligence, any of the society approved League be unsuitable for the name of a high-IQ society…
…I recognize that there are many cheating issues. Most of the cases are from the score on non-verifiable tests like so-called high-range IQ test, which do not require any identification of the testee or have been compromised. Even though, most of the test makers are still scoring. That is another reason that we could not believe the score from that.
At the time of the interview, Kim was a member of the following high-IQ societies: “Mensa, TOPS, ISPE, TNS (Triple Nine Society), OATH (One in a Thousand), Epimetheus, Mega Foundation, and OLYMPIQ Society.”
“I love news and stories from the celebrity and entertainment worlds, because it helps a lot with my anxiety,” he told Us, noting that many people with particularly high IQs can struggle with their mental health. “I believe that celebrities and the entertainment industry are harnessing our culture and their content is so intriguing for me. They’re the ones that are entertaining all of us. They are artists so I think, in a way, learning about their lives is a form of art experience. It’s an escape for me as well, but also a source of inspiration.”
Despite dedicating his life to science and technology, Kim has an equal respect for creativity. “Not only are the celebrities really creative, they’re also helping us think of new ideas and new ways to express ourselves,” he says. “And it helps us become more motivated to become better versions of ourselves. And pop culture never stops!”
As well as being a huge fan of BTS — the first K Pop act to go truly global — Kim is also something of a Swiftie, and says that this helps him feel more immersed in US culture; yes, keeping up with celebrities can give us a wider world view too!
‘I originally had a meaning in theology. I wanted to be a theologian, but there was a time when I wandered for a while as my study abroad was wrong,’ he said. ‘After graduating from graduate school, I plan to work as a full-time evangelist and take a doctoral program in theology together. I would like to contribute to nurturing future students as a theologian in the future, while doing theological research and ministry in parallel.’
‘However, the admissions officers of the High Intelligence Prometheus Society suspected his score fraud and did not grant him membership in the society, and he instead created the Prometheus 2.0 Society and joined it. This new society is a trademark infringement by using a name similar to the existing Prometheus, the same selection criteria, and a similar logo.[5]’
Independent investigation by Scott Jacobsen revealed YoungHoon Bryan Kim requested inclusion in articles listing individuals with the highest IQs, e.g., “Top 10 People With Highest IQ In History.” (Curious Matrix of Domagoj Parner), even contacting, at least one, several times. The article addition to Curious Matrix stated:
YoungHoon Kim – IQ Score: 276
In 2024, YoungHoon Kim from South Korea was recognized as number one in the world among the 50 people with the highest IQ 276 in America’s top magazine, Reader’s Digest, holding the highest IQ record holder officially certified by Korea Record Institute, World Genius Directory, Global Genius Registry, Esoteriq Society, and GIGA Society. With perfect scores on various experimental high range intelligence tests, he is the 1st ranked lifetime member of Mega Society, the one-in-a-million level high IQ society which was the only one listed in the Guinness Book of World Records and included all the people who were listed in the Guinness Book of World Records for the highest IQ.
Note: YoungHoon Kim founded an organization, the United Sigma Intelligence Association for the world’s brightest minds, of which seven Nobel Prize winners are official fellows/members. From his organization, The greatest minds in the world such as Noam Chomsky, Yuval Harari, Richard Dawkins, Howard Gardner, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Terence Tao have received official awards with the winners’ consent.
NOTE: BBC Science Focus is providing incorrect information without any fact checking. Therefore, through this article, we will provide a BBC Science Focus article that has been properly fact-checked…
…Pictured above, YoungHoon Kim is said to have the highest IQ score in the world currently, with an impressive score of 276. If this South Korean intellectual scored IQ 276, he is definitely out in front.
Effectively tying for the title, though, is Marilyn Vos Savant. Her recorded IQ in the Guinness World Records was 228, awarded between the 1986–1989 editions until the record was discontinued in 1990, with IQ scores deemed too unreliable to document.
GIGA Society — The Official GIGA High IQ Society Jan 8, 2023
GIGA Society Membership Jan 8, 2023
GIGA Society Official Jan 26, 2024
GIGA SocietyTM Official Jul 14, 2024
GIGA Society Official Jul 26, 2024
The first name change to United Giga Society happened on July 16, 2021, becoming United Giga Society (USIA), or UNITED GIGA SOCIETY (USIA) on July 19, 2021 and UNITED GIGA SOCIETY on Dec 21, 2021. From July 16, 2021 to July 26, 2024, United Giga Society (2021) was then renamed to GIGA Society Official.
On October 1, 2021, ABSNewswire published the press release entitled “GIGA SOCIETY, THE WORLD’S MOST EXCLUSIVE HIGH I.Q. SOCIETY.” The company name described was United Giga Society with the main contact person as “Bryan Kim.” United Giga Society (2021) contact person Bryan Kim’s press release claimed:
Qualifications to join is 1) High Range IQ test score ≥ IQ 190 SD15, and 2) High Range IQ Society membership ≥ IQ 190 SD15. There is only full membership at the United Giga Society and Membership is free of charge.
It has been known to occur that social media “groups” started by impostors made unauthorized use of the name “Giga Society” or some variant or misspelling thereof.
Such groups are not affiliated with the United Giga Society, and membership in them under no circumstance entitles one to call oneself a member of the United Giga Society.
The wording in the United Giga Society’s press release is similar to a warning previously issued on the Giga Society website founded by Paul Cooijmans in 1996. Giga Society (1996) of Paul Cooijmans stated:
It has been known to occur that social media “groups” started by impostors made unauthorized use of the name “Giga Society” or some variant or misspelling thereof. Such groups are not affiliated with the Giga Society, and membership in them under no circumstance entitles one to call oneself a member of the Giga Society. Contact the society’s Psychometitor to verify whether any particular group is bona fide.
Visiting the website of United Giga Society, the executives and positions listed circa October 25, 2021, were the following:
President: YoungHoon Bryan Kim
Vice-President: Iakovos Koukas
Membership Officer: Masaaki Yamauchi
United Giga Society contact person, “Bryan Kim,” released “GIGA SOCIETY, THE WORLD’S MOST EXCLUSIVE HIGH I.Q. SOCIETY,” listing the President of United Giga Society as “YoungHoon Bryan Kim.” In addition, the certificate of United Giga Society claimed “YounHoon [sic] Bryan Kim” was the “Founder” of United Giga Society in 2021. Therefore, United Giga Society contact person “Bryan Kim” released a press release through ABSNewswire about United Giga Society founded by “Younhoon [sic] Bryan Kim” led by “President: YoungHoon Bryan Kim,” and the wording in the United Giga Society’s press release was similar to that of the Giga Society founded by Paul Cooijmans.
Another press release from ABSNewswire entitled “GIGA society – What is the real Giga Society?” was released on July 6, 2022, claiming “The official GIGA Society was originally established in 2001 as the Esoteriq Society by Masaaki Yamauchi.” This claim is echoed later. “YoungHoon Kim” edited only two entries in Golden, on World Genius Directory and GIGA Society. Golden claims “GIGA Society” founded in 2001 by Masaaki Yamauchi. The “World Genius Directory” entry only had 2 editors. It claimed, “The World Genius Directory was created by Dr. Jason Betts. Currently, YoungHoon Kim ranks first in the world according to this organization’s IQ data.”
Circa October 25, 2021, the listed membership of United Giga Society, were the following 9 individuals:
So, between October 25, 2021 and May 19, 2022, Glenn Alden, Tor Arne Jorgensen, Dany Provost, and Tom Chittenden, were listed then not listed as members, while Evangelos Katsioulis, Rick Rosner, Mislav Predavec, and Fengzhi Wu, were added to the membership.
By March 7, 2022, President, Vice-President, and Membership Officer, changed to administrators, who were the same Iakovos Koukas, Masaaki Yamauchi, YoungHoon Kim, with the addition of Nikolaos Soulios.
By May 19, 2022, the partners for United Giga Society were no longer claimed on the website, while GIGA UNION was claimed through United Giga Society. GIGA UNION was described: “GIGA UNION is an association of societies whose membership requirements are IQ 190 SD15 or higher. The purpose of GIGA UNION is to unite and increase communication with IQ 190 scorers or IQ 190 societies around the world.” Listed below its description were several organizations: UNITED GIGA SOCIETY, SINGULARITY SOCIETY, ESOTERIQ SOCIETY, NOUS 200 Society, and6G HIGH IQ SOCIETY.
By June 10, 2022, United Giga Society’s website became THE GIGA SOCIETY 190. The United Giga Society Facebook group’s name was changed from “UNITED GIGA SOCIETY” to “GIGA SOCIETY 190” on June 9, 2022. The administrators for THE GIGA SOCIETY 190 were Iakovos Koukas, Masaaki Yamauchi, and YoungHoon Kim. Nikolaos Soulios was no longer listed. The members were YoungHoon Kim, Iakovos Koukas, Evangelos Katsioulis, Rick Rosner, Mislav Predavec, Dany Provost, Fengzhi Wu, Marios Prodromou, and Tomas Perna.
Giga Society 190 claimed, “Giga Society 190 was originally established in 2001 as the Esoteriq Society. The Giga Society 190 shares the history and spirit of the Esoteriq Society. Currently, the two societies are operating independently.” No founder is claimed for Giga Society 190. The United Giga Society certificate claimed a founding by “YounHoon [sic] Bryan Kim” with the first press release and website active in 2021.
Circa June 28, 2022, THE GIGA SOCIETY 190 administrators were replaced with President Evangelos Katsioulis, MD, PhD, and Vice President Masaaki Yamauchi, BSc & Vice President Iakovos Koukas, MSc.
Circa July 6, 2022, THE GIGA SOCIETY 190 became GIGA Society, where “GIGA stands for Global Intellectual Giga Association.” The United Giga Society Facebook group page was renamed again–from GIGA SOCIETY 190–on July 4, 2022 to “GIGA Society — Discussion Group” and then on July 6, 2022 to “GIGA Society — Secret Group.” President Evangelos Katsioulis, MD, PhD, and Vice President Masaaki Yamauchi, BSc & Vice President Iakovos Koukas, MSc were no longer listed on the website in those capacities. Neither were the prior administrators listed in their prior capacities. Previously listed members Evangelos Katsioulis, Dany Provost, and Rick Rosner were removed and Kirk Butt, Tom Chittenden, and Tianxi Yu were added to the membership. Chittenden was added, again in this round after removal between October 25, 2021 and May 19, 2022, originally.
Circa July 12, 2022, on the new web domain, GIGA Society created the GIGA NETWORK. The GIGA NETWORK was described as “an alliance of high IQ societies worldwide. The purpose of GIGA NETWORK is to unite and increase communication with high IQ scorers or high societies around the world.” In addition, GIGA Society was described there: “GIGA Society is an extremely high IQ society for those who scored IQ 190 SD15 on the high range IQ test. The society was originally established in 2001.”
For the first time in the world, the publication of the GIGA Society was brought to the book market. Although it is only a record of the society’s current state, this information will become a valuable piece of history in the future.
Circa September 29, 2022, Marco Ripà was added to the membership list. The GIGA Society claimed, “The official GIGA Society was originally established in 2001 as the Esoteriq Society by Masaaki Yamauchi. GIGA Society shares the history and spirit of the Esoteriq Society. Currently, the two societies are operating independently.” The United Giga Society, in 2021, certificate claimed “YounHoon [sic] Bryan Kim” and the website claimed “YoungHoon Bryan Kim” was the President & Founder.
Circa January 8 to 26, the United Giga Society Facebook page name changed again from “GIGA Society — The Official GIGA High IQ Society” on Jan 8, 2023 to “GIGA Society Membership” on Jan 8, 2023 to “GIGA Society Official” on Jan 26, 2023.
Anyone with an IQ score within the top 1% or an IQ 135 (SD15) or higher can join GIGA Network as a regular member. After membership registration is approved, members can receive the official GIGA Network certificate including a certified IQ score. An official member of the GIGA Network has a personal profile within the GIGA Network website. A sample profile can be foundhere.
GIGA Network is a global organization for the high intelligence network founded by YoungHoon Kim who is ranked number one in the World Genius Directory. The aim of GIGA Network is to integrate high IQ people & societies, to certify high IQ scores, and to publish GIGA Records which is the world’s highest IQ list certified by GIGA Network. GIGA in GIGA Network means Global Intelligence Giga Association.
GIGA Networkis a global organization for the high intelligence network founded by YoungHoon Kim who is ranked number one in the World Genius Directory. The aim of GIGA Network is to integrate high IQ people & societies, to certify high IQ scores, and to publish GIGA Records which is the world’s highest IQ list certified by GIGA Network. GIGA in GIGA Network means Global Intelligence Giga Association.
GIGA Network uses cutting-edge statistics and scientific technologies to verify human high intelligence. The limits of human intelligence will be challenged by experimental high intelligence assessments called high range IQ test. GIGA Network serves as an institution that recognizes IQ scores by evaluating them. It will serve as an official certification authority in the high IQ network.
The GIGA Network established the Grand Master Society, the Prometheus 2.0 Society, and the Nobel Society with the GIGA Society at the head for the purpose of research on high intelligence.
Circa March 22, 2023, the GIGA Records was created with a sample certificate presented. It has since been deleted.
Circa May 13, 2023, there was a GIGA Network facebook page. It has since been deleted. Jeff Leonard was added as a member. GIGA Society was no longer claimed as established by Esoteriq Society by Maasaki Yamauchi in 2001. No claimed President or Founder.
Circa September 3, 2023, no claimed president or founder since 2021 under United Giga Society with Founder “YounHoon [sic] Bryan Kim” & President “YoungHoon Bryan Kim,” or 2022 with President Evangelos Katsioulis, MD, PhD, or then in 2022 claimed as established in 2001 as Esoteriq Society by Masaaki Yamauchi or Masaaki Yamauchi as the Founder. GIGA Society said about its foundation:
GIGA Foundationis a global organization for the high intelligence network founded by YoungHoon Kim who is ranked number one in the World Genius Directory. The aim of GIGA Foundation is to integrate high IQ people & societies, to certify high IQ scores, and to publish GIGA Records which is the world’s highest IQ list certified by GIGA Foundation. GIGA in GIGA Foundation means Global Intelligence Giga Association.
GIGA Foundation uses cutting-edge statistics and scientific technologies to verify human high intelligence. The limits of human intelligence will be challenged by experimental high intelligence assessments called high range IQ test. GIGA Foundation serves as an institution that recognizes IQ scores by evaluating them. It will serve as an official certification authority in the high IQ network.
The GIGA Foundation established the Grand Master Society, the Prometheus 2.0 Society, and the Nobel Society with the GIGA Society at the head for the purpose of research on high intelligence.
HYPER Society is an intellectual enhancement and self-development community founded by United Intelligence Research Institute of USIA and YoungHoon Kim, the record holder of the highest IQ officially certified by Korea Record Institute, World Genius Dictionary and Global Genius Registry (IQ 210, SD15 = IQ 276, SD24).
*HYPER Society is a cooperative organization of GIGA Society.
HYPER Mission
The goal of HYPER Society is to provide mentoring for personal and interpersonal growth and social and emotional self-realization that cannot be experienced outside by sharing and communicating with each other’s intellectual curiosity.
Highest IQ 276 was established as a webpage, too. GIGA Society claimed to be founded in 2001; no reference to Masaaki Yamauchi or Esoteriq Society at that time. HYPER Society has since been deleted.
Circa June 22, 2024, GIGA Society claimed Ronald Hoeflin was the “Honorary Founder” of GIGA Society, and founded in 1982, as follows:
GIGA Society, as the world’s most exclusive high IQ organization, was originally founded in 1982 by Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin under the name Mega Society as the world’s highest IQ society which was the only one listed in Guinness Book of World Records in histoy. [sic] However, while the Mega Society sets a very high intelligence level of one in a million as a condition for membership, GIGA Society sets a condition for joining a superintelligence of one in a billion…
◆ NOTE: As the most exclusive high IQ organization for individuals with an intelligence of one in a billion, GIGA Society continues the spirit of Ronald K. Hoeflin and his Mega Society…
…HONORARY FOUNDER
Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin
Circa July 16, 2024, GIGA Society repeated the claims as well as noted and warned:
■ NOTE: Except for the nine members above, GIGA Society does not have any other members.
■ NOTE: As the most exclusive high IQ organization for individuals with an intelligence of one in a billion, GIGA Society continues the spirit of Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin and his Mega Society.
■ Warning: Here is the official GIGA Society™ for those who score IQ 190 (SD 15) on an acceptable high range IQ test. However, there is another giga-level group which accepts unprofessional uncensored tests authored by the group’s founder who is not properly disciplined academically.
Circa August 14, 2024, for the GIGA Society, all claims to the honorary presidency of Dr. Ronald Hoeflin were removed in addition to removal of claims to GIGA Society being founded in 1982.
Circa August, 2024, according to the Mega Society, YoungHoon Bryan Kim was expelled by the Mega Society following a membership vote with 1 vote in defense of YoungHoon Bryan Kim and the rest against him. YoungHoon Bryan Kim then sent an email to the Mega Society as a then-former Mega Society member claiming withdrawal from the Mega Society. As of August 2024, Kim is no longer listed as a member of the Mega Society. Verification can be obtained through official Mega Society channels: https://megasociety.org/#officers. GIGA Society (™) then released a statement claiming YoungHoon Bryan Kim voluntarily resigned from the Mega Society.
YoungHoon Bryan Kim connected Scott Douglas Jacobsen to Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin for a 3-part interview published in In-Sight Publishing’s platform in 2019, and then republished the 3-part interview on the United Sigma Intelligence Association website with Kim’s approval. In total, these extensive views and ideas of Hoeflin were published in comprehensive interviews on the In-Sight Publishing website, United Sigma Intelligence Association website, and in the formerUSIA Research Journal–this has since been deleted–with Dr. Ronald Hoeflin in 2019/2020. No public allegations against Hoeflin or others were made between 2019 and July, 2024 to views or opinions expressed by Hoeflin. As cited in “On High-Range Test Construction 19: Dr. Ronald K. Hoeflin”:
Circa August, 2024, onwards, the allegations against several people and organizations were made on several organizational and media platforms, referenced in the October, 2024 update and here. Based on available records, the following sequence of events occurred from removing Hoeflin’s name from the GIGA Society (™) website followed by allegations against several people and organizations: Ronald Hoeflin name claim and founder claim removal from GIGA Society (™) website, Mega Society expulsion of YoungHoon Bryan Kim as a member, YoungHoon Bryan Kim’s withdrawal claim letter to Mega Society as a then-former Mega Society member, GIGA Society (™) Medium account article with voluntary resignation claim for YoungHoon Bryan Kim, and then most of the GIGA Society (™) and other organizational-and-outlet allegations.
Circa November 4, 2024, the GIGA Committee members are Tom Chittenden, PhD, DPhil, PStat (USA) YoungHoon Kim, DSc, hc., EdD, hc. (South Korea), Raymond Keene, OBE (UK), Ivan Ivec, PhD (Croatia), Tim Roberts, PhD (Australia), Kirk Butt, ThD, PhD (Canada), Eick Sternhagen, DPhil (Germany), Ilia Stambler, PhD (Israel), Mark Tabladillo, PhD (USA), Simon Olling Rebsdorf, PhD (Denmark), Amit M. Shelat, DO (USA), Dr. M. M. Karindas, MD (Netherlands), Soo-Young Kwon, PhD (South Korea), Masaaki Yamauchi (Japan), and Kathy Kendrick (USA). The GIGA Society™ claimed to be founded by The Brain Trust registered in 1989, as in the following:
As an experimental high-range IQ project, GIGA SocietyTM is an extremely high IQ society for the certified highest IQ people who scored at or above IQ 190 (SD 15) on an acceptable high-range IQ test, in partnership with World Mind Sports Council & World Memory Championships founded by Tony Buzan, the inventor of Mind Maps. GIGA SocietyTM was founded by The Brain Trust registered in 1989 as a nonprofit organization in the United Kingdom.
The only other giga-level society with both the theoretical level and the title “Giga Society” was founded by Paul Cooijmans in 1996. This has been the only claimed founder and founding date of the Giga Society in contrast to the United Giga Society to the GIGA Society (™). Jeff Leonard no longer listed as a member of GIGA Society (™). Christopher Harding, the Founder of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, died in August of 2024. Since Harding’s death, he has been listed as a member of the GIGA Society (™). Therefore, after Harding’s passing, his name appeared on the GIGA Society (™) membership list.
Therefore:
The first press release and press contact person was Bryan Kim shortly after the registration of the first website in late 2021.
The name of the organization since 2021 registration of the website and release of the first press release–referencing the Facebook group page name changes–has been changed several times.
The claimed founders have been “YounHoon [sic] Bryan Kim,” Masaaki Yamauchi, Ronald Hoeflin, and The Brain Trust of the deceased Tony Buzan, with the original press release and website released in 2021, then claimed founding in 2001 (Esoteriq Society), then claimed founding in 1982 (The Mega Society), then claimed as “founded by The Brain Trust registered in 1989 as a nonprofit organization in the United Kingdom,” respectively.
The presidents have been YoungHoon Bryan Kim, Evangelos Katsioulis, and Tom Chittenden.
The membership officer has been Masaaki Yamauchi.
The vice presidents have been Iakovos Koukas and Masaaki Yamauchi.
The administrators have been Iakovos Koukas, Masaaki Yamauchi, YoungHoon Kim, and Nikolaos Soulios.
The committee members have been Amit M. Shelat, DO (USA), Fabiano de Abreu, PhD (Brazil), Claus D. Volko, MD, MSc (Austria), Eick Sternhagen, DPhil (Germany), Ilia Stambler, PhD (Israel), Ivan Ivec, PhD (Croatia), Kathy Kendrick (USA), Kirk Butt, ThD, PhD (Canada), Manahel Thabet, PhD (KSA), Mark Tabladillo, PhD (USA), Masaaki Yamauchi (Japan), Raymond Keene, OBE (UK), Simon Olling Rebsdorf, PhD (Denmark), Tim Roberts, PhD (Australia), Tom Chittenden, PhD, DPhil, PStat (USA), YoungHoon Kim (South Korea), and Dr. M. M. Karindas, MD (Netherlands).
The members have been Iacovos Koukas, YoungHoon Kim, Marios Prodromou, Glenn Alden, Tor Arne Jørgensen, Tomas Perna, Dany Provost, Fengzhi Wu, Tom Chittenden, Evangelos Katsioulis, Rick Rosner, Mislav Predavec, Kirk Butt, Tianxi Yu, Jeff Leonard, and Christopher Harding.
The partners have been United Sigma Intelligence Association (USIA), World Memory Championships (HongKong), Global Genius Directory, ESOTERIQ Society, Gifted High IQ Network, Genius High IQ Network, NOUS 200 High IQ Society, 6G High IQ Society, NOUS High IQ Society, 6N High IQ Society, ELITE High IQ Society, 4G High IQ Society, BRAIN High IQ Society, THIS High IQ Society, Opal Quest Group, TENIQ High IQ Network, Global High IQ Society, Canadian High IQ Society, American High IQ Society, Italian High IQ Society, Synapse High IQ Network, ICON High IQ Society, Callidus High IQ Society, Capabilis High IQ Society, Magnus High IQ Society, Egregius High IQ Society, and Profundus High IQ Society, and World Mind Sports Council & World Memory Championships.
The GIGA UNION, GIGA Network, or GIGA Foundation, members have been 6G High IQ Society, Esoteriq Society, Evangeliq Society, Generiq Society, Giga Society, Global Genius Registry, Grand Master Society, KIT High Range IQ Test, Nobel Society, Nous 200 Society, Prometheus 2.0, Singularity Society, and United Giga Society.
The only listed LinkedIn employee of the United Sigma Intelligence Association is 1 person, YoungHoon Bryan Kim. The only listed LinkedIn employee of the GIGA Society (™) is 1 person, YoungHoon Bryan Kim. YoungHoon Bryan Kim listed having worked at GIGA Society (™) for 2 years and 11 months, and United Sigma Intelligence Association for 5 years. There is only 1 employee listed for each in the 2 years and 11 month span as well as 5 year period of employment, GIGA Society (™) and United Sigma Intelligence Association, respectively. Posts on the GIGA Society (™) Medium account and the United Sigma Intelligence Association YouTube channel have included allegations regarding several individuals and organizations. Noted in the October update, about numerous individuals and organizations:
The founder of Mega Society, Dr. Ronald Hoeflin founded the cryptocurrency coin company IQ Olympiad (Foundation) together with South Korean Jeong Kye-won(정계원) called Andrew Zheng or Andrew Jeong.
They are illegally stealing the intellectual property of YoungHoon Kim and YoungHoon Kim’s United Sigma Intelligence Association(USIA). YoungHoon Kim and his organization USIA are not affiliated with IQ Olympiad in any way.
For these reasons and Mega Society’s support for sex offender and extreme racism with eugenics, YoungHoon Kim voluntarily resigned from the Mega Society in August 2024.
As of 2024, the highest recorded IQ score belongs to YoungHoon Kim from South Korea, with an IQ of 276. This score is verified by multiple organizations, including the Korea Record Institute, World Genius Directory, Global Genius Registry, Esoteriq Society, and GIGA Society. YoungHoon Kim’s exceptional intelligence is recognized globally, and he holds memberships in several extremely high-IQ societies such as the Giga Society and the Mega Society which was the only one listed in the Guinness World Records in history.
His achievements span various fields, including psychology, neuroscience, and linguistics. Serving as an intelligence specialist advisor at the World Mind Sports Council and World Memory Championships, YoungHoon Kim founded an organization, the United Sigma Intelligence Association for the world’s brightest minds, which includes seven Nobel Prize winners. From his organization, the greatest minds in the world such as Noam Chomsky, Yuval Harari, Richard Dawkins, Howard Gardner, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Terence Tao have received official awards with the winners’ consent.
This content was picked up by several publications and repeated.
[Update November 17, 2024: Based on further investigation, Paul Cooijmans, Founder of the Giga Society and the Glia Society, expelled YoungHoon Bryan Kim from the Glia Society around the time of “United Giga Society” as a high-I.Q. society name use, as investigated in the November 10, 2024 update. (United Giga Society transitioned over many iterations into GIGA Society.) This reflects the expulsion of Kim from the Mega Society in August of 2024. Verification can be obtained through official Mega Society contact channels, https://megasociety.org/#officers, and official Glia Society & Giga Society contact channels, https://paulcooijmans.com/contact.html, for each case.
Circa Spring, 2020, I resigned from the United Sigma Intelligence Association (USIA) as its executive director and its main editor. My direct editorial successor was one of the main founding figures of the Intelligent Design creationism movement, Dr. William Dembski, particularly known for work on Specified Complexity, and in the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) (of which Mr. Christopher Michael Langan was among its select ISCID Fellows) and its flagship Intelligent Design creationism journal. Other editorial replacements included other members of the Mega Foundation community. Both ISCID and PCID are defunct now. At the time, I served as Secretary-General of Young Humanists International as well, as the youth branch of Humanists International. Upon resignation from USIA, the United Sigma Intelligence Association with no humanist history and led by a Christian President, YoungHoon Bryan Kim–who eventually in 2023 intended on becoming a Christian pastor and Christian evangelist as someone in ‘the pastor candidate course at Hanshin University Graduate School of Theology directly managed by the Korean Presbyterian Association,’ applied to become a member organization of the same non-religious global secular humanist institution, Humanists International. United Sigma Intelligence Association’s organizational membership was rejected. They began hiring, at least, one long-term friend and colleague, Angeleos Sofocleous too. Later, Sofocleous no longer works for USIA.
Furthermore, there was no contact, or minimal contact in terse response, with YoungHoon Bryan Kim since the resignation in Spring, 2020. However, for about three years after resignation, I received emails from YoungHoon Bryan Kim with various content. The varied content included offers for work as head editor again, wanting to restore our relationship, asking for my forgiveness, claiming admiration for my passionate activities, the difficult in finding someone who is as enthusiastic as me about these activities, promises to treat me well as a humanist, claiming to be no longer hostile or aggressive to others, claiming to have matured, someone (Kim) who wants to be friends with wide ranges of communities as someone founding various communities, offers to allow me to write new articles, information about new projects including leading IQ Olympiad, offers to work on anything, to be operating the Nobel Society, Prometheus 2.0, Grand Master Society, new GIGA Society, and USIA, and creating admissions tests for them, claiming to make a list of high range IQ tests with Mislav Predavec and Kirk Butt, that he’s working with Claus Volko and Anja Jaenicke to publish the journals for those societies, claiming to be willing to do anything with me and whatever I suggest, that it would be an honour to work with me once again, and links to claims as a Fellow of the World Genius Directory (1, 2) with the articles claiming Kim’s membership in the Mega Society and in United Giga Society, etc. Communication was instigated one-way from YoungHoon Bryan Kim to me, over the course of about three years, since my resignation in the Spring, 2020.
YoungHoon Bryan Kim claimed a reason for my resignation from USIA in relation to the Mega Foundation’s Dr. Gina Langan and Mr. Christopher Michael Langan in a letter to the Mega Society in the Summer of 2024. Verification can be obtained through official Mega Society contact channels, https://megasociety.org/#officers. In addition, the United Sigma Intelligence Association former partner, Mega Foundation, maintained a post from April 18, 2020, for several years, with some content asserting a claim for the reason for my resignation from USIA, reinforced by Mr. Langan in the post’s comments section claiming the same using personal attacks or ad hominem, “Little Scott Jacobsen is the idiot who resigned as ‘chief editor’ of the USIA journal in protest over the partnership.” I never gave the reason(s) for formal resignation from the United Sigma Intelligence Association. Therefore, neither YoungHoon Bryan Kim, the USIA, Mr. Christopher Michael Langan, Dr. Gina Langan, nor Mega Foundation, were privy to this information, and so could not know this real reason or the real reasons for resignation from USIA, though presented claims up to over four years later. I never appointed any fellows, nor do I identify as a militant atheist. Fellows were solely finalized in appointment by the then-President and current President of the United Sigma Intelligence Association, YoungHoon Bryan Kim.
Circa 2024, further inquiries revealed, Tianxi Yu resigned from GIGA Society, formerly United Giga Society founded by “YounHoon [sic] Bryan Kim,” and requested removal of his name from the GIGA Society, website. He gave commentary about his experience in a post on Zhihu, as translated by ChatGPT:
“I’m honestly shocked—I thought I’d gone “diving” (laying low), but a friend just told me I got “called out.” Well, since I’ve got some complaints about the whole GIGA Society thing too, let’s get into it.
I was one of the first to join Younghoon Kim’s GIGA Society. No idea how YK did it, scoring over 200 and convincing Evangelos Katsioulis to endorse the “legitimacy” of his GIGA Society. Back then, YK took over this whole GIGA scene and invited me to join. I thought, “Well, why not?”—it was free and gave me some “status.”
But the more I learned about the high-IQ community abroad, the more it all just started to feel like a joke. Besides YK, there’s also Iakovos Koukas, both scoring high on verbal tests. When I found that out, I had a massive “WTF” moment. Like, how do they even dare to use those super-easy verbal tests as their IQ scores? Anyone who knows the field understands that numbers and spatial problems are generally respected because they show real depth of thinking, but verbal tests? Realistically, verbal test scales don’t go as high as numbers and spatial tests because they just don’t measure as much. But these guys abroad? They treat it like it’s the real deal.
I’ve actually chatted with IK a few times. My takeaway? He’s not exactly impressive. He doesn’t speak with conviction, and his thinking lacks edge. But IK’s sneaky—he’ll say stuff like, “I don’t really care about IQ,” but then acts like, “I’m the smartest one around.” And the worst part? People actually buy it. YK, though, is one of the most shameless idiots I’ve ever met. Not only does he use crappy test scores, but he also goes around bragging he’s got an IQ of 276 (using SD24, no less), claiming he’s the smartest person alive (gigasociety.net/worlds-…). To sell this image, he even promotes it on YouTube and has entries about it on Medium, Wikipedia, and LinkedIn. Honestly, it’s wild. I’ve never seen someone so shameless—are all Koreans like this?
I didn’t talk with YK much, but when I first joined GIGA, he buttered me up, calling me the “smartest person he knew.” No clue how many times he’s used that line—Scott Jacobsen told me YK said the same to him. I glanced at his KIT series of problems, and let’s just say they’re awful. The scale doesn’t match what I’d expect; I even wonder if he’s ever taken a legitimate test. But YK’s managed to get support from a lot of people in the international high-IQ circles—besides EK and IK, there’s Mislav Predavec, Kirk Butt, and others backing him.
All of this has made me lose interest, so I’ve basically quit all the international societies. I left GIGA ages ago, and after getting called out today, I emailed them to remove my name from their member list. These people are just a bunch of scammers propping each other up, and being listed as a member makes me feel like an accomplice. Historically, the three most recognized societies with IQ cutoffs above 190 were GIGA Society, Nano Society, and Esoteriq Society. I used to be a member of all three, but now I’m only keeping my membership in Ivan Ivec’s Nano Society, which currently has six members worldwide. Some might ask, “What about Esoteriq Society?” Well, that got taken over by YK too—Masaaki Yamauchi got overrun by him. I’d already emailed Esoteriq Society ages ago to quit, but no one replied, so my name’s still there.
As of now, the only person in China who’s joined Paul Cooijmans’ official GIGA Society is Wu Meiheng. He got a perfect score on PC’s Alchemist test with an IQ of 196, which is seriously impressive. I also thought about scoring on PC’s tests, but our compatibility is so bad I got my lowest score ever.
Nowadays, the international high-IQ circles are full of people just hyping themselves up and chatting all day like they’re nuclear-powered mules, never taking a break. I’d suggest taking a page out of Jonathan Wai’s book—while he may not be the most meticulous grader, the man really puts in the work. Google Scholar shows he’s been cited 5,746 times, with his top paper cited 2,461 times. In 2024 alone, he’s published ten papers, mostly as the first or corresponding author—a true academic heavyweight. Since subscribing to his profile, I’m constantly getting Google Scholar Alerts for “Jonathan Wai – new article.” Then I look at the crap I’ve produced and my pitiful citations, and I’m just stunned.”
Tianxi Yu no longer listed on the GIGA Society website as a member based on request for resignation from GIGA Society and removal of his name from the GIGA Society website, including quitting the Facebook group earlier.]
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5). September 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/aman-5
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, September 22). Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5). In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5).In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/aman-5.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (September 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/aman-5.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/aman-5>.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5)’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/aman-5>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/aman-5.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Scott J. Conversation with Entemake Aman (阿曼) on American High-I.Q. Societies and Tests: Member, OlympIQ Society (5) [Internet]. 2024 Sep; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/aman-5.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/11
Matthew Bywater, M.Sc. is a researcher, educator, and activist who has delved into the criminal and rights abuse case of Keith Raniere.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What was DOS?
Matt Bywater:DOS was the inner core of NXIVM. DOS stands for Dominus Obsequious Sororium, which translates into English as “lord over the obedient female companions.” It was a secret group within NXIVM, composed almost entirely of women, except for Keith Raniere. DOS was a pyramid structure where each master had several enslaved people beneath them. The enslaved people would report to and obey the master. However, only the upper echelon knew that the true leader, the “grand master,” was Keith Raniere.
Within NXIVM, DOS was presented to participants as a female empowerment group designed to create strong, powerful women. The way they marketed it was, “Do you want to be the toughest woman you can be? Do you want to be as strong and as powerful as a man? Then this is what you have to do. Do you want to push yourself to the limits? Do you want to be the best and strongest version of yourself?” Through this rhetoric, they managed to sell the concept of slavery.
Jacobsen: Now, something I did not realize. NXIVM was founded on July 20, 1998. Key people involved included Keith Raniere, Nancy Salzman, Allison Mack, Clare Bronfman, and Emiliano Salinas. This was an old organization that had built a manipulation scheme for a long period. Were there early indications of suspicion about this organization?
Bywater: The suspicion goes back to the early 2000s. It was on the radar of some cult exit counsellors, such as Rick Ross, whom they sued for over ten years. So, it was definitely on the radar of cult watchers and exit counsellors.
Keith Raniere’s previous company was a semi-pyramid scheme called Consumers’ Buyline, which the New York Attorney General the authorities shut down for constituting a pyramid scheme. Raniere ultimately paid a $40,000 fine and was permanently banned from participating in a chain distribution scheme. So, NXIVM may have been officially headed by Nancy Salzman or another NXIVM member.
Jacobsen: Were there any indications of mass resignations or departures from the NXIVM organization earlier on?
Bywater: Typically, as with cults, there isn’t a mass exodus at one point; it usually follows arrests or other major events. However, there are phases when people catch on to what’s happening and leave. Approximately 17,000 people took NXIVM courses over the lifetime of the organization. Most people came, took the six-day seminar, got something out of it, and then moved on with their lives. They took the bait but didn’t get sucked in.
On one occasion, seven women resigned en masse. They were experiencing a range of problems within NXIVM and raised these concerns directly with Keith Raniere. There’s a recorded video where the seven women confront Raniere, only to be completely gaslit and manipulated by him. This mass resignation of seven members was probably the biggest departure of NXIVM members before the New York Times exposé article in 2017. That article, which exposed the branding and the sex cult to the wider world, led to a significant departure from the organization.
Jacobsen: Notable experts like Rick Ross, Diane Benscoter, and Steven Hassan declared their opinion of Raniere as a cult leader.
Bywater: Steven Hassan and Rick Ross have written articles about him, spoken in the media, and firmly deemed him a cult leader. You could add Rachel Bernstein to that list. She ex-counselled one famous NXIVM member, India Oxenberg, the daughter of Catherine Oxenberg, part of the Yugoslav royal family.
Jacobsen: Regarding Raniere’s early life, he was born on August 26, 1960, in Brooklyn, New York. He was the only child of James Raniere, an advertising executive, and Vera Oschypko, a ballroom dancing instructor. Were there early indications of things that might have been off psychologically or developmentally for him in your research?
Bywater: It’s really hard to know what caused him to become the person he was, but what we can judge is his behaviour. From an early period on, there were accusations of sexual harassment and stalking. Early on, he was known for harassing women and generally behaving in a predatory way.
Jacobsen: He went to Suffern High School for 9th grade and then transferred to Rockland Country Day School, graduating in June 1978 at 17. Isaac Asimov’s Second Foundation inspired him at age 12. He credited this as an inspiration for NXIVM. That’s an interesting tidbit. Any thoughts on this?
Bywater: So, I was aware that he had read the book. It’s a three-part series by Isaac Asimov. I haven’t read this book; it’s on my to-do list, but there are things he learned about how to influence people and the psychology of mind control that he drew from the books. I believe he mentioned that to people within NXIVM, and that’s how it’s part of the public record. If you look at the NXIVM curriciulum, it actually draws far more significantly from Scientology.
Jacobsen: He attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His grades could have been better. Some early psychometric data indicate that he scored quite high on the Mega Test. So, if his scores are legitimate, the question wouldn’t be about intelligence. The question would be about the personality or social factors leading to failing classes with a 2.26 CGPA.
Bywater: As I see it, part of the issue here is that if someone has a penchant for being lazy, that may not be a consequence of their intelligence. Still, it’s a contributor to their need for greater academic achievement. If someone doesn’t want to take the time to read and learn, that will affect their academic performance and their recorded intelligence levels will be lower. So it’s part and parcel of the same problem.
Jacobsen: In The Times Union, in an article titled “In Raniere’s Shadows.” How was his relationship with his father and his mother?
Bywater: From what people have told me, his father was generally absent when he was younger, so his mother was his primary caregiver. His father, again, from what people have said, seemed to be a tough guy. He was probably a man of his time—it wasn’t common to openly show love and affection to your child. I’m sure he didn’t receive that. So, he was raised by his mother. We know that his mother was sick. He had to take care of her. He would often say to people within NXIVM how hard it was on him, which is a kind of off way of talking about that. So that was one of the warning signs that there was some possible psychopathy going on because it would always be about him, even when the problem was his dying mother.
Moreover, he said to other people within NXIVM that his mother would make herself sick intentionally to try to punish him. Whether his mother was doing that, we don’t know. The difficulty is that lying is part and parcel of the condition of psychopathy, so we have no way of knowing if that is true.
What is interesting, however, is that what he claimed his mother did—making herself sick to punish him—is exactly what he accused NXIVM members of when they were asking him questions. He would say that their questions and their criticism were making him feel sick and ill and that they were doing it intentionally to punish him, which is a narcissistic abuse tactic 101.
Jacobsen: Have you gotten any extensive commentaries from psychological professionals that further that analysis?
Bywater: Not specifically. I have a video on my channel called “Possible Origins of NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere.” It shows a video of Keith Raniere talking, intersected with clips of him playing as a child and talking as an adult. For me, what stood out was the following comment “we just needed love. But love’s not allowed to little boys”. He also accuses women of using sex to control men Whatever happened in his childhood, it produced extreme misogyny in him.
Regarding psychopathy or narcissistic personality disorder, the generally understood cause or environmental trigger is an insecure attachment between the primary caregiver and the child. When the child lacks unconditional positive regard from their caregiver, at some point, the child’s emotional development stunts and eventually produces adults who feel no empathy, remorse, or guilt. Those kinds of higher-order emotions are things they don’t experience at all.
If you look at Keith Raniere, he was a little child in a man’s body. From his correspondence with other women and his behaviour, something happened, and his psychological development was stunted at a young age. That also tied in with his sexual preferences. He forced women to go on extreme diets to make them appear almost androgynous, translucent, or just extremely skinny so that they would appear younger. If they weren’t in that state, he was unable to be sexually aroused, which is interesting. Have you read the book Lolita by Nabokov?
Jacobsen: I’ve been aware of it but was only aware of the film.
Bywater: So, I can tell you a story. There’s a book and two films. The plot of that book is that the main character Humbert Humbert is a boy who is unable to consummate his relationship with his teenage girlfriend. As a result, he maintains that attraction for younger women even after entering into adulthood. Nabokov was not a psychologist, but I wonder—this is my theory—I wonder if he was describing himself. Because there’s much empathy for the character, who is essentially a pedophile in Lolita.
Jacobsen: Then we come to Raniere’s attempted claim to fame. The Albany Times Union, in June 1988, gave Raniere a profile, mentioning his membership in the Mega Society. I have gone through Noesis, the journal of the Mega Society, the entire thing. He is in it. He was a member. He published occasional commentary or comments about them. [Ed. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] So he scored high on this 48-question Mega Test, which was put out in April 1985 in Omni magazine. This became the basis for getting categorized in the Guinness Book of World Records as having one of the highest IQs in the world, alongside Marilyn Vos Savant and ‘Eric Hart,’ a pseudonym for Christopher Michael Langan. So, how did that happen?
Bywater: I’m aware that it happened. The Guinness Book of World Records subsequently removed him from the book. That’s my understanding. But you can remove someone from a book, but all the print copies remain unaffected if published, right? The Guinness Book of Records may have edited it, but it would have been too late. This was part of the narrative that Raniere was selling to NXIVM members—that he was the smartest man in the world, and the Guinness Book of Records was used to prove that. He also claimed he created his own mathematics.
Many thanks for your letter of 17 May and the latest Information regarding the Mega test.
I had been meaning to write to you for some time to tell you that I have decided to drop the entry for highest I.Q. and to explain my reasons.
It is not that I amin any way against I.Q. tests, nor that I am ‘anti-elitist’ (although I amsure that I will be accused of that).
Simply, I feel that to include an entry for the ‘Highest I.Q.’ implying, as it does, that this is the world’s most intelligentperson, is invidious. Also, unlike the process of putting someone on a racetrack against a stopwatch, there are many different types of test, kind we are talking about such minute differences between individuals that I feel we could not be considered to be making valid comparisons.
I’m not sure if you will agree with my thinking but I amsure that The Guinness Book of Records is not in a position to monitor the highest I.Q.
Yours sincerely,
Donald McFarlan
Editor
We know it was removed for those reasons. We don’t know how he got there other than scoring high on the Mega Test and then being listed among people. In the 1980s, Keith Raniere was involved with Amway, a multilevel marketing company. How the hell did he get involved in that?
Bywater: Obviously, his motive was financial. When he was involved in Amway, this would have been in the run-up to the creation of Consumers’ Buyline, which was his company. hat would have been the same period I mentioned earlier, when the authorities shut Consumers’ Buyline down for constituting a pyramid scheme.
There would be some detail in Toni Natalie’s book. Toni Natalie, his former girlfriend, wrote a book about Keith Raniere called The Program. The details are in it because she was involved with Keith when Consumers’ Buyline was shut down. They were running the company together. It was a buying club offering discounts in exchange for some form of recruitment.
Jacobsen: Oh! They were together for eight years.
Bywater: Yes, 8 years. So, she knew Keith before he became the “Vanguard”, and he started claiming he was a renunciate and a monk-like figure. One thing about the transition from Consumers’ Buyline to NXIVM is that, essentially, the model remained. The only difference was that the Consumers’ Buyline was a pyramid scheme based on goods. In contrast, NXIVM was a pyramid scheme based on services. You’d need to talk to a legal expert about this. Possibly, a pyramid scheme selling services is harder to regulate and potentially shut down than one selling goods.
Jacobsen: It’s amazing how bad, as an independent judgment, he was at keeping any of these secrets or anything successful and legal. It’s astonishing. I’m saying this as an ordinary person who knows how to do some types of research well, how to ask questions, and then put that stuff into words. That’s my skill set. And so, I can’t imagine how far it goes when you have legal experts, psychologists, and cult experts who then do a further analysis.
Bywater: Yes.
Jacobsen: Where people, the ones you mentioned before, are saying it exerts coercive control and manipulation, which I’m sure they have more precise concepts in mind when stating these things.
Bywater: Yes. To answer what you said before about how Keith Raniere’s various projects ended in collapse and failure, that reflects the destructive nature of psychopathy. It’s a destructive condition. We call it a disorder for a reason. It’s a mental health disorder, a personality disorder. And that disorder is destructive to themselves, but most of all to others. What can change and what can make some cult leaders more durable will depend on the lieutenants around them. How much can they rein him in? How much can they restrain the leader’s worst impulses? It’s never ever just one guy or woman in charge.
Jacobsen: So, with NXIVM and Executive Success Programs, let’s do a teaser for the next session. I mentioned the people involved deeply at the outset. How did he meet Nancy Salzman?
Bywater: I believe it was through a business introduction, and Nancy Salzman had expressed a wish to work with him. She had heard about his work with Consumers’ Buyline. Nancy Salzman came into the equation later on. She had a background in hypnosis and neuro-linguistic programming. Keith effectively recruited her for those skills. If you watch The Vow season 2 episode 2, — you’ll find the answers to that question. I’ve also produced a YouTube video ‘How NXIVM cult co-founder Nancy Salzman woke up which documents her waking-up process from the cult programming.’
Jacobsen: By the way, what episode do they start showing interactions with Keith in The Vow? I haven’t seen the fullseries.
Bywater: He never agreed to be interviewed in The Vow. So, what are the interactions between Keith and whom?
Jacobsen: Any followers, clips, videos, or promotional material?
Bywater: From the first episode. In that episode, it shows audio footage from when film-maker Mark Vicente met Keith for the first time.
Bywater: So, yes, from the first episode. That’s what makes The Vow such a rich documentary—their incredible access. You can see what it’s like to be in a cult, and the filmmaking style is a kind of fly-on-the-wall, verité style. That’s what makes it so valuable. Steve Hassan described The Vow as a gift to humanity, and I 100% agree with that.
Jacobsen: This series could add a nice little drop, a unique perspective because Keith was trying to make his claim to fame by being super-duper smart. I interview people from the Mega Society, including one of my friends in the Mega Society. I could add a slightly different angle and deliver something that people from these communities might read, which is valuable. If people will try to use that for nefarious purposes: “Here is a cautionary note.”
Bywater: Yes, exactly.
Jacobsen: And I’ve gotten offers to join some high-IQ societies. I said, “No, thank you.” I resigned from one. But basically, I said to the others, “I don’t want even to give the appearance of partiality.” That can also be the ideal way to do these things.
Bywater: Yes, that’s exactly what you should be highlighting that your article could serve as a deterrent to future cult leaders by educating people in positions of power. Because I could give you an example. It’s about another cult, but people don’t—judges, police officers, investigators, even politicians—they can’t understand.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/10
Jose Martinez, originally from New York City and currently residing in Buffalo, NY, began his career in harm reduction as a Hepatitis C Navigator at St. Ann’s Corner of Harm Reduction (SACHR), a syringe service program serving the South Bronx. He later took on the role of Young Injection Use Health Coordinator at the same organization. After earning his NYS peer certification, Jose worked across various shelters, where he played a key role in helping organizations build and strengthen their outreach efforts and community engagement strategies. Today, he is focused on PeerUp [Ed. During the first year of PeerUp, the program was funded at $15,000. This year, the funding is $5,000], an initiative dedicated to uniting, supporting, and uplifting peers and community members from undervalued backgrounds.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Jose Martinez from the National Harm Reduction Coalition. You primarily focus on capacity building and serve as a Hepatitis C coordinator. First, start with a superhero origin story since Marvel is famous now. How did you first get involved in harm reduction? How did you find out about it? How did you get employed? Tell us all the important details.
Jose Martinez: Certainly. My background is rooted in chaotic drug use. I was heavily into K2—if you are familiar with that, it is also known as synthetic cannabinoids or spice. I was using other drugs and drinking a lot as well. I was in a really bad place in my life. I used to go to this program, St. Ann’s Corner of Harm Reduction, where I could sit down and have shelter because I was sleeping on the streets at the time. This program was looking for a Hepatitis C navigator.
I used to attend the Hepatitis C groups. I have always been a sponge absorbing information. One day, my current supervisor, my supervisor back then, asked me if I had ever thought about being a navigator. I had not considered it before, but they offered me the Hepatitis C navigator job. That was an eye-opener for me because in 2015—though it was not that long ago—people did not view drug use the way they do now. People looked at me differently because I was Street homeless. I was not in a shelter, had nowhere to shower, and looked homeless. People would not hire me or anything like that. So, when someone approached me and said, “You are a genius; let’s work together,” it opened my eyes.
What opened my eyes was realizing that we have a community facing so many challenges. One of the things they did for me after I became a navigator was giving me the responsibility of opening the organization. I got the keys to the place, would go there at 8 o’clock in the morning, use the organization’s shower to freshen up, and then start my job at 9 o’clock. There have been many conversations from 2015 until now about how being stuck in a certain lifestyle can lead to developing certain traits and characteristics. I was somewhat aggressive, and many conversations had to happen about managing my behaviour, how I talked to people, and how I referred to them, whether anyone was looking or not. Harm reduction is a lifestyle, not just something you talk about from 9 to 5.
Some people talk about harm reduction at work but then revert to calling everyone “crack addicts” once they go home. No, we have to live this as a lifestyle. Those conversations changed my life, and I am grateful to harm reduction for that because not everyone gets this opportunity. That allowed me to figure out what I wanted to do with my life. I realized I needed an apartment and sorted out my housing situation. I got back into a shelter, got an apartment through the shelter program and secured a job.
I have worked as a navigator for what is now the Overdose Prevention Center (OPC) in New York City. I was with them before they were OnPoint NYC when they were known as New York Harm Reduction Educators. Then, I worked for the New York City Department of Homeless Services and other organizations before I joined the National Harm Reduction Coalition (NHRC). I was allowed to learn and make mistakes throughout all those phases, which are opportunities our community does not usually have. I feel incredibly grateful. That is why I do most of what I do now—to give back to the harm reduction movement and the community.
Jacobsen: When you get that kind of opportunity to break through the stigma in hiring, what is the feeling for someone when they make that leap for another individual?
Martinez: Well, everyone is different, but even today, I have had my apartment for about five years going on seven years since 2017. I still shed tears of gratitude because, after a while, being in a certain position, you can succumb to the belief that maybe this is what you are meant to be or do. Going from that to living a completely different lifestyle is unbelievable sometimes.
I remember sleeping on the E train, looking at a marathon poster for eight hours until the sun came up so I could go to a program open for breakfast. My life is completely different now, and I am incredibly grateful.
It’s still unbelievable to me. I’m sure many people feel that way. But the reality is that we cannot get there alone. I was privileged enough to have good people around me who were tolerant of my behaviours and who I was. They understood, and through those moments where people usually write others off, education and lessons were learned. That included my drug use. In that first position I got, I was given so much responsibility quickly, but I didn’t value it.
I was still coming to work drunk and other things like that. One day, my supervisor said, “Look, you’re not in trouble, but you must remember one thing. As a Latino, you automatically have a reputation. Depending on who you talk to, it may be different. You may be seen as a thief, or you may be seen as aggressive. It’s up to you to either uphold that reputation or build another one. That’s the choice you have.”
At that time, that was the exact message I needed. It wasn’t soothing, aggressive, or demanding. It wasn’t telling me what I needed to do. It was simply, “Look, this is the choice you have. Pick one.” It was like Neo in The Matrix choosing between red and blue pills. That helped me. My whole point is that the feeling was good, but much work was put into it. I would not have been able to do it by myself. It was the people around me giving me those messages.
Jacobsen: When people are navigating the complex situation around Hepatitis C regarding diagnosis and manageability, where do you come in to help them? In contexts where that position didn’t even exist in the past, what was it like as a comparison? Those are two points of contact that might be valuable.
Martinez: Yes, as the Hepatitis C guy in NHRC, I provide a general support system to the Hepatitis C navigators in New York City. There are about 30-something programs—37, maybe 36 since one stepped down. I provide them with a general support system, which includes outreach, one-on-one discussions, and monthly group meetings.
When I started as a Hepatitis C navigator, I was part of the second wave of the Check Hep C program under the Viral Hepatitis Initiative, city council funding for New York City. This funding supports a significant portion of the hepatitis work in the city, including hepatitis A, B, and C. I provide support to the Hepatitis C side of things. They didn’t have that in 2015 when I started.
We would get together back then—Diana Diaz, who still runs the program, and Nira Johnson, who now runs DHS. There was another person, and then probably 10, 11, 12 navigators. We would meet every month, and that was it. There wasn’t any regular review of numbers like we do now. We have case conferences if anyone in the group wants to share a story about a patient they’ve been navigating, whether it’s a success story or a challenge. The group provides feedback. We have many activities to promote networking among them because if someone meets a patient in Manhattan who’s from Brooklyn, it’s best to refer them to Brooklyn. After all, that’s home. They didn’t have that when I first started.
So, I bring what I don’t have in everything I do. Even what you see behind me—Peer Up, where we’re talking about providing the community with the skills needed to escape their situation and thrive. In many organizations, they’ll hire someone from the community who has a previous drug use history, maybe even a current one. But there’s no skill-sharing, no empowerment or uplifting of them. It’s just, “Here, do the job,” and that’s it. Honestly, suppose we want to empower the community. In that case, we have to give them the skills to thrive in any field because not everyone agrees with drug use. Not everyone agrees with someone coming in late.
So, we have to condition our people to have those qualities within them. That way, if they get a job—let’s say–in a bank which is not harm reduction-focused and won’t allow anybody to come in drunk or high, they’ll be able to thrive there. We can only do that by teaching folks skills such as punctuality and conflict resolution because conflict resolution in the hood looks completely different than in a 9-to-5 setting.
We need many skills to provide for our community, including independent living skills and support transitioning from living on the Street or in a shelter to an apartment. That can be like a castle to someone, even if it’s just a studio. But that’s what I try to provide—whatever I didn’t have. These are all experiences that I had to go through and figure out on my own.
Once again, I thank the universe that I had a good set of people around me who knew where I came from. So many people behind me now knew me from when I was a participant and were angry, and they’re so supportive of me. Their lines are always open to me, and things like that. That’s what I want to bring back to the community.
That’s the intention behind the care, and that’s what I try to do with the Hepatitis C navigators in general. They’re doing the same thing for community members with no support. As they say, even a psychologist has a therapist, or a therapist has a therapist. They’re doing all these jobs and need that support. That was stressful.
I burned out so fast in my first Hepatitis C job—it was crazy.
Jacobsen: When you mention conflict resolution, that’s important because individuals who might be misusing substances can be dysregulated internally. It may not necessarily have anything to do with the external situation. It could be entirely internal. Suppose someone is in a hood situation instead of a suburban one. In that case, those conflict resolution skills are different, as you alluded to. How do you do it if you’re in the hood and looking to resolve conflict or if someone has internal issues? How does that differ from a context more characterized as suburban?
Martinez: Yes, we go through the Six Principles of Harm Reduction in our harm reduction training. One of them is acknowledging social and cultural factors. This means that where a person comes from is very important. If we’re talking about uplifting that community member from the lifestyle we were discussing to a lifestyle where they’re working, upholding an apartment, and socializing—things you need to do to keep the apartment and the job—we must provide them with different skills.
I like to use this example: If you’re building a dog house, you could grab a hammer, a couple of nails, and a screwdriver. You could build it. But can you take those same tools and build a house? You can’t. The same applies to whatever tools you need to build a regular one-floor house. To build a duplex, you will need a different set of tools. And the bigger the building gets, the more tools you need that are more beneficial to that situation than the last time.
It’s the same thing with our community. I will keep this to myself because I usually speak about situations I was in and how I had to react, but take, for instance, my life, which was panhandling all day. When I wasn’t panhandling, I was getting high and doing what I wanted. If I wasn’t panhandling, I was stealing from Barnes and Noble and Best Buy, selling the games at GameStop, and selling the books to the street vendors on 125th Street. That was my life. There were no rules, no regulations there. Whatever I wanted to do, I did it.
And that develops a certain characteristic in you. So now I am going into a job. Are those values going to benefit me in that job? I had to learn that fast. I had to learn so fast that I could not say “F you” to my boss. At that same job, that first Hepatitis C job I told you about, I got fired for not saying good morning to the boss. These are things that—yes, it’s sad because of those kinds of situations. Still, the reality is that when you’re under an organization, you’re under rules.
You’re under rules, and you’re under certain expectations. This is stuff that I had to learn. Honestly, it wasn’t even the hard way because, once again, I will stand by saying I had a better experience than many people. I had the privilege of messing up.
I had people around me. For some reason, my supervisors were very understanding of me. I had the benefit of being able to mess up and then avoid repeating the same mistakes. But I knew I had to learn that how I acted in one environment couldn’t be the same in another.
The same goes for when we hold our apartments, are in different places, and socialize and communicate with friends, colleagues, and coworkers. We have to have different tools for different situations because what we call a colleague in the hood is completely different than what we call a colleague in an organization. We react differently and act differently around each other. So, there are many conversations we need to have when it comes to uplifting a community from one place to another.
Jacobsen: Yes, let’s explore that. How do you develop capacity, infrastructure, and training nationally so that people can learn more about everything starting in 2015? You’re about ten years in now. How do you provide technical assistance nationally to the community and similar efforts?
Martinez: There are two aspects to my capacity-building efforts. Sometimes, I support organizations in rethinking different approaches. I work closely with the Department of Homeless Services (DHS) to implement peer and harm reduction into the shelter system. We consider the best ways to support them through that process.
However, with Peer Up, I also directly support peers nationwide. How I keep that going and plan on building on that is rooted in the belief that when we bring all our people into one space, we have everything we need. Peer Up has proven that to me. Over the last year, I’ve recruited about 100 peers nationwide. A good number of those 100 people are consistent in our monthly groups, which meet on the first Monday of every month.
Everyone in those groups is responsible for our mission statement and establishing our group rules. We create something together because everyone comes in with different levels of skills, but we all build at the same pace. Everything about Peer Up, from the name to every single detail, was created by its members.
That’s how we do it. Through this process, we promote teamwork, collaboration, and community. We’re also helping to build skills that peers can put on their resumes. As we continue, we’re taking step one because Peer Up is still a baby program—we started it last year with just $5,000 in funding. As we move forward, we’re implementing different ways of including community members in various documentable training programs.
They can add these to their resumes, and employers will see that and say, “Oh, you took that course. I get an idea of the kind of work you want to do or the work you’ve been involved in.” But it all starts with ourselves—skill sharing. Many organizations may not always be unwilling to give folks the skills needed to elevate; sometimes, they don’t have the capacity or know-how.
I want to focus on that because if we talk about community empowerment and want people to think and live differently, why don’t we focus on giving them other skills? Because it’s easy to teach somebody how to survive.
Make sure they know where to go to eat, where to shower, and where to go to sleep. Simple. That’s the message you give to people. If they need other supplies, make sure they know where to get them. But when it comes to how to maintain a job, how to keep an apartment, or what resources to look for if you lose a job while you have an apartment, that’s a whole different skill set that we need to learn.
Many homes are broken, so that’s what we want to do—help the community by implementing these skills. The same applies when we provide technical assistance to organizations. We tell them, “Hey, if you want something to work for the community, you have to find a way to include the community in it.” We talk a lot about community advisory boards and going out to the community, even if it’s not outreach-specific, to see what’s around. Where are the pantries? Where are all the resources you could point your community to?
What’s needed? Sometimes, one or two community walkthroughs can tell you much about what’s needed. It allows you to communicate and converse with the community members—not only the members you’re trying to serve but also everyone else. That includes the people who live in that neighbourhood, even the police officers.
Many people don’t agree with involving the police, but the reality is that they are part of the community. There needs to be a community you can go into where you won’t see a police officer. So, we have to have those conversations with them too. It’s all about the community.
Jacobsen: Are there certain situations or contexts in which an individual comes to a peer group or the organization, and you decide not to deal with them because they are too severe of a case? In other words, when does it become a case for law enforcement or another agency? What are the limits of the organization’s scope?
Martinez: For Peer Up, it’s a bit complex to articulate because we’re so new. While we have an objective, we still need to develop a fully developed theory of change. To be part of Peer Up, you must at least be tech-savvy and know how to get on Zoom. We can teach you the rest once you’re on Zoom; skills can be exchanged from there.
Ideally, I would love it if the people we provide services to—the ones receiving syringes, those who need these programs, these job development skills and supports—could join this monthly call, and we’ll get there. But as of right now, we don’t have the structure in place to teach everyone how to use Zoom or provide job development support. We’re working on building our mission and vision statement and our core principles and values with the community.
As we collaborate more, there will be a point where we can start reaching the broader community that needs these services. We can then provide them with job readiness and personal skills because you can’t work in the professional if you don’t work in the personal—they go hand in hand. So, yes, as long as the conversations are being had and folks stay engaged, that’s a good thing. The more we talk about it, the better the messaging and the clearer the path. I feel that’s the best approach we can take right now.
Jacobsen: Are these programs relatively inexpensive? In other words, are they much less expensive than incarcerating someone who isn’t contributing to society, especially when it’s helping someone get better and not suffer from substance misuse?
Martinez: Yes, I need to articulate this in a specific way. I understand that the prison system gets around $55,000 per person per year or something along those lines. The number is somewhere around that. Peer Up is a program under the National Harm Reduction Coalition (NHRC). Because we’re so new, we have yet to invest much time in getting funding for Peer Up because we were focused on establishing the basics.
But over the last year, I’ve been communicating with folks. We’ve gone to conferences and spoken about many peer-related issues and issues affecting the community. From June of last year, when Peer Up was created, to today, we’ve had $20,000 in funding. We made all of that happen on top of buying community supplies because, out here in Buffalo, I go out and give out wound care kits since xylazine is causing these crazy-looking wounds in our people. With $20,000, we could do all that, including paying a registered nurse.
So, it’s a very cost-effective program. It’s a well-structured and feasible program. Because the more services we want to offer, the more we need to consider adding different elements. Let’s say in Peer Up, we add a Peer Academy where people come to learn different trainings and skills. That would add another cost. But to support the community effectively, with a professional registered nurse, with someone who has lived experience and can provide personal support—that’s an amazing accomplishment. Going out to different places, giving people different experiences, and discussing what needs to be done at well-known conferences is an amazing achievement. We’ve got $15,000 because we recently received another $5,000 this year, which we haven’t even touched yet.
So, the whole thing is that it’s possible. Of course, when the money is short, the energy you have to put in increases. That’s the reality of it. But we need support. The community needs support. The community needs someone to say, “Okay, we don’t have these kinds of resources, but we have this energy,” that’s just as good. We have a resource sheet where everyone communicates with each other. Whatever resources they have, they put it right on that Excel sheet so everyone in the program can see it. Of course, the more we offer, the more we must consider costs. $15,000 is a good number to support the community and provide leadership.
Jacobsen: What type of cases have the least barriers to entry, personal or otherwise, when people come to you? And which individuals have the most? It could give us an idea when they’re coming to Peer Up and harm reduction organizations—this person requires almost no investment because they’re pretty much ready to go. In contrast, others have a lot going on internally and externally, so you must be patient and work with them quite a bit.
Martinez: Yes, so as I said before, everyone is coming to this space with a different level of education about public health, as well as their learning level and knowledge about how to find different resources. So, it’s hard to tell. I’ve never thought about that question the way you asked—who has more or fewer barriers? I would probably say the person who’s not tech-savvy at all. So many people would benefit from having a supportive community. There’s no judgment behind it, but some don’t know how to use Google or jump on Zoom. One of my boys is one year older than me, and I had to teach him to jump on Zoom.
So, yes, that person is that person. But one thing I strive to do is teach. My friend, for example, didn’t know how to use Zoom. I said, “Yo, I can walk you through this website. Jump on Zoom with me real fast.” He was like, “What’s that?” I had to explain that it’s a meeting platform and that I can share my screen to walk him through it. He was like, “Okay, what do I do?” And even when the meeting was on his calendar, he needed to learn how to pull the calendar up to access the meeting. So, I work with people as much as possible. Even if someone doesn’t know how to use Zoom, I can’t write them off. I have to find a way—email me, and I’ll walk you through it. I’ll send you step-by-step instructions or screenshots or something.
But yes, everyone has different levels of barriers. The only significant barrier would be if they need to learn how to email. I know how to reach you if you need to learn how to email.
Jacobsen: That’s an important point because people who have had substance issues and are off the grid may be out of touch with the rapid changes in technology. It’s a key entry point for you and me. I brought us onto Google Meetings and didn’t realize we had to go to Zoom for a proper recording. So, not only knowing how to use Google Meet but also how to use Zoom, how to record, how to make sure video and audio work—all of those things. I’ve integrated with them because I deal with them daily but haven’t been in these situations. My father has had addiction issues; he’s a long-time alcoholic. He’s estranged at this point.
Yet, in those kinds of contexts, if I were him, I could easily see a situation where, given the predisposition to alcoholism in my case, I could be one of those people who’s unplugged for five years. All these new platforms and applications come online, and someone asks me, “Hey, send me an email on Google or give me a call on Zoom after you send that follow-up email.” First of all, I’m probably tired. I might be dealing with some anger issues and feeling resentful about something else. I might be sleep-deprived and malnourished, so my ability to learn new things would be impeded. All these issues could come up in context, too. How can people contact you for volunteering, financial support, education, or resources?
Martinez: As I mentioned, we use a Google Excel sheet. Everyone who comes to the meeting at least once gets added to that sheet and has access to it. No one has to do anything special; know how to put the website link in the correct box. I walk people through this on our Zoom calls by screen sharing so they see it step by step.
People have a good relationship with me, so if someone needs to learn how to access Google Drive, they call or email me, and I walk them through it. That Excel sheet is the most important part of managing a nationwide program because communication is always challenging. Everyone is in different places, but Google Sheets has multiple tabs for different subjects and resources, a suggestion box, a contact list, and even a heads-up list for people who don’t agree with peers or treat peers a certain way.
In that same folder are meeting notes, presentations we’ve done, and everything else so that everyone can access everything we’ve documented, regardless of their knowledge or location. This allows them to catch up and stay informed. So, yes, that Excel sheet is a lot. It means a lot.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/09
Jad Amine Zeitouni is a dynamic political figure and advocate, currently serving as a political advisor for equal chances, economy, employment, LEZ, and energy under the cabinet of Minister Elke Van den Brandt in Brussels. A candidate for the Brussels Parliament, ranked sixth on the list for Groen, he brings extensive experience in public service and advocacy, particularly in areas of diversity, inclusion, and youth rights. His work spans organizing workshops on diversity and identity, moderating debates on critical societal issues, and consulting on diversity and inclusion strategies, continuously influencing and shaping policies that promote social justice and equality in Belgium.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: After all this discussion, you might hear a counterpoint: “You live in a developed society that largely respects human rights. There is much equality, high quality of life, high employment, high education levels, good food, and beautiful Belgian architecture. So, why bother being a humanist in Belgium? Why do you even need that? Why be so open about it?”
Jad Amine Zeitouni: We can be proud of our many achievements in Belgium for humanism. The progress has been broad and significant. I could talk for hours about what we have accomplished—maybe “achieved” is a more accurate term—but we are not there yet. One of my biggest frustrations, perhaps influenced by my broader perspective as someone with Lebanese and Moroccan roots in Belgium, is the misconception that the Western world has somehow achieved everything. There is this notion that we have reached the pinnacle of human evolution, are hyper-civilized, and that the rest of the world needs to catch up. This mindset is essentially colonialism 2.0.
While we have achieved a lot, we are still working on it. There is much more to be done, and we can learn much from other parts of the world. Our humanist values are not fully realized in all aspects of life, nor are they stable. Even the progress we have made is incredibly fragile. More recent times than any other period in the last few decades have shown how precarious our achievements are. People are starting to—I am not sure what the correct term is—almost walk away from humanist values, even though they were so hard-won and beneficial for everyone.
I was recently talking with a friend about this, and we discussed incels and the broader concept. In one sentence, it is an unfortunate societal consequence. “Involuntary celibates,” which initially, about 15-20 years ago, started as a niche group of young men frustrated by their inability to find a partner—specifically a female partner—who vented all their frustration at society and blamed women as the culprits. This led to creepy behaviour like men giving each other tips on how to manipulate women into having sex with them because they believed society had doomed them otherwise. It is a bizarre and horrible way of thinking.
One of the recent developments adding to this is the rise of “trad wives.” Trad wives, or traditional wives, glorify women finding comfort and fulfillment in conventional roles, like caring for the household. This idea resonates with people in the same way that many extreme-right and conservative ideologies do—because it simplifies life. In a modern, complex society, people face many obstacles, and our capitalist systems are not always great at being inclusive or addressing mental well-being. If you live in poverty, there are countless societal problems to contend with.
The concept of the traditional wife suggests to young women that life was simpler and better before: cook, take care of the kids, bake brownies, dress pretty and cute—that is an excellent life. Honestly, it sounds appealing, especially when you are overworked. It sounds like a dream. However, of course, it is an oversimplified version of reality. What happens when you do not want that anymore? What happens if you are completely dependent on your partner? What happens if you wake up feeling sad? What happens if you do not want to have sex with your husband? Who is bringing in the money? It is a scary reality to revert to that.
This is a long example to show how we are going backwards. Here are some examples of things we still need to achieve. We have made progress, but many areas, especially those influenced by religion, still need change. Suppose you consider how we mourn or celebrate certain events. In that case, religious people today probably have a slightly better quality of life than non-religious people, which is absurd.
All societies still need to give up their old structures fully. For example, mental well-being is a significant issue today—not because it was not before, but because we are more aware of it now. However, part of the reason we are more aware of it is that the problems might be bigger. In the past, in Christian societies, you had priests who fulfilled a certainpsychological support role. In the traditional sense, you also had partners with whom the woman would stay at home. She might be considered an unpaid psychologist, to be honest. So, we had many structures that provided psychological support.
I am not saying we should go back to that—that was horrible for many other reasons—but we are struggling to replace those structures. Society is not yet humanist-proof. It does not fully function for people who choose not to be religious or who focus on humanity, whether they are religious themselves or not. So, there is a gap when you move away from those traditional social structures. It is solvable, so we advocate for change but have not solved it yet.
Is that an answer? I’m trying not to go too deep or too far. I could talk for days about this.
Jacobsen: What message would you have for younger men, considering the temptations, both emotional and psychological, of an ideology of resentment found in incel communities? Or an ideology of retribution, where society is generally targeted but with a particular focus on women? What would your message be to them?
Zeitouni: I could probably write a book for them—which is not bad. It could be fun. Maybe something like Dear Incels: Memoirs of Male Failures or something like that. It is not easy because there are so many messages to convey. However, if I had to choose one, it would probably be this: It is normal to struggle with many things in society because society is not perfect. Society requires change because everyone has the right to feel good and develop their potential. However, do not blame your fellow humans simply because you want to have sex with them.
Jacobsen: This connects to another pushback you might get from a different branch of philosophy and social activism. You have a deep history in thought and activism, and I have seen this—the term “male feminist,” which, on the surface, is a neutral descriptor but is often used as an epithet. What if people come to you, online or in person, and accuse you of being a “male feminist”? They might suggest that people should be suspicious of you because, as a man, you cannot be a “real” feminist. You will hear critiques from the center, the right, and the left, where these terms are thrown around derogatorily.
Zeitouni: Is your question about how I handle this critique, especially when directed at male feminists? Or is it about how to respond to these kinds of social critiques?
Jacobsen: Yes, it is about how to respond to the social critique where people use “male feminist” as an epithet, not as a descriptor.
Zeitouni: This critique usually comes from two sides. For me, it is a justified suspicion—perhaps critique is too strong a word—but a certain suspicion that should exist. This suspicion comes from within the feminist community itself. Any feminist, regardless of gender or gender identity, should be cautious when a man says he is a feminist. It is logical. Just like I would be initially suspicious if a white person approached me and said they are anti-racist because so much of our lives are shaped by oppressive structures.
As a man, I benefit from the low bar set for men at almost every turn. I can put in minimal effort and receive five times more attention. It was a difficult but important decision to take my male feminism seriously, to stop doing interviews, and to stop taking up too much space. Now, I only do it occasionally when the context is appropriate because I recognize that I could say the same things as a qualified female feminist—still, on a different platform. I, as a man, would get the stage simply because of my gender, which turns me from an ally into more of an adversary, taking away the little space there is for feminism.
People have limited attention spans, focus, and time. So, if I am taking up all the space, then I am not being an ally. And then many men claim to be feminists but then expect sex from their partners as a reward. They harm and hurt women around them, gaslight them, and behave badly toward women, but then turn around and say, “Look, I am a feminist,” because they are nice to their female colleagues or sisters. However, that is not being a feminist.
Being a feminist means dismantling all structures of gender-based violence, misogyny, and sexism. That requires effort, thought, and self-reflection. It probably also means losing male friends. I used to have a lot of male friends, but as I grew in my feminism and started addressing problematic behaviour, not all of them were open to it, and I lost male friends. That is the price you pay if you want to be a male feminist. It would be best if you were consistent. You cannot be part of the oppressor group, which men statistically are, and be inconsistent in your efforts to be an ally.
If I say I am a queer ally, I can’t go and make homophobic jokes afterward—that would be hypocritical. So, in that way, if the critique comes from feminists, I understand where it’s coming from. I never take it personally. It’s good to have that feedback. If the person is open to it, I will calmly try to explain why I call myself a male feminist, where it comes from, and how much work I’ve put into it. These aren’t empty words; I’m not waving a flag because it’s trendy. If the person still isn’t convinced, that’s fine. It’s okay.
It’s like if a white person were to be anti-racist and do everything they possibly could but then encounter someone who believes every white person is inherently racist. There are arguments for that line of thinking, and it becomes a question of definition—what is racism? Is it structural? Is it more about active behaviour? But that’s fine. You don’t need to be defensive. If you’re truly an ally, you shouldn’t be overly sensitive. It’s fine. I don’t mind if someone says, “Shamila, blah blah.”
Sometimes, the critique comes from feminists who haven’t fully thought it through and use it to make a fool out of you. That’s fine, too. But I do think it’s important that we, as men, invest even more in feminism. The reason is simple. I always say in my feminist discussions: if I could snap my fingers and turn every woman into a perfect feminist—intersectional, academically developed, inclusive, both intellectually and practically—would that solve the issues of gender-based violence, sexual violence, rape, or partner abuse? No. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t make much of a difference.
This means that the problem we need to solve isn’t just about helping the group that’s being oppressed. While this is counterintuitive, I believe the only way we’re going to solve gender-based violence sustainably is by also emancipating men and turning them into feminists. The problem undoubtedly stems from men, and by maintaining sexist structures, we end up hurting ourselves, too.
Women, though certainly not the only group victimized by violence, are still the primary targets. To give you some context, in Belgium, the biggest victims of physical violence are men—over 80% of them, even accounting for a margin of error and the possibility that some men or women may not report incidents. The numbers are clear: men make up at least 80% of the victims of physical violence. The largest group responsible for committing physical violence is also men, accounting for over 90%.
So, while men are the biggest contributors to physical violence, they primarily hurt other men before they hurt women. If you look at suicide rates—though the term “self-killing” is becoming more common in Dutch—the largest group affected is also men, both in most countries and globally. When it comes to sexual violence, the biggest culprits are men, even with a margin of error for underreporting. And the largest group of victims, by far, is women. This shows that men are both the perpetrators and victims of their violent tendencies, with women being much more significant victims of this violence, as they become the targets of our misogyny and sexism.
The idea that sex only harms women is outdated and absurd. This is why it’s important to have male feminists—not just for women, but for men, children, and non-binary people as well. We need to address the issues with men. That’s a bit of a long answer.
Jacobsen: What about the distinction you touched on several times, at least indirectly, between having a title and doing the work? Some people might help a female colleague advance in her career as an act of equality or work to pass legislation for gender-equal pay at the federal level or their university. But that’s different from simply taking on the title of “feminist,” “human rights defender,” or “egalitarian” without actually doing any of those things.
It can be tricky to identify these differences because, in many Western societies, terms like “egalitarian” and “human rights defender” have positive connotations. We only sometimes take the time to look beyond the positive associations of those words to see if the person’s actions correspond with the title they’ve adopted. What are your recommendations for ensuring we critically reflect on whether someone’s claim to be egalitarian matches their deeds?
Zeitouni: If people are egalitarian and do good work, they won’t have such mishaps. Sometimes, we normalize the idea that people make mistakes too much. Of course, people make mistakes. But if a person is drunk and starts harassing women, then that person hasn’t done the necessary introspective work.
You mentioned examples of clear feminist work, like fighting for equal pay. That’s straightforward. But on a personal level, if I treat people around me respectfully, don’t bother women, and am considerate and understanding of the additional struggles that women face, does that make me a feminist? Not quite.
There’s a third dimension: the internal world inside your head. It’s the mental work required to learn to think differently. If, as a heterosexual man, you sexualize every female friend and think, “Oh my god, how much I would love to have sex with her.” You keep doing that without stopping yourself or trying to desexualize people who don’t want to be sexualized by you. You haven’t done the necessary work. Even if you behave correctly on the outside, at some point, in a moment of weakness, you’re going to act inappropriately. That won’t be a mistake—it will be the consequence of years of not addressing your thoughts and dismantling the structures of sexism in your mind.
That’s why feminism, anti-racism, and similar sociological movements must be careful not to turn into elite academic exercises. They require mental work, but it doesn’t have to be academic. You don’t need to have the right terminology or write lengthy essays about it, but you do have to think. Only by putting in the mental work and changing the way you think can you truly be allowed to call yourself a feminist. Because to be a feminist, you need to think like one.
As a straight man, I will naturally sexualize my partner, the person with whom I’m sexually involved. But I consciously refrain from doing that with my female friends because it’s clear. There’s no interest in that, and it doesn’t come naturally. Growing up as a teenager in a society that constantly tells you that women are sexual beings, that you should want to have sex, and that your masculinity is defined by how much sex you have with women, it takes real effort to change that mindset.
I’m using this as a concrete example, but many others exist. Part of my work before I could call myself a feminist was learning not to see all women as inherently sexual objects. Women are fellow humans who are allowed to have a sexual life and identity, but that only comes into play in certain circumstances. I’m not going to sexualize my colleague. I’m not going to sexualize a random woman at the pool who happens to fit my preferences. It takes effort to change your thinking in this way.
So, returning to your original question, deeds alone are not enough. Actions alone are not enough. It would help if you judge people based on the consequences of their internal thinking work. How do you see the results of that work? Engaging with them and asking tough questions are fine and should always be considered good.
If you tell me you’re anti-racist, I’ll look at what you’ve been doing. Have you been protesting? That’s a good first step. Do you have people of colour in your surroundings? Are you aware of the structures of oppression and racism? Okay, that’s another that’s another check. However, the third step is more complex to assess. I will be more critical since you fit the group’s oppressive profile. Have you been actively challenging your thoughts? Have you been breaking free from Western colonial mindsets?
For example, do you see African countries as third-rate, underdeveloped, lacking culture, and needing to catch up to the “civilized” world? If you think that way, then yes, you’re still racist. I could explain in detail why that is, but it’s clear that’s how I would judge whether or not someone is racist.
So, if someone asks me how we can tell if a man is truly a feminist, the first two levels are easy to check. If he doesn’t meet those, then he’s not. The third level, however, is where the real work shows. That’s where you see the difference between someone who claims to be a feminist and someone who’s putting in the effort.
Let me give you a final concrete example. Have you heard of the concept of intersectional feminism? Kimberlé Crenshaw, an American professor, originally coined the term. However, she didn’t invent the idea—she put a name to it. In brief, her research, if I’m not mistaken, focused on a legal context where businesses in the U.S. were beginning to diversify. They realized that society was changing—women and people of colour, particularly Black people, had their own money to spend. So, for economic reasons, they decided to diversify.
What did they do? They identified two groups: women and Black people. But the problem was that these companies, run mainly by white men, naturally had more white women and Black men in their circles. So, they hired white women from their surroundings—daughters, partners, cousins—and Black men they knew, like college buddies or members of the same clubs. The result was that these companies had white women, Black men, and white men, but Black women were left out.
You can see which group was structurally absent—Black women. But if you were to walk into those companies and ask, “Hey, you’re racist because you don’t have Black women,” they might respond, “We’re not racist. We have Black men.” And if you called them sexist, they’d say, “No, we’re not sexist. We have white women.” This is the essence of intersectional thinking. Black women, in this case, become victims of the specific intersection between being Black and being female. These two identities combined create a new form of oppression because they can no longer say the company is racist or sexist, yet they remain as excluded as before.
So, while white women were empowered and Black men were empowered, Black women ended up worse off than before. Why am I using this as an example? Intersectional thinking, which involves reflecting on how different forms of oppression interact, is crucial for any feminist. Feminism addresses the struggles of all women who are victims of various forms of oppression.
So, if a man says, “I am a feminist,” but doesn’t understand why and how a woman with a disability, a woman of colour, a woman in an economically disadvantaged situation, or a woman in poverty faces much greater challenges. He’s probably not a good feminist—and therefore not a feminist at all. I will stop here because I could talk for another hour about this, but that wouldn’t be useful.
Jacobsen: Would you apply this to the traditional identity domains of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, education, and class in the sense of distinguishing between words and actions?
Zeitouni: It’s a bit different because feminism, humanism, and anti-racism are not things you’re born into. These are ideologies you think about, reflect on, grow into, learn, and listen to before becoming one. It’s something you actively become, not something you happen to be. Your example relates to aspects of identity, such as poverty, which is part of your identity.
But the distinction I made wasn’t just between deeds and thoughts; there’s a third dimension—the internal thought process. However, to build on your question, if someone says they’re doing something for people in poverty, it’s indeed the same principle. That’s one of the examples.
For instance, a person might create a law that provides free food at school, benefiting impoverished people. They might also talk passionately about how poor people have rights, which is presupposed that they end up stigmatizing people in poverty by reminding them that they have fewer rights because they’re poor. In that case, the toy needs to understand the complexities of poverty truly. The risk is that they’re still stigmatizing or reducing people in poverty.
Let me give you an example from Brussels. In the past, some well-meaning socialists—considered progressive—wanted to protect poor people from bankruptcies. So, they introduced a law stating that only those with a higher degree, like a master’s or a degree in business management, could start their own companies. The idea was to prevent poor people who were already struggling from incurring more debt by mismanaging their businesses.
But that wasn’t something other than based on facts. The bankruptcy rates for people with or without degrees were the same. I can show you the numbers because I pushed through research on this topic. They could have been more scientific.
What they did harm the economy because they didn’t understand poverty. They thought they were solving a problem, but instead, they created an extra layer of bureaucracy and made it harder for poor people. Some people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, must be better suited to a traditional 9-to-5 job but might excel at entrepreneurship. However, these policies took away opportunities from them. Poor people, in particular, are less likely to study due to various factors, from mental well-being issues to the consequences of poverty and perhaps a lack of structure and discipline in their upbringing. So, when you’re in poverty, it’s more likely that entrepreneurship, rather than traditional employment, might be your path out.
Zeitouni: There’s a lower chance for someone who’s grown up in poverty to excel in school. If that person is meant to be an entrepreneur, they should be encouraged to pursue their path. Why would you stop them, especially if there’s no scientific basis?
I tackled this issue when I joined the government about two and a half years ago. I initiated research and asked the administration to look at the numbers. It turned out that my suspicions were correct. The only difference between me and the people who made that law 15 or 20 years ago is that I understand poverty better—I’ve lived through it, so I know this approach was flawed.
I asked the administration to verify the data, and they confirmed that the law was indeed misguided. By cancelling that law, we anticipate an increase of 2,000 to 3,000 more companies yearly. These companies will likely have the same bankruptcy rate—about 8%—but that means 80 to 90% of those businesses will be run by self-employed individuals. That’s 2,000 to 3,000 people a year who are now paying taxes, working, and doing their own thing.
Moreover, about 3% of these new companies will create jobs. If you take 3% of 2,000 companies, that’s roughly 60 companies. Even if my quick math was off, dozens of companies will hire 5 to 10 or more people each year. We’re creating hundreds of additional jobs every year simply by removing a misguided law that was originally intended to help people in poverty.
This example shows how failing to de-stigmatize your thinking, not basing your decisions on evidence and science, and not doing the necessary intellectual work can lead to empty rhetoric and even counterproductive or harmful actions. You think you’re helping, but you’re not. You might think you’re making society easier but are making things worse.
Consider the stereotype of a white person going to a poor country and taking pictures surrounded by little Black kids. The intentions may seem noble—they want to help the poor kids—but the reality is far from it. The problem lies in the thinking behind those actions. By doing this, you create an image of poor kids needing a white saviour. For a brief moment, you may make them feel that white people are superior. You give them affection, then abandon them and return to your comfortable life in the Western world. Ultimately, you’ve done nothing meaningful for them; you’ve made things worse by playing the saviour for your ego. So, once again, the words and deeds are not enough.
On a political level, I can give you countless examples of this same issue. But where do you think feminist activism in Belgium has made mistakes? It’s awkward for a man to point out what a predominantly female group has done wrong, but it’s important to discuss it.
One significant mistake, and this might be a global issue, especially from the first wave of feminism onward, is how the smart, capable feminists—who made great strides in many areas—completely left behind non-white women. This exclusion makes the problem even more troubling, considering the intelligence and capability of those feminists who should have known better.
They stopped caring. Even now, some white women don’t understand how feminists can be against migrants, to be honest. As I said, two completely different issues exist: who can come to the continent and the people already here. Migrant women who are already here without papers are in such a terrible, horrible situation. They are probably among the most oppressed women in the world. These are women without legal documentation.
All the problematic structures that harm white women are magnified six thousand times for them—they face more violence and more oppression, and they are even more powerless because they lack the legal paperwork. So, any feminist who is against regularizing and giving papers to women who are already physically here is not practicing true feminism. That’s white. That’s cis-ism, and to be blunt, it’s embarrassing. It’s embarrassing for our feminist history and for the feminist generations that will come after us.
It’s such an absurd mistake. I’ve wondered why it’s such a mistake for a while, but I’ll stop. I’ll get locked into a two-hour rant. I should write something about it one day.
Jacobsen: What is the healthy way to be an “ally” and use the terminology from some strands of feminism? What is the right way to bring an ally into the community? Can we look at it from a two-directional perspective?
Zeitouni: My advice would be to start with education. Everyone has different capacities or, let’s say, intellectual interests, so try to read as much as you can from the group you want to connect with. If I were bringing another man into feminism, I’d encourage him to read and listen as much as possible. And then ensure there are timetables to reflect. This is a skill we’ve gained, especially in modern times where we constantly seek entertainment.
Taking time to think things through, doing thought experiments where you read about an experience and then try to visualize and understand how it works, is essential. Understanding the oppression a group faces is a crucial first step. You won’t understand everything, but trying to understand before acting is always important.
Of course, it’s important to act, but don’t be afraid of making mistakes. More importantly, it would be best if you were terrified of not correcting yourself when given feedback.
If I enter feminist thinking, I can emancipate men. I started doing many interviews and talking on radio shows, taking up much space. Then someone tells me, “Jad, you are taking space that should be for women, and you’re making your feminism about men. Some women have been in feminism for decades who are way ahead of you, and they don’t get what you’re talking about.” I can either get defensive and say, “How dare you?” I did only good things, and nobody else should tell me otherwise,” or I can be open-minded.
I need to be open to critique, evaluate if it’s valid, and not take it personally. Suppose I realize I’ve messed up and taking too much space. In that case, the most important thing is to adapt my behaviour, correct myself, grow, and stop doing that. I shouldn’t self-pity or be overly dramatic. Sometimes, especially today, we tend to victimize ourselves when we’re culprits. No, you messed up. It is what it is—move on. But, more importantly, stop messing up.
The only way to stop messing up is to invest in relationships so that people trust you and want to help you. Ultimately, it’s a favour when someone tries to correct you or give you feedback. You can’t take it without giving it back. You can’t expect to talk about feminism and assume all the women there will waste their time telling you, “Jad, this is good, this is bad.” They’re not teachers. But if Jad is genuinely doing his best, helping out, proofreading feminist pieces, assisting feminist writers with their work—because he’s good at testing and such—then he’s contributing. He’s giving He’she cause. And in return, the feminists will help him grow. That’s an exThat’s, and it’s healthy, good.
YIt’shouldn’t shouldn’t just take knowledge and turn it into your superhero story. It would be best if you approached it with the idea that you’ll help your grow and give to the cause so that you can get something back from it. As you learn and grow, you can take up more. Sorry, I’m seeing many things here getting more passionate than I thought. But does that make sense? Do you understand what I’m saying?
Jacobsen: Yes, I understand. What else should we discuss regarding Belgian humanism? What do I need here? This is an all-in-one, wide-ranging interview. We’re covering everything. BelgWe’reasBelgium has a diverse population. How does that factor in?
Zeitouni: Does the diversity of Belgian society make feminist activism or humanist political work more complicated, or does it paradoxically simplify things?
Jacobsen: Yes, exactly. Given the diversity of Belgium, does that make feminist activism and humanist political work easier or harder?
Zeitouni: Diversity in society is always good in the long term. It brings better, more inclusive perspectives and diversifies the talents you have. But it does require investments. It doesn’t make things worse; the benefits are hidden behind the effort you must put in. There’s a bit more that you have. There’ sy upfront. The risk of not investing in diversity is much bigger. That’s one of the problems in BThat’s right now. The people involved in organized humanism and feminism are often highly educated, and those people typically come from privileged backgrounds where their parents were also highly educated or at least more comfortable. These people are predominantly white, middle class, or above.
However, these people need to understand the realities faced by Belgium’s more diverse sides. Thus, you end up with a socio-cultural gap. On the one hand, you have well-meaning intellectuals involved in feminism and humanism. Still, they often make mistakes and alienate the diverse groups within Belgium. Instead of gaining access to feminism and humanism, which would benefit everyone, these groups retreat to their identity, falling back on conservative, traditional views because they feel more comfortable.
Suppose someone comes to talk to you about humanism, and you get the feeling that they low-key think your people are a bunch of barbarians. In that case, you’re likely to retreat to whayou’res like your safe identity, your community. You end up creating an isolated identity because the humanists seem like the enemy—a bunch of snobs who don’t value or respect your couldn’t, your people, your family, or your loved ones.
I still remember my mom is a Muslim woman, and when I was younger, one of the biggest pushbacks I faced was related to this. I’ve never been particularly reI’veous; I’ve always been a big reader, and I got into humanism easily. But one of the first conversations I had with a humanist counsellor—someone who worked for a humanist organization in Belgium—was incredibly Islamophobic. They were harbouring a lot of hateful ideas. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m criticadon’tall religions equally, but there’s a difference between father’s idea of people being oppressed by religion and harbouring blind, irrational hatred based on bigotry toward a specific group of people who happen to follow that religion. It was the latter in this case.
Zeitouni: My first thought was, “Okay, so humanists are just a “bunch of Islamophobic pieces of shit.” I didn’t want to hate Muslims. “I wasn’t Muslim, my family is Muslim, and they’re good people. So, in a way, I had to choose between being a humanist and hating my family or standing by my family. The choice was easy. I chose my family, then my love. What the hell?
It’s the same with feminism. It’s Muslim women, for example, want to wear what they choose, and whatever women wantto wear is none of our business—that’s my stance. But when they enter the feminist world, they’re told that they are religious. And maybe that’s true, intellectually. I agree. But is it more or less oppressive than any other Abrahamic religion? No. Yet, a Christian woman can come into the feminist world without being judged, while a Muslim woman faces a different reception—it suddenly becomes a big problem.
So, diversity does bring different forms of oppression into focus. It’s much easier to judge someone’s issues, like the traditional values of Muslim men. But where’s the judgment for the white man who says, “Oh, yes, I’m a feminist,” and “hen goes I I’mthe locker r” om and has even worse ideas about women than the average Muslim or Christian man? We often forget how creepy Christianity can be at its core—at least, according to me.
Belgium’s diversity sometimes highlights the problems within humanism and feminism. But it doesn’t make things harder; it raises the bar well. It means that feminism and humanism in Belgium are slowly but steadily adapting and becoming more inclusive, less colonial, and less exclusionary. And that’s a necessary evolution for the movements.
However, this will benefit the whole world in the long term. Whether it’s humanism or feminism, if its ideas are to spread globally, they need to evolve beyond a framework developed by Western white thinkers who only know the Western world. Otherwise, these movements will remain confined to the West. While it’s true that many humanist antifeminist ideas were developed outside the Western world, the balance of the movement will be better if different perspectives are included. Feminism and humanism can only truly connect globally if there are bridges between humanism and feminism developed in diverse countries.
Jacobsen: I recently interviewed the president of the National Committee for United Nations Women in Japan. We talked about how Japan, despite being a highly technological, wealthy, and educated society, is still highly gender-unequal. What do you think is the core factor for creating a more egalitarian society, especially when money and technology aren’t the main factors, even if they help? Japan is a good case study in this regard.
Jacobsen: Japan is a fascinating case study in many ways. While I’m not Japanese and only share my analysis with some caution, I have read quite a bit about the situation in Japan because it’s interesting. I’m also into its culture. I’ve come across various testimonies. One of Japan’s biggest mistakes was focusing on scientific and economic development while neglecting social progress. We shouldn’t fall into the capitalist thinking that economic growth is the only indicator of societal progress. That’s why we have social sciences. Those are legitimate disciplines. We need thinkers not just to stabilize economic growth but to develop our health sciences, our engineering sciences, and, crucially, our societies as a whole.
These thinkers need space to dismantle oppressive structures. We won’t tackle racism through more scientific progress alone—that won’t change racism. We could have advanced technology like Gundam robots, and people would still be racist. We’ll tackle racism by developing intellectual frameworks to dismantle racist structures and create societal space to implement those changes. It’s a long-term process.
We need to teach boys that girls aren’t just tiny objects. We must teach girls they can be what they want, scientists if they prefer, or both—it doesn’t matter. It’s about providing freedom and space for every one white without the constraints of outdated societal norms.
They can be whatever they want to be. We need to teach boys that they can be dads, caregivers, or anything else, just like we should teach girls. We must invest in education to convey these values and talk to teenagers about this. Teaching young men that having feelings doesn’t mean you have to act on them is crucial. Just because you’re lonely doesn’t mean you need to hate women or blame them for your problems. It doesn’t address these issues, but that has yet happened in Japan.
You won’t find any proper educational program for the Japanese gender. If you don’t invest in gender equality and take action, it won’t immediately appear. What also went wrong in Japan was that there was an emancipation movement for women. Still, it benefited a specific group—higher-educated, wealthier Japanese women. This didn’t extend to the rest, and that’s a problem. There’s inequality, a classist element. But there’s also a deeper, long-term problem: the women who didn’t benefit from emancipation continue to raise boys and girls who aren’t going to be emancipated either.
The non-emancipated women aren’t in traditional, conservative gender roles, which means they play a significant part in raising the next generation without passing on the benefits of emancipation because they never experienced it themselves. Feminism and gender equality aren’t things you achieve in five years; they’re long-term investments. There is gender equality in Belgium, thanks to the feminists of the 1970s. Whatever I’m doing today, at best, you’ll see the impact on gender equality in the years to come. Sadly, Japan will lose that long-term investment. That’s my analysis, though I could be wrong. Again, I’m not Japanese; that knowledge is limited to what I’ve studied during a few evenings of interest.
I’ve done some research on gender-based violence in Japan. The natives there aren’t good—partner violence and other related issues are significant aren’t so I helped a friend write a piece about manga culture and how it sometimes parallels incel culture, but that’s a topic for another discussion because it could take hours.
Jacobsen: Why did it take Belgium so long to grant women the right to vote? It wasn’t until 1948.
Zeitouni: That’s easy—religion. Belgium has historically been a Catholic country. That’s why the right to vote in Belgium came quite late, even for men. Ironically, when women finally got the right to vote, it wasn’t the liberals or progressives who pushed it through; it was the political parties. It happened because the church wanted women to vote, assuming—correctly—that women would support Christian parties.
During World War II, women were at home while men were out fighting, often more closely connected to the church. They also had to fill jobs that men left behind, which led to a certain level of emancipation. The church saw an opportunity and supported women’s suffrage, believing it would benefit their political agenda. Women understood that the primary reason for the delay in women’s suffrage was the Catholic influence, where traditional Christwomen held that men were the wise decision-makers and women were not to be trusted with such responsibilities.
Jacobsen: How many female prime ministers has Belgium had?
Zeitouni: None, if I’m not mistaken, which is pretty telling.
Jacobsen: What about members of parliament?
Zeitouni: It’s not perfectly balanced—not 50/50—but it has improved significantly. About 15 years ago, a big victory for the feminist movement was implementing rules that required political party lists to alternate between men and women. You could no longer have a list of all men with a few women at the end. The rules mandated that party lists must be 50% men and 50% women.
However, the real change came with the rotation rule. You can’t have six men in a row anymore, and because of this, representation cannot be improved. Still, suppose a political party wins three seats in parliament. In that case, two men and one woman are often elected, following the alternating pattern.
So, in the end, you still have structures where men hold more power in politics, though this is only the case in some political parties. With the Greens, you could argue the opposite. We had three female presidents and three female ministers in the last legislation—no male ministers. In parliament, the gender split is like 55% men, 45% women, maybe 52% and 48%, but there are slightly more men than women, if I’m not mistaken.
The reasons for this are rooted in Belgium’s struggle. We have a strong feminist movement, but outside Belgium, you can still feel the influence of traditional ideas, like the myth of the wise old white man who knows best. This mindset is still strong in parts of Belgium.
Jacobsen: How is gender equality in post-secondary education?
Zeitouni: There’s been some progress. We have more female teachers; they have academically outperformed men over the last decade. There are many reasons for this and many analyses. Things are improving, but you can still move toward real change. Sexual education, for doesn’t, is an area where Belgium, despite doing well on a global scale, is not excelling.
I give workshops in secondary schools about menstruation stigmas. Often, these sessions turn into impromptu sex education classes because the average 16- or 17-year-old, who might already be sexually active, has no idea how her body works. In biology, they learn in detail how the male body works, but the female body is often glossed over. In theory, the information is supposed to be equal, but it’s not there in practice.
This gap doesn’t affect academic performance, as women still need to work academically. But when you take an intersectional approach, you see that women from migrant backgrounds or in poverty are significantly underrepresented in higher education, particularly in the sciences. These groups still need to perform better and pursue higher education less. So, while women could do better numbers-wise, significant structural problems still need to be solved.
Jacobsen: What aspect of feminism or humanism in Belgium isn’t discussed?
Zeitouni: There are a few. One issue is the need to focus on the emancipation of men and address the issues facing men. Menstruation stigmas are also still a big problem. It’s absurd that there’s still a taboo around menstruation, and it has positive consequences on the humanism side; probably the biggest issue is the fine but important line between empowering people to have freedom of religion—or freedom from religion—and avoiding hatred, bigotry, or Islamophobia. It’s a thin line, but it’s crucial to maintain. Sometimes, we’re too aIt’sd to talk about that, which isn’t good because it means those who lack understanding are often not hateful. This is due to a lack of understanding of how different parts of the world work. You can’t approach Islam the same way you approach Christianity—they are differentreligions with different cultures.
The humanist movement can be afraid of being seen as biased or arrogant in some respects. We have to address our wearable bigotry, stigmas, and prejudices.
Jacobsen: Last question. If you could invent a term for combining your feminism and humanism, what would you call it?
Zeitouni: That’s a specific question. I’d probably go with something like “intersectional humanism.” If I had to describe myself, I’d use many words: an ecological take on intersectional humanist and feminist ideology in as inclusive a manner as possible. That’s what I’d call it.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/09
Jad Amine Zeitouni is a dynamic political figure and advocate, currently serving as a political advisor for equal chances, economy, employment, LEZ, and energy under the cabinet of Minister Elke Van den Brandt in Brussels. A candidate for the Brussels Parliament, ranked sixth on the list for Groen, he brings extensive experience in public service and advocacy, particularly in areas of diversity, inclusion, and youth rights. His work spans organizing workshops on diversity and identity, moderating debates on critical societal issues, and consulting on diversity and inclusion strategies, continuously influencing and shaping policies that promote social justice and equality in Belgium.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, let’s go from here. The first interview is long-lost. We connected through Young Humanists International when transitioning from the International Humanists and Ethical Youth Organization (IHEYO) to the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU).
You already had a political interest or intrigue in political science then. So, what did you learn from your leadership days in youth humanism? How have you now transferred that over to your political life? From what you’re telling me, you are extremely busy right now—a bit of a broader question.
Jad Zeitouni: I’ve always been active. I had my humanist activism, but I also had many other things. The humanist experience was one of the most important ones. I’ve been mainly active in politics and policymaking. I’ve been actively advising and executing political mandates. The humanist experience is similar. In the end, I was vice president. I was part of the group of thinkers that allowed us to reflect, think about the world, and find concrete solutions. We had to figure out how to support young humanists in Nigeria or stimulate them with a budget we had allocated practically. How do we manage a group with a social purpose and a vision for the world to execute? In the end, political work is similar. There are 6,000 things you can do, and probably 5,000 that everybody agrees you should do, but you only have the money and time to do 100. I didn’t find it that different from the humanist experience, except it was my full-time job the last year. Humanism was my extra on the side. We all did this voluntarily.
The first part is that I’ve seen the young humanist bubble soften over the last few years. It makes me a bit sad. It was valuable for the international humanist movements and us. I swear we did the same as what I’m doing now as a professional political advisor.
The second thing is that I was in charge of the finances. I was handling the budgets. I had to do my financial report. If you remember, I had to do all the checks and balances. It ended up being a more useful experience than I thought it would be because it helped me develop an understanding of budgets. That understanding of budgets has grown even more afterwards, quite a lot more. One of the most important things I’ve done in the last year, for which I’ve also gotten the most recognition, is going through the budgets of some projects from a different political party-affiliated minister. I spend my evening nights reflecting and thinking, okay, where does the money go? I find flaws, sometimes done to secure budgets and sometimes not intentionally. People sometimes overestimate or underestimate the budgets.
This is similar to my thinking work when we had our young humanists’ projects, knowing when they applied for grants. One of my biggest time investments back then was reviewing those applications, advising them, and telling them what to do. Weirdly enough, what I did over the last years, while it’s a lot fancier on paper and the impact is a bit more direct and bigger, is similar to what we were doing back then. Also, if somebody wanted to do my job for ten years, I’d advise them to gain similar experience. It’s a good learning school. I find my motivation in doing real stuff. I need to improve on an academic bench.
This is why I am the way I am. Young humanists, it’s real. It’s a real world. That’s nice. That’s motivating. At the same time, it was voluntary youth work. You were allowed to make some mistakes. You have a team; you have good vibes. Half our meetings were a group of friends from all across the globe, where you have humanist friends specifically venting their frustrations about the world. The other half was us doing a good job. I look back, and we underestimated ourselves a bit. I would trust us if I had the money, budgets, and power to put the same constellation in charge of executing humanist policies. We did well. We had diverse profiles, expertise, and perspectives, all motivated with the heart in the right place. I sound ableist, and I apologize. We also had the intellectual capacity as a group to envision, execute, think, reflect, and be self-critical. How important I’ve noticed in the last few years is how much of a difference that makes. This is a summary, but I can keep going on a monologue, but that might be too extensive.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the policy and politics you’re into now, and those orientations related to humanist principles? How do you find much overlap between the political side of things and values that humanism more or less taught?
Zeitouni: Yes, I work. I’ve been active within the Greens, the ecological movement. There’s an obvious natural overlap. I can think of many differences. One of the subtle differences might be that I’ve never been the most hardcore humanist. I believe in individual rights for people to have religious freedom. People should matter. A lot of my humanist buddies, they’re more anti-religion. No, I’m not anti-religion on an individual level. I’m anti-religious structure. So I’ve always been soft in that aspect of my humanism- live and let live- all fine.
But I feel like progressive political movements in Western Europe sometimes have borderline poverty. That’s a different thing. I’m not a big fan of it; I’m not sure if stimulating is the right word, but let’s say enabling religious structures where individuals carry way too much power and where people get low-key brainwashed. They are also very passive to me. My stance is a bit more radical, but religious people have robbed a part of our humanity. When you think of religious structures, we never developed the structures to handle the loss of a loved one, to celebrate love, to celebrate birth. Religious structures so dominate those. They have thousands of years of culture they’ve developed in a way. That means we never had a place in our society to take care of that, right? Because we always, almost in a lazy way, built our modern societies and said, ah, they’ll go to the church, right?
And if tomorrow I could, and I’m trying to push that, my political party has shifted because of me. We need to handle that. We must invest in developing the structures so people cannot be religious. They don’t have to be. Never mind if you want to get married in a church, if you want to mourn with a priest and believe that your loved one went to heaven, fine. It should be possible without, and that possible without, that frustrates me a lot. That’s my humanist side; it’s sometimes the most frustrating part of politics. We’re too passive. But on the bigger principles, it easily transitioned. So I never had any worries. My party, the Greens, is generally human rights-centred and very… Priorities-wise, there’s a reason I’m with the Greens. The whole ecological thing fits the humanist because it’s science-based, evidence-based, rational, away from dogmas and prejudice, and daring to think of a different world. So, it overlaps. But, as an ecologist thinker, whatever the right terminology, I prioritize it a bit more. There may be a subtle difference.
Yes, it overlaps 99.999%. In some areas where it doesn’t overlap, it has more to do with priorities or the example I gave, how seriously they take it, and their willingness to change society and allow non-religious lifestyles. In Dutch, we have this saying, “I’m laying on my hunger.” I’m not satisfied with using that same phrase. This means there are no other problems at all. The Greens and the humanists have always been well aligned.
That’s one funny, interesting thing. The humanist bubble in Belgium is a bit more liberal than social or ecological. That has more to do with priorities because the liberals are, of course, a good ally from my ideological perspective for individual liberties and the freedom of individuals to do whatever they want. But I was already frustrated even when I was not politically active. We tend humanists, maybe in a certain elitist form in our infrastructure, to still allow–I don’t know–I call it unchecked capitalist structures to continue, while the ecological mindset is more about individual freedom. Let’s look at the consequences; we must impact it if needed. For example, if I’m going to give an easy example if you want to have a car,
Fine, but if your car is old and it’s poisoning the surroundings, you’re not allowed to have this car. You would be taxed more if you had a big car because it would take up more space. If you have a car, we want the same. There’s more, weirdly enough, a more pragmatic approach to individual freedom than some humanist bubbles because individual freedom doesn’t mean anything if the most powerful one impacts other people’s freedom.
It’s not the right terminology, but it’s at the top of my thoughts. I never thought about it too much. I can feel that we too easily have liberal mindsets where it’s not needed to be a human aesthetic. Wait, that needs to be well-phrased. It’s essential. Me too; I would never say I’m not a liberalist because, in a way, liberal values are a core part of our DNA. But we might put our list of priorities too high.
Daring to break free of certain oppressive structures harmful to humanity, the planet, and everybody, daring to dismantle them, might be higher on the list. It needs to be more specific. Let me know if I need to be more philosophical and specific.
Jacobsen: Is it looking for a balance between individualism and the pursuit of financial success and well-being, seen in some interpretations of humanism, thinking of some people who might lean more towards objective, capitalist rationalism instead of those who lean more toward social responsibility? Then, they end up with the same values but ranked differently, so they end up in a green party: the same values, different rank-ordering, and a different frame on them.
Zeitouni: If you had asked me this question a few years ago, I would have given you the same analysis. But now, I may be too deep in it; that’s a possibility, as are subjectively biased humans inherently. I’m starting to remember things that might not be that; it might also be. Regardless of those priorities, we are still deciding. If we want to build consistently within our humanist value society, bit by bit, baby step by step, without dismantling power structures while doing so, we end up in the same place. It’s like a pretty circle, which you’ve got to be where you were standing before. If we don’t, let’s say society goes forward, everybody can buy a new car; people love big cars now, right? It’s like a trend. Then, you end up poisoning all the poor people and all the marginalized people.
On the one hand, society worsens again, health problems, blah, blah, blah, your city’s congested, all the people with money go out of the city, poor people are low-key stuck, and people with low incomes can’t afford the city. You see, the whole system collapses anyway. So, what is the point of humanism if we create a dying world?
Humanism is also science-based; it’s about evidence-based. The science is clear. Science is, for example, now one of the things I’ve been fighting hard for, and I’m low-key, honestly; it’s maybe part of the reason I’m getting tired of my job now, that I’m losing the fight a bit, is the low emission zone. We’re allowing cars into the city, which we know like science is clear. There’s no doubt they poison us like kids are going to have five to ten years less to live. The impact on marginalized groups that live in small, poorly insulated apartments is even bigger. Poor people have the biggest impact, and the richer people are the ones with the cars that are poisoning everybody around. People outside of Brussels who live in rural areas where it’s not a problem because there’s more space and more nature drive into the city because they don’t want to take a train. Then they poison the kids that go to school amid the cars. So, in a way, our humanist vision of the future must handle that. Ignoring that because you prioritize individual freedom, I’m starting to think it’s a bit of bullshit because that means you’re not ambitious enough. That means you don’t dream of a humanist world of tomorrow. You dream of small humanist victories.
That’s the question we inevitably have to ask ourselves. Do we dream of a world that fits our human values? Or do we want to defend the human values of our fellow humanists? Do we seek small victories where non-religious people can have more rights? Or do we seek a humanist world where policies are evidence-based, individual freedom goes hand in hand with not hurting other people, the rule of law is democratic and consistent, and simultaneously inclusive, where people can reach their potential regardless of religion or ethnicity? Do we dream of that human rights-based, evidence-based, science-based society? Or do we seek a humanist church at the end of the day?
For me, it’s the first one. We have to solve this. We can’t ignore it. Oh, I’m sorry. That was a long answer, but to say that right now, it’s my perspective. Of course, I no longer think it concerns a list of priorities. It has to do with the level of ambition and how in touch we are. Because we know, like, the numbers don’t lie. The facts don’t lie, whether it’s with racism or sexism.
The structural impact on people with different social backgrounds, not typically associated with humanism, is significant. For example, I can list the numbers of gender-based violence, even in Belgium, which is objectively one of the better countries in the world for fighting sexism and misogyny. We still have one woman every three days dying from gender-based violence. One woman every three days in a country of 11 million inhabitants, and we are one of the best in the world.
But we know the numbers; we know the facts. So, ignoring that and not making it a priority is nonsense.
Jacobsen: What about having room for variation in the rank ordering of the same values? So, they have the same matrix of values, different weighting, and a variation in the scale of ambition. People have different amounts of time and resources at different points in life. That also needs to be allowed for, combining your view from four years ago and your current view.
Zeitouni: That would be relatively accurate. The only thing is, that’s always the life case, right? Like I told you, with politics, if I had to summarize for 10-year-olds what it means to do politics, it is that. It means you have 6,000 things you want to do. There are 5,000 that everybody agrees you have to do, but you only have the money and time for 20 a year. So how do you choose the 20 a year?
You need to be aware. That’s the best part of the thinking, where it’s inevitable. You need to be aware of the consequences of not doing certain things. You need to be aware of the long-term ambition. Please keep that in mind. Because if you keep doing small things, like the 20 you choose in a year, but never build something for the long term, that’s bad policy. Because in 20 years, you’ll have less than 5,000 things that everybody knows need to happen. You’re going to have 25,000. The problems are going to become bigger, too.
It would help if you created new things that advance society and think long-term, considering what we must avoid or create for the future. It would help if you considered all those priorities, no matter how you make the hierarchy, and then strategically think, taking those into account. We need to understand them. Doing humanism without understanding the structures of oppression towards women, to take an easy example, like sexism, is not humanism.
That’s male humanism. You might have different priorities, and blah, blah. However, how you made your priorities is inherently problematic because you need to understand the consequences of not doing the other stuff. If I love horses and don’t care about all the other animals, my priorities for taking care of animals will be biased towards the horses.
And I’m not going to understand what it’s like to think… It’s a weird example, but you get what I mean, right? And in the same way–Oh, I work with horses. I wanted to give you an example closer to you. It’s the same with humanism. One of the things that I’ve started to think about is that I’m wrong in my realization, but in my current subjective mind, we are too tunnel-visioned. We need to understand the other things to make the right decisions. Because objectively is a strong word, but there is a certain logic in the list of priorities. What is the biggest impact of your limited resources? What is the most urgent? If you take those two, you can make a reasonable, logical list of priorities. But if you need help understanding half of your society, you do not know the racist structures, the colonial structures, the sexist structures. You don’t care or understand how social and worker rights impact people. Then you’re not going to be able to make the right decision.
It’s weird thinking, but we were talking before about the frustration of how, in a way, humanity has been robbed. We’ve allowed religious structures to hijack so much of our human lives. Today, a religious person benefits more and has an easier life than a humanist. That said, I say this as a convinced humanist. Of course, it’s easier. Why? Because religion takes many steps to understand many things. Even if you feel bad about your job, the value of hard work is also one of the problematic structures, right? The whole concept of humility in Christianity is very… It’s capitalism enablement 101. It’s humble, so shut up and do your hard work. Are you being paid a fair wage or not? It doesn’t matter. I’m simplifying and ridiculing it. So my apologies to those.
If somebody sees this, I will ridicule it. But you see what I mean? We’re like… they exaggerated for effect and a point. My frustration is how we so easily dismiss those, let’s say, parallel realities and don’t consider them when making our priorities. Because we don’t do that, we feel too much like liberals. Now, I mean liberal in the political sense. We should feel more like social progressive, ecological, liberal thinkers who may be beyond the political spectrum. Could you be a bit more consistent with this? I’m venting a lot.
Jacobsen: So what I’m getting from what you’re saying is a distinction between your practical work, where you are given your limitations, with a simultaneous philosophical reflection on wider impacts. So, if I were to take my previous work for 27 months at an equestrian facility where I am shovelling horse manure for several hours each day, I need to consider patience with a large animal so they are comfortable and their well-being is taken into account as well as for my safety. Horses are jumpy and can trample people if not kill them if erratic in an enclosed space. So, I’m considering my well-being and safety while simultaneously considering the emotions and feelings of the horse relative to how much we can understand their experiences and capacity to suffer.
Yet I’m not going to be in that moment deciding to make sure I’m gentle with the horse or firm with the horse in some cases for the sake of making sure horses, in general, are never turned into glue or sold in parts as horse meat. It will be that philosophical reflection as an important contextualization of everything. However, I’m dealing with the reality of the moment, the experiential, phenomenological reality of that moment, in practical terms, making sure I don’t piss off the horse, spook the horse, and ensure my safety. I will also ensure they feel calm. Is that practical and philosophical reality what you’re trying to distinguish between?
Zeitouni: Yes, and maybe to use the analogy, thinking about where am I going to put the manure that I cleaned up so I don’t poison my horse tomorrow, so I don’t poison another horse tomorrow. You have the concrete task of cleaning up the manure, but you need to consider that if the manure is there tomorrow and the horse lays in its manure, it’s a problem. You think long-term and short-term, your safety and the horse’s safety. It is a complex insight. I can’t be wrong. It takes work. But sadly, I’ve seen how the political world at least aspires to do it. So why would we not as humanists?
Why would we hold a lesser standard? If anything, I want to hold a higher standard to my fellow humanists because there’s much bullshit in politics. I can talk for days about it. So I want to say how we do better. That’s why I’m so proud of our little humanist group. We did well. Maybe we were too many thinkers together. So, in the end, we had much reflection. But at least on a thinking level, we did. I want to remember us ever doing something with the young humanists without reflecting on various aspects, such as how to brand and tell people and how not to make it, too, like we did the whole thinking exercise. We don’t simplify the world. The world is complex. We make it simple, too. It’s doable.
Jacobsen: What I’m getting at, what I’m seeing with your story, insofar as I’ve known you for about five, maybe six years, you dealt with things in a youthful way when you were younger, in terms of abstract philosophy, going to conferences, having fun, being involved with some policy stuff and some financial stuff, and doodling around. Having late-night calls with a bunch of fun friends worldwide doing various humanist leadership stuff, then transferring to not necessarily more serious but more substantive stuff practically because you’re dealing with policy and politics on the ground. That’s beside the point of being paid or not; you’re dealing with practical elements of things that will affect people in your immediate vicinity. I’ve seen that trajectory for you, too. So, this delves down from highfalutin philosophy to more practical policy and politics, which is what you’re experiencing now in your thoughts and a reflection of your self-development through this process from youth humanism to politics.
Zeitouni: Yes, probably. Also, I am still determining what you’d say I’d think in five years. I’m still on my learning curve. I’m not there. I have yet to understand everything about the world. I still need to get all the answers. It would be arrogant of me to think I did now. Especially in politics, there are way more variables than in some physics equations. When I started this job, I thought I was not good enough. I got lucky. On paper, I did. There was a need. I was in the right place at the right moment. But then, when I started doing the job, I was good at it. Turns out I was overthinking it.
Yes, part of this is way more complex, but at the same time, it’s way more simple too. It sounds like a contradiction, but they’re more complex because there are more facets and more dimensions. But they’re also simpler because you can create objective indicators of a good decision. For example, I had to deal with the energy crisis when I started. It’s a bit of lingo, but I was responsible for everything social. The energy crisis was the technical knowledge area, but you were sick. We didn’t have anybody else technical on the team.
Energy is a competency of a different minister, but the federal energy minister is a Green person on the federal level. But she needed to be more staffed, and the office was overworked. So I jumped in and decided what we should do with the energy policy for the whole region of Brussels, at least for our political party. But there was also nobody on the mobility team. So, as I explained before, the team of people managing mobility also involves managing this big company that manages all the metros, trams, and buses in Brussels, the Brussels region. Like STIB, it’s like the public transportation administration plus a company. So we’re in charge of that. In a way, it’s much simpler because I knew the energy prices would go up. With all the knowledge I had gathered, every expert in my network indicated that the prices would go up within two or three weeks. I understood how the market worked.
I knew how the energy markets operated. I could explain for hours, but I won’t do that now. It’s like a speculation market where the prices can shift easily, and it’s based on tomorrow’s predictions. People speculate what the energy is going to cost tomorrow, etc. Long story short, energy prices were going to go up. The ministerial decision-making process needs to be faster. It might take a week or two to get a political agreement. So, I went beyond my job.
I have bruised a bunch of egos. I started calling the head of STIB, the organization. I told them to start doing this and this—energy consumption-reducing measures I had identified based on Google searches. I told them to start already. You’ll have the legal paperwork in two weeks when the minister’s agreement is finalized, but you must act now. A week or two later, the energy price was going to be actualized for that company, a huge amount. It turned out I was completely right. A month later, the prices increased by 300%, 400%, and 500%. Ultimately, they saved millions of euros because I acted two weeks earlier than anybody else. So, in a way, it’s simpler. Once you’re right, you can swing the baseball bat.
Zeitouni: And people will be happy that you did. I remember back in the young humanist days when I was using this example; there were things where every possible, evidence-based thing would tell me I was right. But you could not hurt anybody’s ego. That’s, in a way, more complicated, as well as the social activism bubble in the broad sense, including humanism. Sometimes, it’s harder to shift people. The fact that I function that way is probably why I’m a bit tired of it now; I always have to find ways to handle people’s egos. People need to take it more seriously. But in the end, I did get things done. I could do whatever I liked. As long as I am right, I can build those achievements. Politics is more complex, but there’s sometimes a clear answer at the end of the day, and you need to build those up. That’s fine.
Jacobsen: What would be your recommendations for humanists who want to get involved in politics or policy work?
Zeitouni: That’s a good question. I’m going to start with politics. Find a political party that aligns with your values. Expand your knowledge, too. There’s stuff that they don’t necessarily align with completely, but that’s fine. Figure out what you want. Politics is open. In most countries I’ve been to, we overthink sometimes. No politician will think the same as you. It’s fine if you have a few disagreements. As long as the base values correspond, you can go. The only thing you must be careful of is that humanists usually end up being humanists because they’re over-thinkers, which is a good thing, right? We think a lot. We’re all philosophers in our own right. But politics doesn’t need more philosophers. We need people who get things done, are honest and can convey a complex message in simple terms. So, adapt your way of functioning.
Keep things simple, explain things, and you will get more than enough opportunities in politics. Make sure you’re the one who gets things done. Again, we can use less pre-talking thinkers. There are enough people better at that, and they’re already there. So you get through by being the person who gets things done. To get into policy, be bold and jump in. If I’ve learned anything, we also make things more complex than they are in policymaking. For most of my job, I did well. Honestly, if I would summarize all the good things I did, it would be because I was the dude who was afraid that he was not good enough, which was not bad for me. So, I would spend my evenings looking things up. I would call people who knew stuff. I would ask them. I would learn. This open, critical mindset is the biggest strength of a humanist.
We inevitably have a critical, open mind, in theory, right? Because we’ve refuted all the weird, supernatural stuff, there are many smart people around you to learn from. Don’t be afraid to learn from them. You have no idea how many dumb questions I asked in the first month. I didn’t care. My whole purpose was to learn. I went and asked again and again until I learned. I had the willingness to learn. I didn’t believe I was smarter. I believe in science. I believe in facts. That’s a strength. That’s good. That’s amazing. Hold on to that. If anything, use it as a strength. Be the person who is reading PDFs late at night because you’re afraid you don’t know enough.
And a last tip for humanists in politics and policymaking: consider the value of being an organized group that gets stuff done. Those basic little online chat events and little projects were valuable. As a young humanist, I only regret that I was too doubtful. I was only sometimes sure. I wasn’t thinking as much as I would have wanted to. But that’s fine. If you have a failed event, you still learn from it. Suppose you have a successful event. That’s great. You did something good for the cause. Doing those things and trying to do those things will be valuable. But it would be best to be self-critical in a positive, productive way. Learn from it. If you do it and don’t learn from it, you won’t reflect afterwards or learn from it.
Jacobsen: Would you consider conscientiousness and cooperativity important values and personality traits? If so, how do you develop them?
Zeitouni: The quality of doing one’s work well and thoroughly. Yes, I wouldn’t use the word because I didn’t know it, but I coach many young people as part of one of my many social activities besides my job. We sometimes use the term discipline, but discipline is a good word, often wrongly filled in. So, I prefer a sense of responsibility. That sounds nicer. The sense of responsibility is hugely important. Use it because the thing that motivates you is your sense of responsibility. If you’re motivated, you will find and use your strengths. I genuinely believe that. If you’re not motivated, you will do your job and won’t be good at it. The danger with not being good at it is that we all have bad moments. In bad moments, when you’re okay at your job and don’t use your strengths, you don’t show what you’re good at.
In bad moments, you’ll be bad at it. The thing is, in policy, you don’t have the luxury of being bad at it. It would help if you had the luxury of being good at politics. You can be okay in bad moments and good in good moments. That’s the scope. So, this self-discipline, confidence, sense of responsibility, pride that you’re doing something, and desire to do it will stimulate you in good and bad moments.
Finding that in small social projects when I was younger helped me stimulate and nurture it for the future. Now, I have a great sense of responsibility. Part of why I have that is because I enjoyed having it before in small stuff. Then there’s the cooperative thing, definitely, as well. But it may be my experience. The world is a bit harder than I thought when I was younger. So before cooperative spirit comes, you need to know who you are, how to function, how to communicate from your thing and recognize which people are easier or harder to communicate with. It is like finding the right people, bubble, and place to function, and then you can invest in the cooperative element, which is hugely important because we are social beings in varying degrees and says. But we all need other people to function well. I doubt anybody; some specific types of individualistic people, and that’s fine. But most people, you’re going to need people around you.
When I said about learning a lot, and you asked me what tip I would give, I learned a lot from people around me. I’m a social being. I’ll ask questions, I’ll get along with them, I’ll smile. I’ll help them back, however. I’m also going to invest in this. One of my biggest strengths is that everybody knows that if I were sick, I would message him and ask him if he could attend the meeting. Why? People knew my strength. My strength was verbal debates, argumentatively wise. My strength was less in minutes with little knowledge, figuring out what is important for a political party. My strength was that I’d gladly help out. What happens if I don’t understand something and I’m supposed to understand it for my job?
But you get stuff you don’t know. I asked that colleague I helped last week, and she’ll explain to me off the record. She’ll make sure, and I’ll get away with not doing my homework that I didn’t know I had to. Fine. I have a team. You need a network; you need a team. That’s also the thing that we did well to take our example of the young humanists back in the day. We had a team with varying profiles, different types of people, and different shapes. I was more inclusive and diverse thinking. Mariko was the one more about getting things done. I’ll give credit to her. I love her much for her go-and-get-it-done attitude. She was great. She was so great. It was good because it was complementary. After that, I also made her more inclusive and mindful of different types of people. She made me more efficient and productive. We learned from each other.
We had a good time. We made friends. I haven’t talked to her in a long time, but I have no doubt we’re friends for life. Anytime she would hold up that I was in Brussels, I had a basic question; it would be with pleasure. Like, I would love it.
Zeitouni: Yes, I was saying, for example. We were complementary. So, I made her more inclusive and more mindful of different types of people. She made me more productive, more concrete, more get-things-done. As you said, I have both as I’ve grown from a philosophical thinker to a more get-things-done. Part of the growth was Marieke. But because we had a good cooperative spirit, I didn’t mind her flaws. She didn’t mind mine. I would help her cover hers. She would help me cover mine. We worked well as a duo. I learned a lot. She learned a lot.
And we made friends, and now we have friends for life with each other. That’s great. Right? I had the same experience; if we were not cooperative and were both doing our things, I would learn a lot less. She would learn a lot less. I wouldn’t be able to use my strengths because I would be dragged along to get things done, and I would be frustrated. She wouldn’t understand why I’m frustrated. It’s fine. She’s a different type of person. We wouldn’t have been friends. It’s such a loss not to have this cooperative development with people. Pride, we often make it an ugly word.
However, one of the things that helped me a lot was that I wanted to be proud of my work. I was proud of the work I had already done, and you want to know, go through, and get all the way. I was working my job and using the example of Marieke and us back in the day. Being more cooperative by taking into account the people around you and by learning to work together is obviously beside the ethics of an inclusive world where people work together, but even besides the ethics, it’s a strategic investment. Because by working with people, you learn from them, and you have somebody to jump in when you have more difficult moments.
And you can also cover your weaknesses. Nobody’s perfect; there will be stuff you’re bad at. If you’re close and work closely with people, especially those different from you, you cover each other’s weaknesses. I can’t tell you how much I got from having more academic colleagues, but they reread my work, which was much better. One of my strengths is the verbal, almost debate elements, but it is important and worth investing in because that’s how you get the job done.
Jacobsen: What philosophies or stances appeal to you? For instance, in North America, some people find an appeal to ethical culture. They might join The Satanic Temple as non-theistic if they’re more creative and enjoy hilarious activism and protests.
Jacobsen: There are some close philosophies. Even though they look different on the surface.
Zeitouni: I mean, there’s the obvious ones. I’m a feminist; I put much thinking and effort into feminism. I’m active in anti-racism as well. They overlap feminism overlapsnism, but there are differences. But, of course, Ofcus is a bit different. But what is important is this social awareness. I don’t know if that’s the right translation, but let’s go with social awareness. The ability and the intense willingness to understand the roles around you, how they impact people, and how they impact people differently. This philosophy and life stance are found in various forms of feminism and anti-racism, whether it’s the intersectional approach in feminist literature or… Yes, I can’t even think of specific examples. But if you ask me about a life philosophy element I value, it is that. Being socially aware means you can make the most difficult political decisions, like choosing between evils.
There’s no good answer. What if the policy decision you must make is whether people should be poor or rich? You want people to be rich. That’s easy. Then there are medium-level decisions, and then you have the shitty ones. It would help if you had more budgets. There’s an energy crisis going on. I need to choose between lowering the costs for hospitals and lowering the cost for small companies that; if you don’t support them now, they’re going to go bankrupt, which is going to cause a bunch of people to lose their jobs, creating an economic deficit in the coming years. In the end, the hospitals still pay the price.
Jacobsen: Do you adhere to a specific branch of feminist philosophy, or is it adherence to general feminist principles, or both?
Zeitouni: I’m a bit of both. I’ve always been a fervent reader and have my philosophy, but I’m not adhering to any specific branch. I’m surrounded by many feminist thinkers right now, so if I had to pick, I’d be more in the new generation intersectional feminist wave. But a progressive, socially aware intersectional feminist. That would be the best description of this new wave of intersectional feminism, which is no longer about the core fight against sexist structures but the idea that it’s for all women. Specifically, my academic expertise is about the role of men therein and the impact on men. And that means looking at the oppression forms for all women, but also all the gender-related ones, for example, towards gay men, etc. It’s part of my feminism. But also the process, something like that.
And then, of course, there’s my ecologism. That’s an obvious one. Maybe I skipped through because I’m so dependent. I am figuring out what ecologism is. There are many approaches, many forms, and many variants. But in classic politics, I would be a socialist and an ecologist. Yes, socialism would be, in one sentence, taking into account social risks, like taking care of social risks. We are social beings that carry risks and bad things together. Ecologism would be that everything you do takes into account the long-term impacts. It’s making things durable.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/08
Dr. Martin “Marty” Shoemaker is a trained clinical psychologist and, currently, a Humanist Chaplain at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Multifaith Centre) and Vancouver General Hospital (August, 2014-Present). Previously, he worked as a psychologist and instructor in organizational behaviour.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Overview, what are we defining: spiritual care in humanist chaplaincy?
Dr. Martin Shoemaker: The development of spiritual care, which originated approximately 1,400 to 1,500 years ago in Europe, evolved from a distinctly Christian concept. It traces its roots to the Christian kings and their royal families, who employed chaplains for spiritual guidance and advice and to safeguard their artifacts and Christian memorabilia.
These artifacts were amassed over the years and placed in chapels guarded by individuals known as chaplains. However, today’s world, particularly in the period following World War II, holds a markedly different perspective on what constitutes spiritual care.
The term “spiritual” is derived from the Greek word “pneuma,” meaning spirit or breath. To the Greeks and other ancient, wise civilizations, it referred to the vital energy within us, synonymous with life itself and best exemplified by breath. The term “pneuma” was translated from Greek to “spiritus” in Latin, leading to the word “spirit” being closely associated with the Christian Church.
Over time, spirituality became intertwined with a profound commitment and an inner search within one’s soul for divine revelations, as mediated by the Church through its theology, cathedrals, and other religious institutions. This concept was deeply rooted in a Christian worldview. However, this understanding underwent significant change during the 19th century, influenced by developments in Freudian analysis, Marxism, the death of God movement championed by Nietzsche, and even the theory of evolution. Expanding knowledge driven by empirical evidence and scientific investigation further transformed the concept of spirituality.
The word “spiritual” began to take on a different connotation, describing unseen phenomena that were not directly observable. It refers to a part of human existence that is immaterial and without mass, representing a dematerialized reality. Consequently, some skeptics began to dismiss spirituality as mere mythology, a construct that could be interpreted in any way one wished to explain things beyond physical observation. This shift profoundly impacted religions traditionally emphasizing spirituality, compelling them to reconcile their worldviews with science, evidence, and the global influx of information from diverse cultures and religions.
Particularly during times of war, chaplains who served together, such as during World War I and World War II, were tasked with caring for soldiers who were physically wounded by bullets or bombs, as well as those who suffered psychological trauma due to the horrors of war. It was during these times that chaplains began to recognize the varied interpretations of the word “spirit” among soldiers, which, in turn, led to an evolution in their understanding. “Spiritual” began to be viewed as a journey toward a supernatural or higher form of awareness within human consciousness rather than something that could be easily perceived.
The term encompasses ideas, enthusiasm, and a profound sense of awe. Individuals might express that they had a “spiritual experience” when standing on the edge of a cliff, gazing upon an awe-inspiring valley before engaging in activities like paragliding. The term “spiritual” has thus expanded, Scott, from merely a Christian concept centred on the essence God imbued within each individual to a broader and more secular understanding. In humanist chaplaincy, we do not necessarily employ “spiritual” as frequently as other chaplains might.
For example, I was approved as the first humanist chaplain at Vancouver General Hospital a year and a half ago. In the community, we volunteers are called “community spiritual care practitioners.” Spiritual care, in this context, relates primarily to individuals’ religious orientations and personal journeys. Still, it encompasses a wide range of meanings, given that 15 to 20 different religions and non-religious perspectives are represented at the hospital, including Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, and secular beliefs. My services are not in high demand at the secular chapel, which has been adapted to accommodate various belief systems. Therefore, we may not always feel comfortable with the term “spiritual” due to its strong religious connotations. Indeed, if you were to ask an atheist, “Would you like to speak with a spiritual care adviser?” they might find the terminology off-putting.
The answer is always the same: “Why would I do that? I don’t believe in God.” This is the challenge we face with the word “spiritual.” It doesn’t resonate with everyone, and we often feel the need to replace it.
Perhaps we could use terms like one’s organizing principle or foundation of what is considered true and real—the essence of what drives an individual. This concept is not inspired by religion but rather by personal conviction.
Jacobsen: When we consider the historical dominance of Catholicism or Christianity in general among the Canadian population, in the 1970s, around 90% of the population identified as Christian. By 2001, this number had dropped to about three-quarters; according to the 2021 census, it was around 53 or 54%. How does this changing religious demographic, with increasing diversity and a decline in Christian representation, alter people’s perceived needs?
Shoemaker: The secularization you referred to, which began after the Enlightenment, is indeed what we are witnessing. Although there was a resurgence of religious sentiment during World War II—a common phenomenon as people sought solace in their faith during times of conflict—this trend shifted again in the 1960s with the rise of anti-establishment movements.
As a result, secularism took hold, leading people to question the institutions they were raised in, including their churches. Many parents who raised their children in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s instilled seeds of doubt in them. These children, who were exposed to education in Western democracies, encountered diverse perspectives through subjects like philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history. This exposure broadened their worldview, contributing to the secularization we observe today, as reflected in your statistics.
This trend is particularly pronounced among younger generations, such as Generation X, Generation Z, and millennials. These cohorts, heavily influenced by digital technology and social media, have not developed the small, close-knit communities that previous generations might have, such as church groups or local community organizations. Consequently, society has seen a secular shift, especially among young people, while older generations have largely maintained their traditional practices.
Furthermore, younger generations tend not to participate in face-to-face meetings as much as their predecessors did, preferring to engage with others through their cell phones or online platforms. This shift has affected religious institutions and led to a decline in membership in many other traditional organizations, such as service clubs like Kiwanis, which need help attracting younger members.
I have also consulted with several professional associations, such as the Real Estate Brokers of Vancouver and the Architectural Institute here, and they also need help recruiting recent graduates. The underlying issue is that young people today are less inclined to join organizations.
Part of this secularization can be attributed to parents’ diminished control over the information their children consume. Nowadays, young people can access virtually any information they desire on the Internet, which has supplemented and, in some cases, replaced parental guidance. While they may still join groups, these are often related to transient activities like playing video games or other social engagements. They might meet for drinks at a bar and then part ways or have brief relationships that do not develop into lasting connections. This era is marked by significant fragmentation in social relationships.
Psychologists have extensively studied this phenomenon, and it is a key component of the secular movement, which is not always viewed as the most beneficial aspect of modern society. While young people are no longer being indoctrinated by religious figures or even by their parents to the extent they once were, this freedom has also led to increased anxiety within this secular generation.
When young people are asked in surveys what religious affiliation they have, many respond that they are not religious. This reflects the fact that they have severed ties with their families’ religious practices, even if their families attended Church and they do not participate in religious services themselves. This is the significant shift we are seeing in secularism.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/07
A seasoned Musician (Vocals, Guitar and Piano), Filmmaker, and Actor, J.D. Mata has composed 100 songs and performed 100 shows and venues throughout. He has been a regular at the legendary “Whisky a Go Go,” where he has wooed audiences with his original shamanistic musical performances. He has written and directed nerous feature films, web series, and music videos. J.D. has also appeared in various national T.V. commercials and shows. Memorable appearances are TRUE BLOOD (HBO) as Tio Luca, THE UPS Store National television commercial, and the lead in the Lil Wayne music video, HOW TO LOVE, with over 129 million views. As a MOHAWK MEDICINE MAN, J.D. also led the spiritual-based film KATERI, which won the prestigious “Capex Dei” award at the Vatican in Rome. J.D. co-starred, performed and wrote the music for the original world premiere play, AN ENEMY of the PUEBLO — by one of today’s preeminent Chicana writers, Josefina Lopez! This is J.D.’s third Fringe; last year, he wrote, directed and starred in the Fringe Encore Performance award-winning “A Night at the Chicano Rock Opera.” He is in season 2 of his NEW YouTube series, ROCK god! J.D. is a native of McAllen, Texas and resides in North Hollywood, California.
On Tejano Music 5: Introduction to Selena Quintanilla-Pérez, “Queen of Tejano Music”
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I wanted to focus on individual stars in the history of Tejano music. So, regarding Selena, who has come up several times in the last few weeks in our sessions, when did she start coming into the limelight? How did she become the early queen of Tejano?
J.D. Mata: She was only 23 when she died, so her career was cut short. Despite this, Selena is the most covered Tejano artist in history. Everything has been written about her, but I am still interested because I want to share my perspective. As a Tejano artist and from my perspective, having been there during the launch of her career and the rise of Tejano music, my viewpoint will make this particular episode enjoyable.
Jacobsen: Her career must have started in her teens, meaning her talent was recognized much earlier.
Tejano: From what I know, Selena started gaining attention in the early 1980s. She was born in Lake Jackson, Texas, close to Houston. Due to financial reasons, her family moved to Corpus Christi, about a couple of hours from where I’m from, in McAllen, Texas. Selena’s father, Abraham Quintanilla Jr., was a musician with his band. He was already a working musician, and the way the story goes, Abraham was very strict and determined. He noticed that his youngest daughter, Selena, had perfect pitch, likely in the early 1980s or even the late 1970s, since she was born in 1971.
I’m not sure exactly when Abraham first realized Selena could sing so well, but since he was a musician, he had already taught his son A.B. (Abraham Isaac Quintanilla III) to play bass, and they eventually convinced the older sister, Suzette, to play drums. This was the beginning of the band Selena y Los Dinos.
When the family moved to Corpus Christi, they opened a restaurant called Papa Gayo’s, where Selena, still a little girl, would sing. They paid their dues, played at the restaurant, had birthday parties, and did whatever else they could. Abraham became their manager, and they started from the ground up—no nepotism, no shortcuts.
At that time, the Tejano music industry still needed to be fully formed. The term “Tejano” wasn’t widely used yet. Back then, it was referred to as Chicano or orchestral music. It was a male-dominated industry with few female artists, and Selena and her family needed connections to help them. They truly came from nothing.
The only thing they had going for them was Mexican and Mexican-American grit. A father who was very driven didn’t drink, and I think they were Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was a very devout Jehovah’s Witness. Nothing can stop you when you have spirituality, purpose, and righteousness. And then you combine that with talent.
I don’t think people realize how much of an impact Selena’s dad had. I’m sure some do, but that’s the only reason Selena became famous. Her father had to do everything, from knowing how to fix the tour bus to having business acumen. He was no-nonsense. Nobody messed with him.
Nobody messed with him because he was a strong, powerful, and naturally gifted entrepreneur. The music industry is also about business. I’ve struggled and found it hard to break in because I haven’t had someone to advocate for me with strong business acumen and a no-nonsense attitude. Many artists have that so that they can break through that impenetrable wall.
For me, man, that’s been a weak point. I’m a very fine artist but a terrible businessperson.
Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned that before.
Mata: Yes. Selena was very astute in business. It’s been written that she wanted to get out of the Tejano industry. She was planning to leave the music industry altogether. She wanted to design her clothing line, and she loved it.
I’m jumping ahead, but she had a clothing line. She designed her clothing, and she loved doing it. She adored fashion. Again, this is speculation, but some evidence suggests that she wanted to leave the music industry to pursue her entrepreneurial spirit in fashion.
Just like her father, who was very headstrong and entrepreneurial, Selena was very entrepreneurial, too. She saw fashion as her future and loved designing clothes. The woman we were talking about earlier, Yolanda Saldívar—the one who killed Selena—was one of the managers of her boutiques. Selena had boutiques where she sold the clothing she designed. It’s speculated that she was planning to leave music and focus solely on her fashion business.
But back to Selena’s journey, I think people must fully understand it. First of all, a lot of it is luck, and a lot of it is hard work. You’ve got to be no-nonsense. Her father was no-nonsense; he didn’t tolerate any foolishness.
The band was very disciplined from the time they were kids. They had to practice regularly. There was no drinking on stage, and they were always punctual. Abraham had a reputation for being very disciplined.
Jacobsen: It sounds like the Jackson 5, whose father was known for highly regimented and directed parenting to get them to perform. Unfortunately, that also came with extremes of abuse. Was there any of that in Selena’s family structure?
Mata: No, there was never any abuse from Abraham Quintanilla Sr. He’s a very good man. He reminds me a lot of my dad, though he didn’t have that entrepreneurial gift.
My dad had many gifts—he was a musician, but he didn’t have the entrepreneurial gift. That was key regarding Selena and the band Selena y Los Dinos. The fact that Abraham Quintanilla, her father, was also a musician meant he understood the industry.
For example, they touched on this in the movie, but when they performed, they weren’t allowed to interact with the audience during Q&As or autograph signings. Mister Quintanilla believed there had to be a mystique. You go, do your show, say your hellos, but you don’t befriend your audience members. It was a very tight ship, and it worked.
You write your songs in Tejano music—there are no covers. While they might perform some older Spanish songs, big hits like “Bidi Bidi Bom Bom” and “Amor Prohibido” were original. Going back to the original question, it was around the late seventies or early eighties that Abraham, a musician himself, saw the potential in his daughter and his kids. He was no-nonsense and recognized the natural genius in them.
Jacobsen: He was also very realistic as a parent.
Mata: Yes. A.B. Quintanilla, Selena’s brother, was the band leader, songwriter, and producer—a gifted and terrific musician. Abraham saw that and thought, “Let’s form a band.” They started small, not in talent, but in resources. They made their lights with cans and did everything on a shoestring budget—something I can relate to as a Tejano artist. I’d be wealthy if I had a nickel for every amplifier I had to lug around. But that’s part of the game.
They did the same. They set up, tore down, and as they got more popular and started touring, they got a tour bus—a used one that broke down a lot. Abraham, being the genius he was, knew about mechanics. Since they couldn’t afford to hire one, he had to learn. So whenever the bus broke down, he’d often fix it.
I’m probably jumping ahead, but going back to the beginning, they were doing it—forming the band. They were so young, but playing was the only way to improve. You can practice a lot at home, and that’s crucial, but to improve, you have to get out there and perform. And they did a lot of that. They paid their dues as kids growing up.
Selena did speak Spanish. She sang in Spanish, but her Spanish was broken when she first started getting interviewed. However, she improved over time.
Speaking of which, this is a good time to pitch my YouTube series, Rock God. In episode 8, I talk about meeting Selena. The series is about a musician living in Los Angeles who has yet to catch his big break but eventually makes it big in the nursing home market.
And so, in this episode, Aaron, the main character, is broke. He decides to go back to McAllen, Texas, and go back home. But one of the things he does every month is clean Selena’s Hollywood star. So he’s going to clean her star for the last time.
As he’s cleaning the star, a guy riding one of those electric scooters that people use for transportation now hits him in the head. After getting hit, he has an apparition of Selena. She appears and persuades Aaron to stay, telling him to stick it out no matter what.
That’s the way Selena was—someone who made many sacrifices. She stuck it out. She didn’t go to her prom or attend any football games. High school football is huge in Texas. She ended up getting her GED, but they sacrificed everything growing up.
Everything. Friends, experiences—everything. You had to. There was no other way. I left my hometown and have been here in Los Angeles since ’99. I sacrificed everything, too. My regimen is strict; I must practice my guitar and piano daily. I can’t go on vacation because I have to be ready.
What if the opportunity comes? What if someone calls and says, “Hey, we need you to play at The Whisky”? Or if you get a call for a role in a series?
Every relationship I’ve been in has been wrecked because I’m disciplined and true to my craft. I didn’t come to Los Angeles to fall in love—I came to make it big. Maybe I was summoned here.
Jacobsen: Maybe you came to Los Angeles because you loved the craft.
Mata: Yes, for sure. I was. But my DNA summoned me because I come from a family of actors and musicians. I was chosen to try and make it big, to represent my family significantly. It’s a huge responsibility. I get it. I understand Abraham Quintanilla Sr.’s attitude, making his kids sacrifice everything for the music and the band. It’s like my life. Everything revolves around my craft and my art, trying to get out of this hole I’m in and breakthrough.
That’s why they broke down so many barriers. Despite being a young woman in a male-dominated industry, she got Selena where she was without any nepotism or handouts, all grit, hard work, and talent.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/06
Daniel Shea, M.Sc. is the founder and CEO of Chatoyance. Shea possesses a Master’s degree in Computer Science from the University of New Hampshire, with several years of industry experience in software engineering. He has published freelance articles on foreign exchange market strategy analysis and has published software analyzing fractals in the foreign exchange markets. Leveraging his experience with software design and financial markets, he started Chatoyance with the intent of transforming the way independent investors approach the foreign exchange market.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When did this interest in test construction truly come forward for you?
Daniel Shea: My involvement came about from conversations with Chris Cole and Dean Inada. There had been an effort to implement an adaptive, generative test many years ago, but it reached a point where conceiving of new high-range questions became increasingly difficult and there were some technical challenges in actually coding a platform to take such a test. Since I had some background on the technical side, I offered to assist.
Shea: These tests, and other high-range tests available today, are untimed and unsupervised, which introduces many self-evident problems, chief among them being that people will leak answers or collaborate with others. Some of these issues may have been less prevalent at the time these tests were originally constructed in the 1980s and 1990s, but for several years now, many of the answers to these tests have been made available on various message boards or Usenet groups. In some instances, the answers are incorrect or there are multiple answers floating around which muddy the waters, but this is not always the case.
A test should not be entirely discarded just because one or two answers have been leaked. On the other hand, if enough answers have been leaked that one could achieve a sufficiently close score to a given society’s cutoff, that society may need to take a vote on whether to continue to allow the test to be used for admission. There is an ongoing effort to identify tests that have been compromised to such a degree, but that judgment call is not an exact science.
Much of the background on the motivation for a dynamic test has been covered in Chris Cole’s September 2001 article “How to Protect High-Range Tests” in Noesis #155. To quote, “In looking at many tests, there is a certain pattern that appears. It is possible to classify the problems into groups. For example, Ron Hoeflin has a group of problems about cells formed by intersecting various solids such as spheres, cubes, etc. The solution to one member of this group (say, three cubes) does not help much in the solution of another (say, two cones and a sphere). Yet it might be the case that there is an underlying mathematics that yields the answers to all of the problems in the group. Then a very large number of problems could be generated, where the solution to one problem would not help in the solution of another. This would be ideal for creating an on-line test, because cheating would be impossible.” I would probably caution that this does not make cheating outright impossible, but introduces another layer of security.
Jacobsen: Similarly, what was the origin and inspiration for joining this small team – the facts and the feelings?
Shea: In a way, the fact that the team was so small made it easier to join. There was a website, mental-testing.com, that had an initial version of the adaptive test, but it was not working at the time that I joined, so the decision was made to rewrite it from the ground up. With greenfield projects in general, there are more degrees of freedom and less rigidity in its development. The ability to make some sort of impact, even if only on a technical level, was appealing. There is also the fact that the Ultra Test and the Power Test, which are the only tests used for Mega Society admission at this point in time, will eventually be spoiled in their entirety, at which point there will be no viable test for admission without some suitable replacement.
Jacobsen: As an open credit to Cole and Inada, what have been each of their major contributions to the development of the Adaptive IQ Test (2003-present)? (Anyone else, too?) For examples, “How to Protect High-Range Tests” by Chris Cole comments on the difficulties in test questions/high-range tests remaining non-compromised in the internet era, the cost in open-sourcing test creation and norming, and the possibility in designing high-range tests with more foundational principles of math to generate questions (through schemas). Subsequently, “Reply to Chris Cole on Norming High-Range Tests” by Dean Inada commented on something like probability sloping for relative hardness of problems per person and problem. They were discussing, in essence, some foundations for–what would become–the Adaptive IQ Test.
Shea: The background discussed in those articles serves as the foundation for what the Adaptive IQ Test has become in its current iteration. Dean Inada, in his response article, writes “we’ll want a better method of norming the tests than simply ranking people by the number of questions they get correctly, since one person may be asked harder questions than another. I suggest a method that tries to estimate for each question the probability of getting it right or wrong as a function of a person’s percentile rank in the population, this rank is estimated by multiplying the generally increasing and decreasing functions for the problems gotten right and wrong.” The Adaptive IQ Test implements this, modeling an individual curve for the test-taker based on their responses to each administered item and its item curve, and presenting a problem variant accordingly.
Shea: As noted, I do not have a formal background in psychometrics. My involvement in the project has been largely technical in nature, drawing on prior general software engineering skills to implement the problem schemas and adaptive component, design the user interfaces for each problem (some may require drawings, some may require filling in a grid, etc.), automate the norming and curving for each item as results come in, and so on. Indeed, the largest challenge has been in conceiving of suitable problem schemas, which I am happy to brainstorm but of course defer to those with a deeper background than my own. Between that and ensuring problem variants are all similarly challenging, progress is ongoing.
Jacobsen: What skills and considerations, in an overview, seem important for both the construction of test questions and making an effective schema for them?
Shea: Among the questions that exist in the current alpha version of the test, these were largely derived from existing problems authored by Ron Hoeflin. The sense was that it was not the problems themselves that were fundamentally at fault here, but rather that it took more effort to vet a sufficient problem than it did for someone to go on to leak it.
With that said, deriving a schema that generates problems of similar difficulty is a challenge, and often requires restricting the degrees of freedom for the generator itself. For instance, the Mega and Titan item analysis has shown that the interpenetrating solid questions tend to be among the most challenging, but the degree to which they are challenging varies significantly. Consider the three interpenetrating solid questions on Ron Hoeflin’s Power Test, which are lifted from the Mega and Titan Tests. There is a notable difference in the difficulty of the interpenetrating cube and tetrahedron compared to the interpenetrating three cubes compared to the interpenetrating two cones and one cylinder. It would not be good practice to include a general schema for any configuration of interpenetrating solids. Rather, you would need to classify these by difficulty and generate them separately. But where does this classification come from? Item analysis gets you started, but at a certain point, you also depend on a sufficient number of people to take the test and get a better idea of the difficulty and signal of each variant.
Jacobsen: How do you help with problem schemas, adaptivity, user interfaces, and renorming? How are the problem schemas developed from the Mega, Titan, and Ultra, tests, e.g., the six sides question from the Ultra Test (problem 45) and grid sequences from the Power Test (problems 32-36)?
Shea: In some ways, it is difficult to discuss particular schemas at length because doing so may reveal the underlying pattern in the process. Many schemas are derived programmatically, while some do not have a proven underlying pattern but are bucketed in the same schema, such as the interpenetrating solid variants discussed prior.
User interfaces are designed according to the requirements of the problem. The most challenging interfaces have been the sixth side problem, which requires drawing on a canvas and scoring the answer in a way that accommodates any orientation of the object, and the three dice problem, whose challenge was less with the user interface per se and more with the backend construction of each variant.
Norming is automatically done after each test has been completed. This also backfills prior test-takers, whose estimates are updated accordingly. In the interest of fairness, there are two metrics presented: the immutable estimate per the norm at the time of the test’s completion and the most recent estimate per the latest norm.
Jacobsen: How are verbal problems capable of presenting appropriately challenging problems with variation in type while sustaining similarity of difficulty? Is this replicable across other problem types, e.g., spatial, numerical/quantitative, matrices, etc.?
Shea: Verbal problems in particular have been quite tricky. In the current form of the test, there are trial questions which are presented to the test-taker but do not impact their estimated curve. These trial questions include some, but not all, of the verbal questions. This is in part because verbal problems that have a clean generalization tend to be quite easy to solve. Unlike problems with a more mathematical or logical approach, verbal problems tend to be self-contained, and if generalizable at a high-range, risk producing variants that are far more esoteric than others. This class of problems continues to present the greatest challenge.
Jacobsen: Potentially, what are roadblocks test-takers tend to make in terms of thought processes and assumptions around time commitments on these high-range tests? So, they get artificially low scores.
Shea: In terms of time commitments, at this point, there is no limitation to the length of time that a test may be completed. Historically, it would have been more difficult to enforce, as most high-range tests are made available in their entirety to the public. There are some approaches that are taken to minimize leakage of the questions themselves, such as with Paul Cooijmans requiring test-takers to directly request a copy of the test, though my understanding is that this is done to prevent public discussion of the questions and, in turn, their answers, as opposed to any limitations on time taken to complete the test. Timed tests do allow for a measurement of processing speed to some degree, as well as a standardization of test-taking conditions, but given that these particular tests are already being administered without supervision and in whichever environment the test-taker prefers due to the questions requiring a significant amount of time to answer, timing the test could risk giving an unfair advantage to those who simply have more free time to commit.
As far as thought processes, I do not have enough insight into individual test-takers to make broad generalizations about their personal approaches to these problems. From what I have witnessed myself through discussions with others, there is, perhaps unsurprisingly, a tendency to overthink a question or use complicated reasoning to justify a suspected answer, thereby getting it wrong. Almost every time, the answer is clean; like learning how a magic trick is performed, the question once looked impossible but suddenly seems deceptively simple.
Jacobsen: What are the most appropriate means by which to norm and re-norm a test when, in the high-range environment so far, the sample sizes tend to be low and self-selected, so attracting a limited supply and a tendency in a type of personality?
Shea: Since norms are performed on test completion, the process has little overhead. To accommodate low sample sizes, an initial item curve is provided for questions when known. For example, if a schema is adopted from a prior test such as the Ultra Test, then the item curve for that problem is used as the seed for this test. In some cases, such as novel schemas which do not have a prior item curve from which to draw, the curve starts out flat and is gradually shaped based on the test-taker’s answers to other questions.
With these sorts of tests, the low sample size continues to be a problem, but part of this high barrier to entry may be the historical nature of how these tests were administered, between accessibility and cost to score. By making the test available online and without charge, the hope is that this may motivate others to try it out.
As far as the types of personalities that are drawn to high-range tests, I defer to Grady Towers’ observations in Noesis #141 regarding the types of personalities that exist across different societies and the corresponding tests used for their admission. Perhaps there is something to be said for stressing both verbal and non-verbal aptitude.
Jacobsen: The Adaptive IQ Test website opens with a series of claims:
This is an online IQ test that contains several innovative features. Here are some reasons to take this test.
As you answer more questions, the estimate of your rank in the population becomes more accurate.
You see a graph of your estimated rank, not just a single number.
You are allowed to skip questions and come back to them.
You are automatically asked questions that will help make your estimated rank more accurate.
As more people take the test, the graphs become more accurate.
There are a number of anti-cheating devices being used.
The results of this test may be used for acceptance into various high IQ societies.
Any points of clarification that have been needed on any of these at any time in the past from prospective/actual test-takers or the curious? They can be stated here.
Shea: Some of these points are better characterized as statements of fact about the functionality of the test itself, such as the ability to skip questions. One point to clarify about items 1 and 5 is that the estimate for a completed test may change over time as the test is repeatedly normed. There are plenty of cases across other IQ tests where an individual completes the test and receives an estimate only for subsequent test-takers to receive a lower estimate with the same raw score due to the ceiling being lowered through norms over time, and vice versa. As the adaptive test is normed here, all estimates are updated in unison, preventing this discrepancy between raw scores and percentile estimates across different test-takers. As mentioned earlier, both the estimate at the time of the test’s completion and the most up-to-date estimate are presented for completeness.
Jacobsen: What tests and test constructors have you considered good?
Shea: The gold standard for high-range testing has always been Ron Hoeflin’s series of tests. These serve as the foundation for much of the existing questions in the current early version of the Adaptive IQ Test. Beyond him, there are many test constructors who have quite novel test items that could be of inspiration.
There is value in multidimensional tests that select for both high-range spatial and verbal problems. I again cite Grady Towers, who wrote of this back in 1998 over the course of several letters published in Noesis #141, where he reflected on the implications for high IQ societies that admit members on the basis of tests that stress both verbal and spatial skills as opposed to one or the other.
Jacobsen: What have you learned from helping in the making of a test?
Shea: It is important to not let “perfect” be the enemy of “good.” There will always be shortcomings with any approach. Care needs to be taken to minimize these shortcomings and accommodate them to the extent possible.
Perhaps a second learning is that there is a high-range test vacuum of sorts, and that vacuum is being filled with any number of experimental high-range tests. This is not necessarily an issue in itself, as many of these test items are intriguing and derived from historical best practices, including the very test being discussed here. More to the point, ideally, those with a formal background in psychometrics would be more involved. I am happy to help where I can, but I also recognize my own limits in this space.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Daniel.
Shea: Thank you for giving me the chance to highlight this project! I feel the need to stress that it is very much in an alpha state and that development is ongoing, but that progress is being made. Special thanks go to Chris Cole and Dean Inada for the decades of work that they put into this long before I arrived, Werner Couwenbergh for his hard work on the interpenetrating solid variants, those who provided input thus far (John Fahy, Nathan Hays, Rick Rosner, and Glen Wooten, among others), and everyone who has provided feedback. I am but a vessel, helping to bring this to fruition where possible.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists UK enjoyed great success this week at the Liberal Democrats Party Conference where we staff heard from MPs of the critical importance voters placed on humanist issues during the election campaign.
At the Lib Dem Conference we had both a stand and a fringe event, while our affiliated group Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats (HSLD) had a fringe. We had many MPs by our stand, discussing key campaigns like humanist marriages, assisted dying, and education, and found widespread support for our position. That included many key frontbenchers. One MP told us ‘We heard humanist issues much more on the doorstep this election’, showing the increasing significance of our work.
On Monday we had well over 100 guests at our fringe, with people being turned away at the door. Five new MPs spoke at the event, namely Freddie Van Mierlo, Tom Morrison, Claire Young, Max Wilkinson, and Steffan Aquarone. As did All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group Vice Chair Baroness Lorely Burt, HSLD Chair Claire Delderfield, and Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson.
Andrew Copson also joined the HSLD’s panel ‘No one should be enslaved…’ Why a secular state would benefit everyone on 15 September. The well-attended event was chaired by HSLD Vice-Chair Jenni Wilkinson. Speakers at the panel included the newly elected MP Tom Gordon and Baroness Burt.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
New research by Sutton Trust, Social Selection on the Map, has found that areas with more faith schools, particularly those areas with Catholic schools, have higher levels of socio-economic segregation than those areas with fewer schools with a religious character.
This research reflects the Sutton Trust’s report from January 2024, Selective Comprehensives 2024, which found that faith schools were ‘consistently more socially selective’ than schools without a religious character. Whereas the January 2024 report looked at ‘high performing’ schools, this latest study by Sutton Trust looks deeper into geographical patterns of socio-economic segregation in the comprehensive system to show ‘the wider impacts of selection’.
The new report by the Sutton Trust is just the latest in a number of studies highlighting that disadvantaged pupils are more likely to be discriminated against in faith-based admissions criteria, with the Education Policy Institute and the Office of Schools Adjudicator publishing similar findings.
Humanists UK has long campaigned for an end to religiously selective admissions policies on the basis that they segregate children by faith, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and prior attainment. In 2013 it helped launch the Fair Admissions Campaign which revealed for the first time the extent that schools religiously and socio-economically select and set out how religiously selective schools are invariably breaking the School Admissions Code.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘This report by Sutton Trust provides yet more evidence that faith-based admissions policies are bad for children, families, and society. Faith schools often perform better, not because of the quality of their faith-based education, but because they are socially selective, and they are socially selective because their faith-admissions criteria disadvantage children from poorer backgrounds.
‘Every child deserves the best possible education but sadly many are being failed by the admissions criteria of state-funded faith schools. It’s time for the School Admissions Code to be amended to require every state school to be open to all regardless of religion or belief.’
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Pictured: Second from right, Laura Lacole, Northern Ireland Humanists patron, Humanists UK assisted dying rally, Westminster, London, April 2024
A recent survey carried out by LucidTalk has shown that 67% of respondents in Northern Ireland back assisted dying becoming legal for terminally ill or incurably suffering people. This result reflects a growing desire for reform, with campaigners urging Stormont to take action. Northern Ireland Humanists is now calling for the creation of a Citizens’ Assembly to ensure that public opinion is properly considered.
The poll posed the question: ‘Would you support the legalisation of assisted dying in Northern Ireland for adults of sound mind who are terminally ill or suffering intolerably from an incurable condition? The law would include rigorous safeguards.’
The breakdown of responses is as follows:
Definitely: 40%
Probably: 27%
Don’t know or not sure: 5%
Probably not: 9%
Definitely not: 19%
The polling was commissioned by My Death, My Decision Northern Ireland.
Boyd Sleator, Northern Ireland Coordinator for Humanists UK, said:
‘This poll makes it clear that a significant majority of people in Northern Ireland are ready for a compassionate law on assisted dying. It is crucial that the voices of those who are terminally ill or suffering unbearably are heard, and that they are offered the choice to end their suffering with dignity. A Citizens’ Assembly would be the ideal way to bring a diverse range of views together, ensuring that any future legislation reflects the will of the people.
‘Northern Ireland has a unique opportunity to lead the way in crafting progressive, evidence-based laws that respect individual autonomy while ensuring proper protections. The conversation around assisted dying is taking place across the UK, Ireland, and beyond, and it’s time for Northern Ireland to actively engage with it.’
Notes
Polling was carried out by Belfast-based polling and market research company LucidTalk. The project was carried out online for a period of 4 days from 16th to 19th August 2024. 3,443 full responses were received. A data auditing process was then carried out to ensure all completed poll-surveys were genuine ‘one-person, one-vote’ responses, and this resulted in 1,051 responses being considered and verified as the base data-set (weighted and unweighted). 3,443 people responded to the question.
For further comment or information, media should contact Boyd Sleator. Northern Ireland Coordinator at boyd@humanists.uk or phone 07918 975795.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Peers this week debated a law proposing to extend priority entry to the House of Lords for women bishops over men. Several peers used the opportunity to challenge the fact that bishops are in the House of Lords at all.
When women bishops were first introduced in 2015, a law was passed that gave women bishops priority entry to the Lords over their male colleagues for the next ten years, in order to try to make the 26 bishops in the Lords more gender-balanced. However, as of today, only six of the bishops are female. As a result, the Government-proposed Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill seeks to extend the preference of women bishops entering the House of Lords over more senior male bishops for a further five years.
However this does not fix the more fundamental issue of the inherently discriminatory and unequal practice of having 26 seats in our legislature given by right to the clergy of the established religion. This is a practice shared, out of sovereign states, only by Iran.
The role of the bishops faced fierce criticism in the chamber, with All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) member Lord Birt described the bishops as a ‘feudal legacy, embedded centuries before the notion of democracy gathered pace.’ He also raised the fact that we are an increasingly diverse and non-religious country. In fact the 2021 British Attitudes Survey found that over half the population were non-religious. APPHG member Lord Scriven also pointed out there is strong public support around removing bishops from the Lords, in fact 62% of the British public support their removal.
Speaking about the Bishops in the House of Lords, Lord Birt said:
‘My Lords, the reality is that we are now an incredibly diverse society, a society comprised of people embracing many faiths and none. And we should not embark on a long-overdue radical reform of this House without recognising that fact; and without recognising that embedding the Church of England in our legislature is an indefensible, undemocratic anomaly…
‘That said, my Lords, the greatest strength of this House is its diversity, its range of expertise, perspective and experience. I have the great possible respect for the individual qualities, for the inherent goodness of leaders I have met in my time from many faiths… And I would hope and expect to see faith leaders of every kind represented in a reformed House, but appointed on individual merit, not as exercising a right existing in one form or another for half a millennium.’
Baroness Brinton, a Christian, also queried the bishops, saying, ‘Surely this [Bill] is avoiding the well-overdue question of how many bishops, if any, should be in Parliament—a matter last considered in 1878.’
The Government has committed to making the House of Lords a democratic chamber and it is therefore hoped that the current legislation is just a stopgap measure, meaning that, while the bishops remain, women bishops get priority – as opposed to any endorsement of their ongoing presence. As part of democratising the Lords it has made the welcome first move to remove the hereditary peers,. Humanists UK hopes the bishops will be next, as after the hereditary peers are gone only they and the life peers (appointed by the political parties or on merit) will remain. The bishops will therefore stick out like a sore thumb.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson commented:
‘No modern democracy should have reserved places in its legislature for one particular denomination of one religion. It is time that this undemocratic and discriminatory arrangement is consigned to history where it belongs. Both parliamentarians and the public alike support this move and we look forward to working with the Government when it gets around to this reform.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Pictured: Humanists UK assisted dying rally with My Death My Decision, Westminster, London, April 2024
A groundbreaking citizens’ jury has recommended that assisted dying should be legalised, with 20 out of 28 members supporting changing the law. Humanists UK welcomes the report, and hopes that politicians in the UK follow the public’s will to legalise assisted dying.
The jury, commissioned by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, comprising a representative cross-section of the English population, looked at this topic in depth over an eight-week period. The jury engaged in extensive deliberations, hearing from a wide array of experts, including Humanists UK, before reaching their decision. A significant majority, 20 out of 28 members, supported changing the law to allow the terminally ill to have a compassionate death. Seven members did not support legalisation, with one undecided.
The most important reasons given by members of the jury in favour of permitting assisted dying that gained the greatest number of votes were:
To stop pain
Having the option to end your own life
Knowledge that you can die with dignity if the time comes
In a second question, jury members were asked: ‘If the law is changed to permit assisted dying in England, what should it include? What should it exclude?’. They had to choose up to five options. Nine also voted that ‘Intolerable suffering (physical) should be considered within the eligibility criteria.’ with no votes to exclude it.
Should the law remain unchanged, the jury also recommended decriminalising the act of assisting someone to travel abroad for assisted dying and advocated for increased funding for NHS palliative care.
This citizens’ jury is the first of its kind in England and is a crucial contribution to the ongoing debate on assisted dying. The findings come at a time of active legislative discussions in Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, and crown dependencies. A full report, including further analysis of public opinion and detailed jury findings, will be published in early 2025.
Andrew Copson, Humanists UK’s Chief Executive, said:
‘Every single survey for decades has concluded that the majority of people in the UK want to see assisted dying legalised. People who don’t want the law to change dismiss this, claiming the public doesn’t understand the topic. Now, this jury has gone in-depth and come to the same conclusion. The result is clear, unequivocal, and undeniable – the public wants the law to change.
Now is the time for politicians to act. There can be no doubt that the public wants a law that gives people choice, compassion and dignity. Adults who are suffering with no hope of a cure deserve the right to choose a dignified and peaceful death. We must legalise assisted dying now.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Assisted Dying Campaigner Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456 200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists UK returned to Conway Hall for the 2024 Voltaire Lecture, given by distinguished economist and philosopher Daniel Chandler, the recipient of the Humanists UK 2024 Voltaire Lecture Medal.
Daniel’s lecture delved into the ideals of a just society, drawing inspiration from the work of the American philosopher John Rawls, while underscoring the pressing need to tackle contemporary challenges facing liberal democracy and escalating inequality.
Daniel argued that the current political climate lacks a unified vision for a better society, often focusing on incremental changes rather than sweeping, transformative reform – with explicit references to Voltaire himself, Enlightenment thinking, and reason and science as engines of progress. He introduced the philosophy of John Rawls as a robust framework for envisioning a fair and equitable society, as outlined in Rawls’s book The Theory of Justice.
John Rawls and The Theory of Justice
Chandler outlined Rawls’s idea of a fair system of social cooperation, which is rooted in the principles of fairness and mutual cooperation. He described Rawls’s thought experiment, the ‘original position’ and ‘veil of ignorance’, which suggests that a just society is one that individuals would choose without knowing their status or position within it. From this premise, Rawls derives two essential principles: the basic liberties principle and the equality principle.
First, the guarantee of basic liberties for all, encompassing personal and political freedoms. Second, the idea of equality, consisting of fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle. The latter, Daniel notes, posits that inequalities are only permissible if they advantage everyone, especially the least well-off.
Creating a fairer and more equal society
Daniel proposed that Rawls’s theories offer innovative solutions for revitalising democracy and restructuring capitalism. To enhance democratic systems, he suggested measures such as limiting political donations, increasing public funding for elections, implementing proportional representation in voting, and expanding the role of citizens’ assemblies.
Turning to economics, Daniel advocated for policies such as a universal basic income, ‘pre-distribution’ strategies to combat inequality at its roots, and a shifting of the balance of power within workplaces. He criticised the prevalent ‘shareholder primacy model’ of companies, where owners or shareholders have exclusive control over those enterprises. He argued that this approach was neither natural nor inevitable, and advocated for greater worker involvement and participation in decision-making in business.
Following a lively and wide-ranging Q&A, Andrew Copson awarded Daniel Chandler the prestigious Voltaire Lecture Medal for ‘his clear and captivating prospectus we could all look to when trying to bring about a society, where rational thinking and kindness prevail.‘
Notes
About Daniel Chandler
Daniel Chandler is an economist and philosopher based at the London School of Economics. He has degrees in economics, philosophy, and history from Cambridge and the LSE, and was awarded a Henry Fellowship at Harvard where he studied under Amartya Sen. He has worked in the UK Government as a policy advisor in the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit and Deputy Prime Minister’s Office, and as a researcher at think tanks including the Resolution Foundation and Institute for Fiscal Studies.
About the Voltaire Lecture series
The Voltaire Lecture explores ‘any aspect of scientific or philosophical thought or human activity as affected by or with particular reference to humanism’. The Voltaire medallist has made a significant contribution in one of these fields.
The lecture and medal are named for the philosopher Voltaire. The inaugural lecture took place in 1968 and was delivered by Theodore Besterman, biographer of Voltaire, who went on to fund the lecture series in his legacy.
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 020 7324 3072 or 020 3675 0959.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Counter-extremism think tank Nahamu has published a new Education Policy Position Paper in which it has argued that the UK Government needs to legislate to close loopholes in education law that enable illegal faith schools in England to continue to operate. The Government should also establish a register of home-educated children to make sure they are receiving an ‘adequate and appropriate education’. Thankfully the Government is proposing to do just that through its current Children’s Wellbeing Bill. Humanists UK has welcomed the Paper.
Nahamu is an organisation that campaigns for better education for UK-based Charedi Jewish children. In its briefing paper it highlights how many Charedi boys are wholly unable to speak, write, or read English. Using testimony of former students and parents, it reports that this is because many Charedi boys attend unregistered, or illegal, schools, and receive no education in English, maths, or science beyond the age of 13. The briefing further states that parents make ‘spurious’ home education claims and ‘dishonest’ reports to Ofsted including providing ‘theoretical timetables’ and work that has not been completed by the children themselves.
There are at least 6,000 children in England missing from mainstream education and who are trapped in unsafe illegal ‘schools’, being subject to a narrow, scriptural education in cramped, unsanitary conditions. Humanists UK has led the campaign to close the legal loopholes, including the lack of a home education register and the limited powers of Ofsted to investigate suspected settings, used by proprietors of illegal faith schools for over a decade.
It is hoped the loopholes exploited by proprietors of illegal schools will now be closed due to measures proposed in the 2024 King’s Speech including a ‘Children Not in School’ register, and powers for Ofsted to investigate the offence of operating an unregistered independent school.
Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:
‘We welcome Nahamu’s latest report which sheds further light on the ways proprietors of illegal schools exploit loopholes in our education system. Every child has the right to a balanced and safe education that will equip them for the future but sadly too many children are being taught a narrow education in unsafe conditions. We need significant changes in the law to close these loopholes.
‘We are glad the Government intends to bring forward legislation to close illegal schools in short order, to make sure every child is given the education they deserve. We look forward to working with ministers and officials to develop these proposals.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Over 200 guests gathered last night for a reception hosted by the US Embassy and Humanists UK to celebrate World Humanist Day. Politicians, representatives of charities and NGOs, and leading lawyers joined celebrants, pastoral carers, volunteers and patrons from Humanists UK.
The evening featured speeches from US Chargé d’Affaires Matthew Palmer; Lord Wajid Khan, the new UK Government Faith and Belief Minister; Vice President of Humanists UK Polly Toynbee; and Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson.
Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson said:
‘Across the world today there is, as there always has been, a struggle between on the one hand the advocates of closed totalitarian societies, and then those who advocate for open societies, for liberty of thought and expression, for freedom and who cherish the natural diversity that human freedom produces.
‘Humanists have always been on that side – the side of freedom and equality and human rights. The United States, as an advocate of international freedom of belief in recent years has given very welcome and appreciated support to those discriminated against or persecuted on account of their humanist beliefs. Together with our other international friends here this evening, we thank them for their work.’
UK Government Faith and Belief Minister Lord Khan echoed these sentiments:
‘As the Government’s minister for faith and belief, which includes humanists, this is not just a chance to be here and speak with you all, but a chance to show this government’s support and appreciation for the humanist community in this country.’
Humanists UK Vice President Polly Toynbee spoke of the enduring values of humanism, the championing of reason, compassion, and equality. She also referred to the work of the US when she said:
‘For a good definition of humanism, and in honour of our hosts this evening, I’d like to offer a quote from the American founding father Thomas Paine (a quote I have up on my wall at home) who put it this way – “My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.”’
As Humanists UK continues to grow in influence, it remains committed to advocating for a world where everyone is free to live according to their values and beliefs without fear of persecution. It is delighted to be able to work with the US on that shared aim.
Notes
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
World Humanist Day is on 21 June each year. The reception was originally scheduled for that date but was delayed due to the UK general election.
US Chargé d’Affaires Matthew Palmer’s speech
‘Good evening. To all of our friends from Humanists UK: welcome to the U.S. Embassy. We’re very happy to have you here and show our support for your work and your mission.
There’s a very old story about two guys sitting in a bar in the remote Alaskan wilderness. One of them is religious, the other is an atheist, and they’ve been arguing about the existence of God with the special intensity that comes after about the fourth beer.
The atheist admits that even he has tested his faith in God. “Just the other week,” he says, “I was caught in a blizzard. I was totally lost and couldn’t see a thing. So, I fell to my knees and cried out: ‘Oh god, if there is a God, please help me!’”
In the bar, the religious guy looks at the atheist, confused. “Well then you must believe now,” he says, “after all, here you are.”
The atheist rolls his eyes: “No, God didn’t help me at all. A few people from the village happened to wander by and showed me the way back to camp.”
The point, at least for our purposes, is not who is right and who is wrong but that the same experience can mean two totally different things to two different people, depending on who they are and what they believe.
We can imagine many more scenarios like this one, and in our increasingly diverse and fractured world, many different ways of constructing meaning from our experiences.
And it will never be our job to decide who is right and who is wrong, or to establish one belief system as orthodox and another as heresy, but to protect everyone’s right to hold their own beliefs: to worship freely, without persecution or discrimination, and just as importantly, not to worship at all or hold non-religious beliefs, without persecution or discrimination.
Unfortunately, I’ve worked in enough countries around the world to see how persecution on the basis of both religious and non-religious beliefs can devastate peoples’ lives and poison a country’s society.
Places where humanists, atheists, and even agnostics can lose their citizenship, their right to marry, their right to pursue a full education or work for their government. Countries where, still today, there is the death penalty for blasphemy – and mob violence against non-believers.
I can tell you for a fact that no matter where you are in the world, countries that don’t treat their citizens equally are objectively worse off by almost every measure.
So, like you, our State Department is working to defend the rights of non-believers around the world. Pressing those countries with restrictive laws to repeal them. Pressuring leaders of those countries to protect all of their citizens from violence and extend to them equal protection under the law. And when necessary, holding accountable those who commit violent crimes against humanists, atheists, or other non-believers.
In my job here in Embassy London, I often think about what a remarkably important example our two countries set. We live in countries where peoples of all faiths and belief systems are respected. Our constitution enshrines the fundamental separation of church and state and ensures that we do not favor religious or secular organizations in our government. More fundamentally, however, both of our societies are built on mutual respect and tolerance – bedrock values that define our special relationship and are a powerful influence on other countries.
On behalf of our Ambassador and everyone at the State Department: thank you all for your efforts to defend those values and promote them around the world. Your friendship and partnership mean a great deal to us, and if anyone wants to argue about the existence of God or the mysteries of the universe later tonight, we’ll have plenty of drinks at the reception to help you get started.
It’s now my pleasure to invite Andrew Copson, your chair, to say a few words.’
Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson’s speech
‘Across the world today there is, as there always has been, a struggle between on the one hand the advocates of closed totalitarian societies, and then those who advocate for open societies, for liberty of thought and expression, for freedom and who cherish the natural diversity that human freedom produces. Humanists have always been on that side – the side of freedom and equality and human rights.
World Humanist Day is our chance every June to celebrate these values. The General Election derailed our original plan, but we’re so pleased to be able to mark it now with all of you and with the United States’ mission to the UK.
The United States, as an advocate of international freedom of belief in recent years has given very welcome and appreciated support to those discriminated against or persecuted on account of their humanist beliefs. When Islamists in Bangladesh published a death list of humanist bloggers and began to machete them one by one; when Gulalai Ismail the founder of humanist feminist projects in Pakistan was detained, and her family tortured; when the President of Humanists in Nigeria Mubarak Bala was arrested for blasphemy, sentenced and imprisoned for 24 years. In all these cases the US has been ready to support with advocacy, asylum, and moral support. Together with our other international friends here this evening, we thank them for their work.
Because in spite of the challenges they face, humanists continue to exercise their human right to association even in the toughest places. I’ve just returned from Singapore where the General Assembly of Humanists International welcomed new member organisations in Malaysia and Indonesia: the first humanist organisations in their countries. Their ambition, courage, and commitment was an inspiration. States that can support them should all do so, and we’re pleased today to have the new UK human rights minister Lord Collins with us this evening too.
As well as our international friends today we’re also joined by many friends in UK civil society. For 130 years Humanists UK has been part of the rich mix of British society. We are pleased to be part of that plural society and to do our bit to value that diversity and work in the active creation of shared values. In that connection, we’re delighted to be joined by Lord Khan, minister in the ministry for communities and local government who will be speaking to us shortly. To him and to all of you, thank you for being here with us, please do take the time to speak with the humanist celebrants, pastoral carers, and other members of our community here this evening, We look forward to fortifying our connections with all of you in the service of our shared values.’
Government Faith and Belief Minister Lord Khan’s speech
‘It is a real pleasure to have been invited by Humanists UK and the US Ambassador to be present for this World Humanist Day celebration. As the Government’s minister for faith and belief, which includes humanists, this is not just a chance to be here and speak with you all, but a chance to show this government’s support and appreciation for the humanist community in this country. In 2021, for Humanists UK’s 125th anniversary, our new Prime Minister Keir Starmer paid tribute to humanists when he said:
“Ever since its foundation as an ethical movement, humanists have contributed enormously to our party’s and our nation’s achievements. Labour’s first Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, was an early President of Humanists UK… [Another early humanist was] Nye Bevan, the creator of the NHS.
Humanists and Humanists UK have been at the forefront of the fight for social change: to decriminalise homosexuality, to end corporal punishment in schools, and to introduce free school meals. But you’ve also played an integral role in our communities: from setting up humanist housing associations and adoption agencies through to today’s very popular humanist ceremonies.“
Today Humanists UK represents 130,000 members and supporters across the UK including through its sections Wales Humanists and Northern Ireland Humanists and its sister association, Humanist Society Scotland.
As the Prime Minister alluded to a few years ago, humanists are a major part of life in the UK today. For example: Humanist pastoral carers actively support people during some of life’s most difficult moments as part of chaplaincy teams of life in 40% of hospitals and 20% of prisons, and more recently as part of the armed forces; humanist school speakers support hundreds of schools each year to deliver high-quality inclusive lessons about humanism alongside religions, with trained volunteers visiting a quarter of a million pupils in classrooms in recent years; and humanist celebrants organise incredibly popular non-religious weddings, funerals, and namings.
And of course many of the UK’s most famous and beloved celebrated artists, writers, thinkers, and broadcasters are humanists. I was looking down the list of Humanists UK’s 200 or so famous patrons and it really is astonishing to see so many household names on that distinguished list. It seems so long ago now, but the fact that humanists are a community of action and not just words was made clear to everyone during the pandemic: One in three members of Humanists UK volunteered in their local community at the height of the pandemic; in addition to humanist funeral celebrants and pastoral carers being on the front line as key workers during that period; while Humanists UK staff also supported the national effort as part of the government’s ethical and moral advisory group and by supporting the vaccine rollout
As the Minister, I also appreciate Humanists UK’s dialogue work with religious groups. As the recent riots have reminded us, hatred and misinformation can spread like wildfire in siloed communities, but it’s difficult for lies and hatred to fester in communities where we already instinctively respect and understand and care for one another as friends and neighbours.
Humanists have always in my experience been keen to bridge the divides in our society, supporting united communities where we can all get along and live well together, side by side, whatever our beliefs.
And I know there are many religious guests and friends of Humanists UK and the US embassy here today who have seen that approach firsthand as well.
I want to end my remarks by saying simply this: thank you. Humanists UK’s community services today benefit over 1.5 million people each year – from weddings and funerals to newer services like a helpline for vulnerable humanists, and asylum support. And, of course, out there in our local communities as well.
That is something that this Government, and I personally, am happy to say I recognise and value. So here’s to the humanist community and all that you do to help make this country great.’
Humanists UK Vice President Polly Toynbee’s speech
‘Humanists UK is approaching its 130th birthday – and it’s already come a long, long way. I can speak for how much Humanists UK has grown since I was President, roughly a decade ago, and in that time not only has the membership ballooned – I believe it was 130,000 members and supporters last I heard – but so too has the practical, on-the-ground impact of Humanists UK.
The number of ceremonies every year has gone through the roof – Northern Ireland is a fabulous example of that – and thousands of people are receiving high-quality support, including on complex issues like asylum and specialist care, for the first time. Everywhere that humanism is treated fairly, we’ve seen huge improvements.
Whether that’s in Wales, where humanists worked as valued partners in supporting the government’s curriculum reform, in Northern Ireland, where thousands of couples since 2018 have taken up the expanded choice of a meaningful humanist ceremony, or of course Scotland, where not only are humanist ceremonies an international success story, they’ve actually driven up marriage numbers as a whole and curiously, appear to have the lowest divorce rates.
Of course, England and Wales still do not have legal humanist ceremonies but Labour in opposition promised to give speedy legal recognition to humanist marriages and we hope they will get on with that soon now they are in government.
There’s also a lot to be said about the value of Humanists UK’s campaigning and advocacy work – I’m proud to be Vice President of the organisation that put together the largest ever coalition of UK civil society groups to protect our Human Rights Act.
That says something, I think, about the motives behind Humanists UK – they really do believe in a world where everyone has equal rights, where every one’s freedom of thought, expression, conscience, and choice is respected.
A good example of that is all the extensive work Humanists UK reports on at the UN Human Rights Council, where it has special consultative status, and uses its platform to champion freedom of religion or belief and speak out against persecution of religious minorities… as well as humanists who, of course, still face terrible punishments and oppression and risk of death in many countries themselves.
Now, I also want to point out that we’re hosting this reception a few short weeks, really, after the riots – and I really do see humanism, with its emphasis on reason, kindness, and consideration, as the antithesis of the horrifying events we saw in our city streets over those days – blind hate, ignorance, and violence.
Of course the humanist view is as the late MP Jo Cox put it – herself a member of Humanists UK – when she said:
“We are more united and have far more in common then that which divides us.“
I really believe this too, and I know that’s Humanists UK’s vision of society as well. Now, given that this is what Humanists UK stands for, we as humanists should ask ourselves this: How can we make that known, better understood?
Well, when I was President of Humanists UK, the tagline was in fact ‘For the one life we have.’ This meant, of course, that humanists believe this is the only life we have and that we should cherish it; that we should lead a good life, do right by others, and make it count. But it takes a bit of unpacking.
Today’s Humanists UK slogan has more emphasis on that same value of positive action, collaboration, and concern for others:
“Think for yourself, act for everyone.”
However, for another good definition of humanism, and in honour of our hosts this evening, I’d like to offer a quote from the American founding father Thomas Paine (I have it up on my wall at home) who put it this way:
“My country is the world, and my religion is to do good”
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
The Government has today brought forward a Bill to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords. Humanists UK has welcomed this move as long overdue reform. But it has also said that the next step should be to remove the 26 Church of England bishops, known as the Lords Spiritual, who also have an automatic right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.
After the hereditary peers are removed, the only peers left will be the life peers – appointed for life by the political parties or on the basis of merit – and the Church of England bishops. The only two sovereign states that have leaders of the state religion get automatic seats in the legislature are the UK and Iran.
The role of the Lords Spiritual is active and influential in law-making. Not only do they speak, vote, and serve on committees like other peers, bishops are subject to a number of privileges. They have their own bench so they always get seats when others have to compete. They have privileged speaking rights over other peers – when a bishop wants to speak, others are expected to give way.
They are exempted from the portions of the Code of Conduct of the Lords that forbid payment for providing advice and services, enabling them to advocate on behalf of the Church of England.
The public overwhelmingly agrees that bishops should not automatically be granted a right to sit in the House of Lords. A survey conducted by YouGov for the Timesseven years ago found that 62 per cent of British adults believe that no religious leaders should have ‘an automatic right to seats’ in Parliament. This sentiment will only have increased with the shift towards a less religious society.
The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill is starting in the House of Commons and is likely to become law sometime next year.
Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson said:
‘This bill to remove the hereditary peers from the House of Lords is a very welcome and long overdue first step, for which the Government should be congratulated. It will make the Lords more representative of UK society.
‘The next step should be to remove the Lords Spiritual. There should be no reserved seats in Parliament for any one religion. The current position is a clear violation of the principle of freedom of religion and belief and equal treatment before the law. With the hereditary peers removed, the bishops’ presence will stick out like a sore thumb.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Over a year on from the landmark High Court judgment which ruled that it was ‘unlawful’ for Kent County Council to refuse humanist representation on its religious education (RE) committee, there are now 125 humanist representatives with full membership on these bodies across England and Wales.
A groundbreaking success for humanism in education
This is an increase of 42 from May 2023 when Mr Justice Constable ruled that it was ‘clearly discriminatory’ for the Council to exclude someone from group A of a Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) ‘solely by reference to the fact that their belief… is a non-religious, rather than a religious, belief’. There are 173 SACREs in total, meaning the number with full membership has gone from less than half to almost three-quarters in a year. Numbers were rising sharply even before the judgment – a decade ago, only around one in seven had full membership.
Since 2015, Religious Education (RE) (outside of faith schools) has been required to be equally inclusive of humanism as it is of the major world religions. For many maintained schools, RE syllabuses are agreed at a local level by each SACRE. The Bowen v Kent ruling was important because it was the first to say that not only must syllabuses not exclude humanism, but also that the local committees overseeing the subject cannot exclude humanists.
Humanist Steve Bowen (2nd right) and his legal team outside the Royal Courts of Justice, 17 May 2023
The landmark High Court judgment
Chair of Kent Humanists, Steve Bowen, applied to become a member of group A of Kent SACRE in August 2021. After much delay, Kent County Council refused permission in June 2022, claiming that to admit him would be unlawful – and Steve decided to judicially review that decision with support from Humanists UK. In May 2023, the High Court ruled that Kent County Council acted unlawfully in rejecting Steve’s membership.
Following that judgment, guidance was issued by the Department for Education (DfE) that stated ‘applications for Group A membership from persons who represent holders of non-religious beliefs should be considered in the same way as applications from those who represent holders of religious beliefs’. Since then Humanists UK has been supporting humanists to gain full membership of their local SACRE and help shape RE syllabuses so they are inclusive of humanism. This is especially important following a recent Ofsted report into RE which found that curriculums typically have little in them about humanism, and do not reflect pupils’ experiences of living in a complex world.
Humanists UK’s Director of Understanding Humanism Luke Donellan said:
‘We are delighted by the progress that has been made since Steve Bowen’s High Court win, to make sure humanists are taking up their rightful place on their local RE committees. These are important bodies that advise local authorities responsible for RE syllabuses and support schools with the delivery of the subject. As such it is vital that humanism is given equal treatment to major world religions when syllabuses are being drawn up.
‘There’s still work to do to make sure every SACRE has a humanist representative with full voting rights, and we are continuing to work with volunteers and local SACREs to achieve full humanist representation across all 173. If you would be interested in volunteering on your local SACRE and supporting us with this important work, we’d love to hear from you.’
Get quality lessons on humanism into the classroom
A balanced, objective approach to religion and belief education is essential. Humanists on their local RE committees can make sure this happens, and that high-quality lessons about humanism is an essential part of any child’s education. Join your local RE committee
How humanists help councils offer better RE: interview with Greta Farian from Kingston SACRE
An essential part of our work for greater inclusivity in schools is to make sure humanists are represented in local Standing Advisory Councils for Religious Education (SACREs) in England and in Wales, the bodies responsible for overseeing the local RE syllabus. We caught up with Greta Farian, humanist rep for Kingston upon Thames SACRE to find out more about the humanist values that underpin her work, as well as reasons you should consider becoming a rep too. Read Greta’s interview
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Director of Public Affairs and Policy Richy Thompson at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
Humanists UK alongside members of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group and delegates at 2023’s party conferences
Humanists UK is gearing up for the party conference season, and during the next month, will have stands or fringes at the Green Party, Liberal Democrats, Conservative Party, and Labour Party conferences. This is your guide to engaging with Humanists UK and the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group over conference season.
Each conference gives attendees the opportunity to discuss humanist issues and campaigns with the major parties. As a charity, Humanists UK is strictly not party-political: for us, these conferences are a chance to lobby MPs and speak to activists from every political tradition.
Green Party Conference, Manchester, 6-8 September
Come meet Humanists UK staff and Green Humanists at our exhibition stand 17 to learn more about our key campaigns. If you’re a Green Humanists member, you can join its meeting at 9:00-10:15 on Sunday 8 September in Exchange 6/7 at Manchester Central Convention Complex. Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson will be speaking to Green Humanists members about our work and answering any questions.
The Liberal Democrat Party Conference, Brighton, 14-17 September
You can say hello to Humanists UK staff at our exhibition stand #34 to find out more about our campaigns and how you can get involved. Then at 18:15-19:15 on Monday 16 September we’ll be holding our Humanists UK Drinks Reception in the Consort Room, The Grand Hotel. We’ll be hearing from Freddie van Mierlo MP, Max Wilkinson MP, Claire Young MP, Steff Aquarone MP, Tom Morrison MP, Baroness Burt, Humanists UK’s Andrew Copson, and Humanist and Secular Liberal Democrats Chair Clare Delderfield.
You can also visit Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats at stand H15, and Andrew Copson will be speaking at its lunchtime fringe event ‘No-one should be enslaved…‘ Why a secular state would benefit everyone, alongside Tom Gordon MP on Sunday 15 September 13:00-14:00 in Meeting Room 1A.
Labour Party Conference, Liverpool, 22-25 September
Join Humanists UK and Labour Humanists at its annual drinks reception on Monday 23 September in ACC Arena Room 10 from 18:30–20:00. The reception will include high-profile speakers like Dame Angela Eagle MP, Rachel Hopkins MP, Ruth Cadbury MP, Dame Nia Griffith MP, Lord Dubs, The Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, and Humanists UK Chief Executive Andrew Copson.
You can also meet with Humanists UK staff and volunteers at exhibition stand D6 at the conference centre.
Conservative Party Conference, Birmingham, 29 September-2 October
Join Humanists UK and Conservative Humanists’ drinks reception to discuss key issues of interest to the non-religious, from blasphemy at home and abroad to inclusive education. Speakers include Cllr Neil Garratt AM, Leader of London City Hall Conservatives, and Dr Ruth Wareham, Humanists UK Education Policy Researcher. The reception will be held at 20:30-22:00 on Monday 30 September in the Drawing Room at the Hyatt Regency Birmingham.
The party political humanist groups (Labour Humanists, Green Humanists, Conservative Humanists, or the Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats) are independent humanist groups within the political parties themselves. They bring non-religious people together in each of those respective parties to advocate for humanist issues and a more secular and rational approach to politics.
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Humanists UK Campaigns Manager Kathy Riddick at press@humanists.uk or phone 0203 675 0959.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
The party political humanist groups (Labour Humanists, Green Humanists, Conservative Humanists, or the Humanist and Secularist Liberal Democrats) are independent humanist groups within the political parties themselves. They bring non-religious people together in each of those respective parties to advocate for humanist issues and a more secular and rational approach to politics.
Organization Description: Humanists UK is the operating name of the British Humanist Association. We are a charitable company (no. 228781), formed in 1896 and incorporated in 1928, and registered in England and Wales. Our governing document is our Articles of Association, which can be viewed here.
A view of Scotland’s Parliament Building, located by Holyrood Park in Edinburgh.
Humanists UK has responded to the Scottish Parliament’s consultation on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, urging it to adopt the most compassionate approach possible. Humanists UK fully supports efforts to legalise assisted dying in Scotland, and commends the comprehensive and thorough process that led to the development of the Bill. However, it believes the eligibility criteria could be improved to include people like Tony Nicklinson, who are incurably suffering but not terminally ill.
Devolved matters pertaining to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are generally dealt with by Humanists UK’s sister charity, Humanist Society Scotland (HSS). Humanists UK has agreed to also respond to this consultation as Scotland’s assisted dying legislation as their law will have a significant impact on the rest of the UK. Humanists UK also endorses HSS’s response.
Humanists UK believes that being able to die, with dignity, in a manner of our choosing must be understood as a fundamental human right. Any assisted dying law must contain strong safeguards, but the international evidence from countries where assisted dying is legal shows that safeguards can be effective.
Under the current proposals in Scotland, a terminally ill person would be allowed medical assistance to die. A person is deemed terminally ill ‘if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death’. This is a more compassionate option than is currently proposed in England and Wales under Lord Falconer’s ‘Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill’ in the House of Lords, which would only be available for people with six months left to live or fewer.
However, Humanists UK believes that the law should not be limited to terminal illness but include people who are suffering. There are several conditions that can cause an individual considerable pain, suffering, and indignity, but may not lead to death. Paralysis from trauma (such as car accidents), locked-in syndrome, ataxia, and severe spinal stenosis may not be considered ‘terminal’ by a doctor.
Humanists UK staunchly supported the case of Tony Nicklinson, a man with locked-in syndrome, when he brought his case to the High Court in a bid to obtain the right to have a doctor end his life without fear of prosecution. In 2005 Tony suffered a catastrophic stroke which left him paralysed from the neck down and unable to speak. He could only communicate via blinking, and described his life as a ‘living nightmare’. In 2012, shortly after he lost his case, he refused food and died. Tony was not terminally ill.
Nathan Stilwell, Assisted Dying Campaigner for Humanists UK, said:
‘Once again Scotland is leading the way when it comes to being a progressive force for change. The proposals in Scotland are more compassionate than those in England and Wales and the Scottish Parliament should be commended for its thorough approach. Dying people shouldn’t be forced to suffer.
‘Nevertheless, there’s a group of people with conditions that cause them intolerable pain that isn’t terminal, and these people will be denied a dignified choice. People like Tony Nicklinson, who suffered for years even though he had a clear and settled wish to die, should be allowed to die on their own terms in a compassionate and dignified way.’
Notes
For further comment or information, media should contact Nathan Stilwell at nathan@humanists.uk or phone 07456200033.
If you have been affected by the current assisted dying legislation, and want to use your story to support a change in the law, please email campaigns@humanists.uk.
Humanists UK is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people. Powered by over 120,000 members and supporters, we advance free thinking and promote humanism to create a tolerant society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We provide ceremonies, pastoral care, education, and support services benefitting over a million people every year and our campaigns advance humanist thinking on ethical issues, human rights, and equal treatment for all.
Organization Description: Secular Connexion Séculière (SCS) is a national organization dedicated to advocating and lobbying for atheist rights in Canada, to facilitating communication and dialogue among Canadian atheists, and to communicating Canadian human rights values to the world. SCS does not have, nor does it seek, any governing powers in the Canadian atheist community. Rather, it seeks support for its efforts to defend non-believers right to freedom from religion, to lobby the Canadian government on the behalf of Canadian atheists, to provide communication conduits for Canadian atheist organizations.
Organization Description: The Secular Coalition for America advocates for religious freedom, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and works to defend the equal rights of nonreligious Americans. Representing 20 national secular organizations, hundreds of local secular communities, and working with our allies in the faith community, we combine the power of grassroots activism with professional lobbying to make an impact on the laws and policies that govern separation of religion and government — or the improper encroachment of either on the other.
A quick Project 2025 update: The director of the project, Paul Dans, announced he was stepping down from the Heritage Foundation. This marks the end of the “policy operations” phase according to news reports. Which makes sense; 920 pages of conservative policy recommendations really seems like enough. Dans’ resignation is something of a response to the ongoing criticism of Project 2025 and of the Heritage Foundation by the Trump campaign because even though the campaign isn’t officially affiliated with Project 2025, campaign officials are repeatedly being asked for comments about the policy recommendations.
It’s important to note that the other part of Project 2025, the gathering and vetting of thousands of resumes from conservatives who want to implement the policy proposals in the federal agencies, will apparently continue. So we’re not declaring victory. Dans was the chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s HR department, so he was a natural for this effort.
The Project 2025 website is still up and the policy proposals are still out there threatening sweeping changes in the relationship between the federal government and the people it is supposed to serve. There’s no reason not to keep talking about it. Take a look at our Top Ten Project 2025 Attacks on Church State Separation.
_________________________________
It’s easy here to get too focused on things like Project 2025 and what’s happening on Capitol Hill and who’s running for president now and what the polls say, and not be as focused on people outside of Washington who already have some real-world problems as opposed to the ones that could boil up after the election. People with problems we might be able to help with now.
But this week I got a call from a guy out West who is in a court-ordered drug rehab program that includes a faith-based component in which he as an atheist should not be forced to participate. And I got a call from a guy in the Midwest where a religious group is growing in size in his area, bringing in people from the East Coast, starting unaccredited schools, and growing in political strength. Last week there was someone in Louisiana who doesn’t want the Ten Commandments posted in her kid’s school. These were reminders that there is already plenty of work to be done for nonreligious Americans with real-world problems.
Fortunately the Secular Coalition is a coalition, and if I don’t know the answer or if someone may need help from an attorney, for example, I can reach out to our coalition members and find someone with experience in solving problems like these. That’s one benefit of working with the other 20 groups. The range of experience is always surprising.
President Biden has at long last reversed his position on Supreme Court reforms and come out in favor of an enforceable code of ethics, 18-year term limits, and for a constitutional amendment stating that “the Constitution does not confer any immunity from federal criminal indictment, trial, conviction, or sentencing by virtue of previously serving as president.” Apparently the Court’s presidential immunity decision was the last straw.
The Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is ready for a vote in the Senate. You can still tell your Senators to support that bill with our Action Alert. Most states have enforceable codes of conduct. It’s just good policy. So are term limits. Forty-six states have term limits for state supreme court judges and three have a mandatory retirement age. (What’s up with Rhode Island?) We need Congress to agree.
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
This article traces the contribution of New Age foodism and “alternative” medicine to a political movement that devalues science, reason and all things “Western”. It’s unlikely that anyone consciously combined the disparate pieces of antagonistic philosophies into a new proto-religion that was then marketed. I argue that this new proto-religion, sometimes referred to as Wokism, is likely a product of cultural evolution whereby random units of culture that Richard Dawkins (1976, 1982) called “memes” combined with other units that could then be copied from brain to brain forming a kind of mind virus (Robertson, 2021). In this article, I argue that New Ageism has played an understudied role in its incubation. The full article can be found here: How pseudoscientific ideas about food and medicine have helped to devalue science, reason, and all things Western (humanisticallyspeaking.org)
Organization Description: This website was created in June 2021 by a group of Canadian Humanists who saw the need for a platform where all subjects of concern to Humanists could be discussed freely and where civilized debate could be held without fear… The members of the New Enlightenment Project Humanist Association adopt the Amsterdam Declaration 2002, as reproduced below, as the Association’s Statement of Values and Principles.
Dr. Alon Milwicki is a senior research analyst in the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: As you reminded me and then taught me a bit further, antisemitism is not static. It’s problematic to make it a single definition. When we’re trying to create a culture in which it is discussed so that people’s experiences and how it manifests are considered more live, what are effective ways to do that in small communities?
Dr. Alon Milwicki: History is always a great place to look. The way antisemitism presents itself in different periods of history is astronomically different because it’s about who’s the dominant group using it and what’s the dominant trope. For example, if you go back to the resource we put out, those four examples we chose were the most prominent tropes or prominent manifestations, the way antisemitism manifested within other and more dominant narratives.
One of the things that I would update is to talk about the utilitarianism of the Jew. That is one of the dominant tropes that is being used right now. Now, a lot of people, especially those who think that waving an Israeli flag or Christian nationalists like Sean Feucht or whatever, saying they support Israel full-throated, they’re supporting Israel and what theybelieve is Jewish people, not because they support Jewish people. They support Jewish people’s role for them. So that’s a changing aspect. I would have said, “No,” if you had asked me last year if that was a dominant trope. But post-October 7th, that’s become a dominant trope. And being able to recognize that antisemitism presents itself in different ways, in more dominant ways at different periods, is extremely important. Because 20 years ago, 30 years ago, no one talked about the Great Replacement Theory.
No one was talking about it. Or if they were, it was in smaller niches. Whereas now, in the last how many years, we have had at least one or two shootings that have been based on the Great Replacement Theory. Nobody 40 years ago or 30 years ago would have been talking about transgender people and how Jewish people are behind all transgenderism or the demonization of the LGBT community. No one would have been talking about that. So, nobody would have associated attacking the LGBT community with being something traceable to antisemitism. But now, it’s pretty freaking obvious. So, to say, antisemitism is the demonization of Jews or the attack on Jewish people or something blanket like that. That’s true enough. But that doesn’t help us understand how it’s presented at the time.
To say that antisemitism is about hating Jews, no doubt. Forgive my 1980s colloquialisms, so it’s important for us. It’s incumbent on us as “experts” to illustrate how antisemitism keeps changing, how it keeps representing itself, and how it keeps evolving. Again, manifestations in 2024 are not the same as those in 1924. There are similarities, mind you, don’t get me wrong. That’s what makes antisemitism constant. Some tropes go back millennia. We know that. But the Ku Klux Klan utilizing the Jewish trope of money in the 1920s isn’t the same way as the Goyim Defense League in 2024. The commonality is Jews and money, but how and why is what makes it different, right?
It’s like when I was a history professor. I would tell students to point blank that the purpose of studying history is not the who, what, when, and where. Because you don’t need me for that, knowing that Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939 was awesome. You can answer a Jeopardy question. Score for you. That’s not studying history. Why was that considered the start of World War II? Why wasn’t it when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia? How did people respond to it at the time? How come Winston Churchill drew that line? Why didn’t Neville Chamberlain draw an earlier line? It’s the how and the why questions that make up why history matters. Why studying history is important, okay?
What antisemitism is, this rush to define it finitely. I understand its utility. But it also can prove to be a fool’s errand because knowing that antisemitism is an attack on Jewish people doesn’t get us closer. I won’t say to eradicate it because it’s been five millennia, so good luck with that. But approaching it better in our time means understanding how and why it presents itself. How and why did it shift in the 1980s? Why did it shift to this? What caused it? How did the founding of the Aryan Nations in the late 1970s shift the focus on antisemitism?
How did that affect the militia movements or the resurgence of Christian identity in the 1980s and 90s? That’s how we get at it. And I’m sorry for getting preachy. That’s sort of a non-answer to your question. Because it’s the very point we highlight in this thing, this resource is just that. You’re not going to get a finite definition. Even though the IHRA definition has all these examples, some are flawed. But this rush to accept the IRA definition, is it a genuine attempt to combat antisemitism? Or is it placatory? Because saying you accept IHRA or saying you pass a Holocaust mandate is great, so what?
Christian nationalists are in favour of Holocaust mandates. Shouldn’t that give you pause? Most Holocaust mandates don’t have any funding for education or training. You can’t just tell a U.S. history teacher in high school who doesn’t have any understanding of what the Holocaust is to be like, “You have to teach the Holocaust.” Especially since now, they’re letting, at least, a pilot program in Texas that says the top five education students in their senior year can teach K-3 in Texas. Or at least in, I want to say, Dallas County. Again, that’s not high. This is something I’m passionate about. But does that make sense? (1, 2, 3)
Because it’s almost a non-issue, like, so great, you can define antisemitism. Big fucking deal. Why does it matter? What are they doing with accepting IHRAs? Or passing all these antisemitism initiatives–great. Or colleges openly condemning antisemitism–great. But what are you doing about it? It’s much top-level shit. That’s usually very placatory. It’s not the first time this stuff has been done. I can’t remember. I always get Title IV or Title VI confused. But one of them, the one that is about the racist complaints on college campuses, includes antisemitism. So creating an antisemitism initiative on top of a Title IV or VI, whichever one it is, on antisemitism, gives off two impressions. One is that students don’t know about Title IV or VI, which is problematic. Or two, the reason for asserting a national antisemitism initiative, right when you already have something in place, has another reason why. The odds are that’s for publicity. I’m not going to get into ranting territory.
Jacobsen: When it comes to common threads you find in each of these instances, whether back to Mein Kampf, the National Socialists in Germany, to some of the white nationalists or neo-Nazis you’re seeing in the United States and Canada now, what is their uniting stereotype map? What are the common threads for their mental stereotype map?
Miwlicki: Jews can’t be trusted, Jews control money, Jews control media, Jewish disloyalty, Communism, Capitalism, all of the standard tropes. The stuff that Hitler wrote about is what Henry Ford wrote about, the stuff that the Protocols wrote about. And unfortunately, those are still widely read. Those are still very popular. And those are seen as top-level. And I’m sure the Turner Diaries are up there, too. But those are the common threads. It’s like the oldies but goodies that never go away: The power, the greed, the media.
This would be more for the American side of it because, to be fair, Hitler didn’t stop talking about God until 1938. So he might have put out a blood libel: Jews killed Jesus. That’s always an oldie but goodie. Those would be the common threads that would go across. You can’t trust Jews. Something that you would probably hear somebody saying in 1930 and anti-Semites saying today is you can’t trust Jews, and then whatever follows from that could be anything. But I would argue it’s that shadow government idea, that shadow control, that unites it all, whether it’s power or greed.
I’m going to have to agree with my sociology colleague again. It comes down to power. Power is money. Power is force. Power is influence. Power is the control of information. There is this common belief that whether it’s in Mein Kampf or in whatever bullshit the GDL is flying about today, right, that would be the common thread is probably fear of Jewish power. Or hate something like that.
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Humanists International, together with its Member, Humanist Society Singapore, hosted the annual General Assembly and International Humanist Conference in Singapore from 30 August to 1 September 2024.
Over 70 humanist delegates from more than 30 countries attended the annual gathering. The International Humanist Conference, organized by Humanist Society Singapore, focused on the theme of interfaith and secularism. The conference featured presentations and panel discussions that explored the complex relationship between religion, belief, and secularism in today’s world.
During the General Assembly, which took place the following day, Members and Associates elected new Board Members and ratified new humanist organizations.
Yvan Dheur was elected as the new treasurer of Humanists International. David Pineda, Mary Jane Quiming, and Leo Igwe were also elected to board positions. All elected board members will serve a three-year term from 2024 to 2027.
Additionally, several new organizations were welcomed into the Humanists International network. Humanesia (Indonesia), Humanists Malaysia, and Union des Familles Laïques (France) were officially recognized as Members, while Humanist Association of Northern Nigerian (Nigeria), Central Ontario Humanists Association (Canada), Secular Humanists – gbs Rhine Neckar (Germany), and Oniros Philosophie Foundation (Colombia) were ratified as Associates.
Roslyn Mould, Vice-President of Humanists International, in her closing remarks, said:
“As we leave this beautiful city, let us carry the spirit of this General Assembly with us. Let us return to our homes and workplaces with renewed energy and determination. Let us continue to work together, to build a world where everyone can live a life of dignity, freedom, and fulfillment.”
The 2024 Distinguished Services to Humanism Award recipients were Joanna Williams from Humanists Malta, Kat Parker from Secular Rescue, and Norhaiyah Mahmood from Humanist Society Singapore. This Award recognizes the contributions of humanist activists to international humanism and to organised humanism.
The next General Assembly is scheduled to be held in Luxembourg in July 2025, hosted by Humanists International’s Member, AHA Luxembourg. To be first to hear about the conference, sign up to receive our newsletter here.
Become a member organization
Did you know, your local group or national association can join Humanists International as a Member Organization?
Organization Description: Humanists International is the global representative body at the heart of the humanist movement. Inspired by humanist values, we are optimistic for a world where everyone can have a dignified and fulfilling life. We build, support and represent the global humanist movement and work to champion human rights and secularism. We support democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.
Humanists International, the global voice of the humanist movement, has released its 2023 Annual Report, highlighting significant strides made in empowering humanist communities and advancing humanist values worldwide. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the organization’s accomplishments and challenges throughout the year.
Key Highlights:
The organization made substantial progress in 2023, supporting humanist communities and advocating for humanist values.
The World Humanist Congress fostered international collaboration and discussion on important issues.
Humanists International actively engaged with the United Nations and other international institutions.
The organization remains dedicated to building a stronger global humanist movement and empowering its members.
President Andrew Copson’s foreword emphasized the organization’s accomplishments in expanding its network and supporting member organizations, particularly in developing countries. Humanists International stimulated a rise in member-driven advocacy efforts at the United Nations, showcasing the growing influence of humanist principles on the global stage.
The report details efforts to establish a thriving global humanist network, protect humanists at risk, amplify humanist voices at international institutions, and ensure a strong and sustainable organizational framework. It also highlights the successful World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, where delegates discussed and adopted a declaration on “Democracy: a humanist value.”
Supporting Humanists and Advocating for Change
Chief Executive Gary McLelland highlighted the organization’s unwavering commitment to advancing humanist values, from providing support to those facing persecution for their beliefs to campaigning against discrimination based on religion or belief. He also underscored the importance of building partnerships and collaborations with like-minded organizations.
The annual report elaborates on Humanists International’s dedication to supporting individuals at risk, providing tailored assistance to 88 people facing persecution for their beliefs. It also emphasizes the launch of the 2023 Freedom of Thought Report, a comprehensive assessment of the global state of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief.
Influencing International Institutions
Humanists International’s advocacy efforts at the United Nations remained a priority, with the organization delivering numerous statements at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and collaborating with other NGOs on various initiatives.
The report also showcases the organization’s commitment to empowering its members, providing training and support for advocacy efforts both locally and internationally.
Looking Ahead
The annual report outlines Humanists International’s future plans, focusing on securing funding for vital programs, developing resources for members, and creating a new strategy for protecting humanists at risk. President Andrew Copson expressed confidence in the organization’s ability to contribute to a world where humanism thrives and everyone has the freedom to live according to their values.
Join Humanists International
Together we can do even more to promote humanist values and defend human rights. Join Humanists International as a Member Organization or become an individual supporter in your own right.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned employee informed the national state/church watchdog that official prayer started the district’s Aug. 13 all-staff assembly. A local pastor, Matt Bunn of Heights Church, recited the school-sponsored prayer over a loudspeaker. Several staff members were uncomfortable, according to FFRF’s complainant, but were too afraid to walk out or speak out against the prayer.
“School-sponsored prayer coerces attendees into worship,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi has written to the district. “Over a captive audience, official prayer is even more inappropriate.”
Faculty and staff have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination, including when participating in school-sponsored events, FFRF asserts. It is a basic constitutional principle that public schools may not show favoritism toward or coerce belief or participation in religion. Coercing staff members to participate in prayer at an all-staff, or any school-sponsored event, is unconstitutional. Further, giving only Christian teachers the benefit of prayer is unlawful preference for Christianity.
Additionally, Missouri’s Establishment Clause prohibits this coercion and preferential treatment. Missouri’s constitutional provisions “‘declaring that there shall be a separation of church and state are not only more explicit but more restrictive’ than the First Amendment,” as the courts have pointed out.
Plus, the school district serves and employs a diverse population with diverse religious beliefs, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics. A full 37 percent of the American population is non-Christian, including the almost 30 percent that is nonreligious. Additionally, at least a third of Generation Z members (those born after 1996) have no religion, with a recent survey revealing that almost half of Gen Z qualifies as religiously unaffiliated “nones.”
FFRF asserts that the district must remain neutral with regard to religion in order to respect and protect the First Amendment rights of all staff. Bolivar R-1 has fallen short on this front, and that’s why the district must be made aware that including religious worship in its events is unconstitutional.
“The district violates the Constitution when it invites a minister to staff meetings to force them to pray,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “School staff have the right to be free from their employers foisting their religion upon them.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Pope Francis has no business weighing in on the U.S. presidential election.
It’s already unconscionable that the Vatican has been waging a global war against abortion and contraceptive rights, seeking not only to deny Roman Catholic followers but all non-Catholics control of their own reproduction, families and lives. Notably, 82 percent of the world is not Catholic. Yet the Vatican is committed to trying to enforce its cruel Roman Catholic doctrine everywhere, creating acute and unnecessary misery, compounding poverty and harming women’s health, particularly in the poorest Catholic counties.
Now, Pope Francis continues the Vatican’s officious interference by inappropriately weighing in on the U.S. presidential election in the name of its war against abortion.
During a news conference last Friday, the pope blasted what he called the “anti-life” policies in favor of legal abortion (presumably referencing the pro-choice Democratic contender Kamala Harris) and against migration (presumably referencing the anti-immigrant Republican contender Donald Trump). “Both are against life, be it the one who kicks out migrants or the one who [supports] killing babies,” the pope said.
“To have an abortion is to kill a human being. You may like the word or not, but it’s killing,” the pope reiterated.
Francis claimed not to be telling Catholics who to vote for, saying: “One should vote, and choose the lesser evil. Who is the lesser evil, the woman or man? I don’t know.” Yet his words come in the context of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, already publicly stating repealing access to legal abortion should be the top voter priority.
The pope ought to tread carefully when condemning evil — he heads a coterie of professional celibates who nevertheless are in the fifth decade of a grotesque systemic coverup of shocking sexual crimes by their clerics against children and minors. As long ago as 1985, Rev. Thomas P. Doyle warnedthat the Church appeared to be “an organization preaching morality and providing sanctuary to perverts.”
But even more so, the pope has crossed a state/church line, which will doubtless encourage many priests across the country to nudge parishioners to vote based on the abortion issue. While Catholics as individuals are fortunately far more progressive than their church, and most say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, those who attend Mass regularly oppose legal abortion. With 10 states holding vitally important referenda in November to protect abortion rights, much is at stake. These states include Florida, which has a draconian abortion ban but also a large and mostly Catholic migrant population. It seems clear what the takeaway from the pope’s message to Florida’s faithful Catholics is supposed to be.
Catholic priests — and ministers of all denominations — must heed their obligation as part of tax-exempt churches to sit out the presidential election. The Freedom From Religion Foundation may not be able to do anything legal about the blowhard pope, but if U.S. priests and bishops use their tax-exempt pulpits to endorse, we will demand that the IRS take action against their churches.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Under Emperor Hirohito, who was considered a god, Shinto nationalism created some of the most horrific atrocities in history in the cause of a righteous and racist holy war, Bryan Mark Rigg points out. Rigg has worked as a professor of history at American Military University, Southern Methodist University and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. He’s the distinguished author of several highly regarded books on World War II history. Rigg’s newest book, recently published by Knox Press, is called “Japan’s Holocaust: A History of Imperial Japan’s Mass Murder and Rape during World War II.”
“Hirohito was revered as a living God as a Shinto belief until 1945, when he renounced his Godhead,” Rigg reveals to “Freethought Matters” co-hosts Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Every emperor for the last 2,500 years was revered as a god in Japan. So he wasn’t only a dictator and a military leader, but he was a god in human form.”
(To view details on channel variations depending on your provider, click here.)
If you don’t live in any of the marquee towns where the show broadcasts on Sunday, you can already catch the interview on FFRF’s YouTube channel. New shows go up every Thursday.
Upcoming guests include an expert on the Comstock Act, an author of a new book on the Scopes Trial and another author writing on the dangers of vouchers to aid religious schools. You can catch interviews from previous seasons here, including with Gloria Steinem, Ron Reagan, author John Irving, actor John “Q” de Lancie and award-winning columnist Katha Pollitt.
Please tune in to “Freethought Matters” . . . because freethought matters.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned district parent has come forward to reveal several constitutional infringements occurring in the district. On Aug. 11, Lexington Methodist Church hosted a “fall Tailgate” event at Lexington High School in Florence, Ala., that included religious worship music and prayer. The official school event included performances by the school’s marching band and cheerleaders, as well as speeches from multiple coaches. FFRF’s complainant also reported that the school’s band director informed students they would be playing at this religious event on July 28. Additionally, the complainant informed the state/church watchdog that each football game begins with a prayer said over the loudspeaker by a student. The complainant and their child are nonreligious — and the district’s actions demonstrate an unconstitutional pattern and practice of religious coercion and official favoritism toward one particular religion over all other religions and nonreligion.
“Here, the district’s practice of including Christian prayer and worship as part of official school events unconstitutionally coerces all in attendance, including students, to observe and participate in a religious ritual,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line has written to the district.
Public school students have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination in their schools, including when participating in school-sponsored events. By partnering with a church to hold a religious worship event and opening other school-sponsored events with Christian prayer, the district has violated the First Amendment. School officials may not invite a student, teacher, faculty member or clergy member to give any type of prayer, invocation, benediction or sermon at a public high school-sponsored event, and they may not give a prayer themselves. Here, the district’s practice of including Christian prayer and worship as part of official school events unconstitutionally coerces all in attendance, including students, to observe and participate in a religious ritual.
The religious favoritism and coercion occurring within the district is particularly troubling for those parents and students who are non-Christian, such as FFRF’s complainant. The district’s pervasive promotion of Christianity needlessly alienates students, families and employees part of the 37 percent of Americans who are non-Christian. At least a third of Generation Z members (those born after 1996) have no religion, with a recent survey revealing almost half of Gen Z qualifying as religiously unaffiliated “nones.”
FFRF asserts that the district needs to abandon the multitude of violations in order to protect the First Amendment rights of students, families, employees and community members.
“These intrusive and inappropriate religious practices at games need to be benched,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “This district needs to ensure that the secular education of students comes first, not religious proselytization.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation welcomes the recent South Carolina Supreme Court ruling striking down an unconstitutional state voucher scheme.
The Education Scholarship Trust Fund program was signed into law in May 2023 by Gov. Henry McMaster, permitting parents in South Carolina to apply for scholarships worth $6,000 per student to pay tuition to qualifying educational providers, including private and online schools. In October 2023, the South Carolina NAACP, the South Carolina State Education Association and six public school parents asked the court to strike down the law to use public money for private school education.
Justice D. Garrison Hill got right to the point in his majority opinion: “Once we apply the plain and popular meaning of ‘direct benefit’ to the act, the presumption of constitutionality withers.” This was the obvious outcome because Article XI, Section 4 of the South Carolina Constitution couldn’t be more clear: “No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the state or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution.”
As laws implementing vouchers for religious schools are being quietly expanded all over the country, this ruling bolsters FFRF’s ongoing efforts to protect public education.
Under the phony guise of “school choice,” voucher schemes and similar measures transfer taxpayer funds directly to private religious schools, simultaneously defunding public education and forcing taxpayers to subsidize religious indoctrination. About 90 percent of private schools are religiously affiliated. Vouchers and tuition tax credits almost entirely benefit religious schools with overtly religious missions, which integrate religion into every subject. Voucher schemes have become a means of circumventing the constitutional requirement of separation between state and church that prohibits the government from funding or favoring religion..
Vouchers, as FFRF has long warned, are an exploitation of public funds by private, mostly religious schools that are draining the coffers of public schools. A recent ProPublica article demonstrates that religious schools are exploiting these programs to pad their coffers at taxpayer expense. Some voucher schools, such as St. Brendan the Navigator in Hilliard, Ohio, are effectively threatening to withhold supplemental aid if the families do not seek public funds first. And the principal at Holy Family School in Poland, Ohio, admitted to forcing families to apply for public funds.
“Even the conservative South Carolina Supreme Court knows private school voucher schemes are wrong,” said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “We celebrate this important victory for public schools, which are the bedrock of our democracy.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
FFRF has learned that Monroe County Sheriff Kevin Crook has been publicizing his personal religious beliefs through the Sheriff Office’s official communication channels. The sheriff office’s page on the official Monroe County website includes “In God We Trust!” The official Facebook page regularly posts religious content and messages. In April 2022, the page changed its profile picture to a photo of a sheriff’s office vehicle parked behind three Christian crosses. On Aug. 3, a long rant was posted, ending with the message, “I don’t know what the answer is to Y’all, other than that we truly must find Jesus.”
FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writes to Crook, “It is an abuse of power for you to use your position and the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office’s resources to promote your personal religious beliefs and proselytize to Monroe County’s citizens.”
Christian posts on the official Facebook page convey a message to non-Christians that they are not welcome or accepted in Monroe County, and that their sheriff is more concerned with converting them to his religion than enforcing the law, FFRF points out. People interact with and rely on law enforcement officers during some of the most urgent and vulnerable times of their lives. As sheriff, Crook serves a diverse population that consists of not only Christians, but also minority religious and nonreligious citizens. The sheriff’s office must be even-handed and avoid any appearance of bias toward some or hostility toward others. Religious statements send a message excluding those community members among the nearly 30 percent of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated, as well as the additional 6 percent of Americans adhering to non-Christian faiths — turning them into political outsiders in their own community.
FFRF reiterates that in order to avoid further Establishment Clause concerns, the posts mentioned above must be removed, and that the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office must refrain from promoting religion in the future on social media.
“Citizens need to be able to trust their law enforcement officers in times of need — and there’s nothing that can shatter that trust faster than the intrusion of religion into governmental affairs,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Law enforcers, who carry guns and have the ability to arrest citizens, have a professional obligation to separate their personal religious views from their governmental duties.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proud to announce a total of $19,600 in award money to the 12 winners and seven honorable mentions in the 2024 Kenneth L. Proulx Memorial Essay Contest for Ongoing College Students.
Currently enrolled college students (up to age 24) wrote on the topic of “Why is Gen Z the least religious generation?” This contest is named for Kenneth L. Proulx, one of FFRF’s most generous benefactors, who died in 2019. The cupola at Freethought Hall, FFRF’s office in Madison, Wis., is called the “Above Us Only Sky Kenneth L. Proulx Cupola,” or “Ken’s Cupola” for short.
The $1,000 prize for sixth place in the ongoing college competition is generously endowed by actor and FFRF Lifetime Member Madison Arnold. Arnold, who is 88, has given a $30,000 endowment as a living bequest, what he calls a “pre-quest.”
Essay contest winners, their ages, the colleges or universities they are attending and the award amounts are listed below. (FFRF seeks to distribute essay scholarship monies to a higher number of students, so ties — such as fourth place in this contest — are not regarded in the typical tie fashion, where, in this instance, fifth place would be skipped.)
FIRST PLACE Sylvie Leyerle, 20, University of Illinois, $3,500 SECOND PLACE Daksha Pillai, 18, Columbia University, $3,000 THIRD PLACE Elias Abadi, 22, University of Southern California, $2,500 FOURTH PLACE (tie) Armin Kiffmeyer, 19, University of Wisconsin, $2,000 Luke Ortiz-Grabe, 21, Colorado College, $2,000 FIFTH PLACE Atira Claude, 21, Florida Atlantic University, $1,500 SIXTH PLACE (MR. MADISON ARNOLD AWARD) Kayleigh Clark, 20, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, $1,000 SEVENTH PLACE (tie) Zoe Lilly, 21, University of Virginia, $750 Riley Barker, 22, University of Florida, $750 EIGHTH PLACE Cassidy Taggart, 21, Rutgers University, $500 NINTH PLACE Danae Daniels, 23, University of South Carolina-Upstate, $400 TENTH PLACE Ta’Liyah Darden, 19, Fort Valley State University, $300 HONORABLE MENTIONS ($200 each) Hannah Bartoletti, 19, Penn State University Braelyn Caldwell, 21, Texas A&M University Jasper Chiguma Jr., 20, SUNY Broome Community College Melia Moorman, 19, University of Louisville Anna Moseley, 21, Virginia Commonwealth University Nicholas Spinetta, 23, University of Rhode Island Michael Whittaker, 24, South Mountain Community College
FFRF thanks Lisa Treu for managing the details of this and FFRF’s other student essay competitions. We also would like to thank our volunteer and staff judges, including: Don Ardell, David Chivers, Eric Evans, Richard Grimes, Tim Hatcher, Dan Kettner, Jeffrey LaVicka, Sammi Lawrence, Katya Maes, David Malcolm, Kurt Mohnsam, Chris O’Connell, Andrea Osborne, JoAnn Papich, Brooks Rimes, Sue Schuetz, Rose Mary Sheldon, PJ Slinger, Kimberly Waldron and Karen Lee Weidig.
FFRF has offered essay competitions to college students since 1979, high school students since 1994, grad students since 2010, one exclusively for students of color since 2016 and a fifth contest for law students since 2019.
The winning essays will be reprinted or excerpted in the November issue of Freethought Today, FFRF’s newspaper.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation applauds yesterday’s ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court to return a referendum protecting abortion rights onto the state’s November ballot.
Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh — yes, a relative of the late talk radio host Rush Limbaugh — had ruled late last week that Missouri’s abortion rights ballot initiative didn’t comply with state law. Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, another notorious Christian conservative and the son of John Ashcroft, took the unprecedented step of then decertifying Amendment 3 before an appeal could be concluded.
With 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 10, being the final deadline to certify ballot initiatives, the Missouri Supreme Court had to hear arguments and render a decision the same day. The court’s seven members handed down a one-page ruling returning the question to the people less than three hours before the state’s deadline to print ballots. The opponents of Amendment 3 were represented by the Christian nationalist Thomas More Society. The intervenors defending Amendment 3 were Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the persevering group behind the ballot initiative, and a private plaintiff.
The ballot initiative will enshrine the right to abortion in the state Constitution. Missouri has one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation, banning legal abortion in almost all circumstances. Legislators there have even floated penalties for women who cross state lines to exercise their rights.
“Missouri’s women have been placed under the harshest abortion restriction in the nation, and have lost their fundamental rights. Amendment 3 provides a path to freedom,” says FFRF Legal Fellow and Missouri-licensed attorney Hirsh M. Joshi.
Nine other states will be joining Missouri in holding pro-abortion referenda in November: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and South Dakota. Unfortunately, anti-abortion zealots aided by an extremist state court were able to sabotage Arkansas’ referendum this year. Abortion is largely or totally illegal right now not only in Missouri but in Arizona, Florida, South Dakota, as well as Arkansas, and illegal after 12 weeks in Nebraska. Some of the other states with abortion initiatives are taking protective measures to assure abortion remains accessible and lawful. Two-thirds of Americans support legal abortion in some or most cases, according to the Pew Research Center.
“With this road bump removed, we are confident that voters in Missouri will assure that fundamental rights stripped from Missourians by the U.S. Supreme Court will be returned,” adds FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “We urge our members and freethinkers to support these vital referenda and the groups behind them.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is expressing its strong objection to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s recent unconstitutional “Day of Prayer” proclamation.
Multiple concerned Utah residents have informed the state/church watchdog that Cox has continued his practice of official prayer proclamations, recently issuing an official proclamation declaring Sept. 1, 2024, as a “Day of Prayer, Fasting and Contemplation.” Cox fails to see a contradiction between such a proclamation and his self-declared fealty to the U.S. Constitution.
“We agree with your assertion on social media that you made in announcing this proclamation that we need a ‘recommitment’ to our longstanding constitutional principles,” FFRF Co-Presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor write to Cox. “We ask that you start by respecting the First Amendment and our secular government by not misusing your position as governor to promote prayer and religious belief.”
Article 1, Section 4, of the Utah Constitution protects rights of conscience, bars the state from making any law respecting an establishment of religion and proclaims “There shall be no union of Church and State,” FFRF points out. Cox’s proclamation clearly violates these guarantees.
Likewise, the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment prohibits government sponsorship of religious messages. The Supreme Court has said time and again that the “First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” By issuing a proclamation calling on Utah citizens to pray, Cox abridges his duty to remain neutral and to respect the freedom of conscience of all Utah citizens.
And FFRF reminds Cox that as an elected official he represents a diverse population from many religious backgrounds, including agnostics and atheists who do not believe in prayer. Any prayer proclamation or government-sponsored religious activity alienates many non-Christians and nonbelievers in the state of Utah and sends them the message “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community,” to quote the U.S. Supreme Court.
The religiously unaffiliated, better known as the “Nones,” actually have quite a significant presence in Utah. PRRI’s definitive census on religion, which documents affiliation by county, shows that fully 28 percent of Salt Lake City residents are “Nones.” Overall, at least 22 percent of Utahns have no religion. They, too, are Cox’s constituents, and care as much about the future of our nation as religious Utahns.
Government officials may worship, pray and participate in religious events in their personal capacities — but they may not provide credibility or prestige to their religion by lending a government office and government title to religious events. Their office and title belong to “We the people,” not the offices’ temporary occupants.
“Leaving prayer as a private matter for private citizens is the wisest public policy,” Barker and Gaylor conclude. “The state of Utah is constitutionally prohibited from supporting religion over nonreligion, as it has done here. Please rescind this proclamation and respond in writing with the steps that you will take to avoid constitutional violations of this nature in the future.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The first episode of the new season of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s TV show, “Freethought Matters,” features a prominent member of Congress dissecting a right-wing presidential takeover plan.
U.S. Representative Jared Huffman, a humanist and agnostic who is the only openly nonreligious member of Congress, represents California’s 2nd District and is co-chair of the Congressional Freethought Caucus. Huffman has announced the formation of a task force to halt Project 2025, an extremist undemocratic presidential playbook. Huffman will be unpeeling the layers of this very important subject on this episode of “Freethought Matters.” (Note: Project 2025 is intended to be implemented by the next Republican president; FFRF, which produces this show, is a nonpartisan nonprofit that takes no position on candidates.)
“It’s true that it’s 920 pages of crazy, but it’s deadly serious at the same time,” Huffman tells “Freethought Matters” co-hosts Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor. “And that’s why we are spending a lot of time right now breaking it down. We’re having deep dive subject matter briefings for members of Congress and staff because we need to make sure that Americans know what is in this thing so that they can decide for themselves whether they want to be part of a dystopic right-wing future that ends our democracy, or they want to maybe join us in trying to stop it while we still can.”
(To view details on channel variations depending on your provider, click here.)
If you don’t live in any of the marquee towns where the show broadcasts on Sunday, you can already catch the interview on FFRF’s YouTube channel. New shows go up every Thursday.
You can catch interviews from previous seasons here, including with Gloria Steinem, Ron Reagan, author John Irving, actor John “Q” de Lancie and award-winning columnist Katha Pollitt. Upcoming guests include an expert on the Comstock Act, an author of a new book on the Scopes Trial and another author writing on the dangers of vouchers to aid religious schools.
Please tune in to “Freethought Matters” . . . because freethought matters.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned district employee reported that a school counselor at Englewood High School has been using their position to promote personal beliefs to students and co-workers. FFRF’s complainant reported that the employee has used a bible quote in their official school email signature: “‘For as people think in their hearts, so they are.’ Proverbs 23:7.” Egregiously, a sign posted on their classroom door says, “I’m reading… [the Holy Bible]. Ask me about it!”
“We understand, of course, that the district cannot monitor every email sent by employees or every posting in the school,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writes. “But we do ask that it take the appropriate steps to ensure that employees, including [the school counselor] are made aware of their constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion while acting in their official capacity.”
The statements of a district employee and the signs they put up for public view in the school are attributable to the district, FFRF emphasizes. It is inappropriate and unconstitutional for the district or its agents to promote religious messages because it conveys government preference for religion over nonreligion. When employees use official channels of communication to promote their religious beliefs, it sends a message of exclusion that needlessly alienates the students and families among the 37 percent of Americans that is non-Christian, including the nearly one in three adult Americans who are religiously unaffiliated.
“School districts exist to educate, not indoctrinate into religion,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “School counselors have immense authority and are often sought out by vulnerable students, and have a duty to separate their personal religious views from their professional obligations.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned district community member has informed the state/church watchdog that the Glencoe High School teacher writes a bible verse on the whiteboard each day. She recently posted a video on TikTok showing herself posting one of these bible verses.
“The district violates the Constitution when it allows its schools to display religious messages, including bible verses,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line has written to the district.
Posting a daily bible verse in the classroom each day displays clear favoritism toward religion over nonreligion, and Christianity above all other faiths, FFRF stresses. Religion is a divisive force in public schools, and the practice needlessly alienates students who are part of the 49 percent of Generation Z that is religiously unaffiliated.
FFRF has told the district it must uphold its constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion by immediately ending the daily bible verse display practice. All Etowah County teachers need to understand their constitutional obligation not to promote their personal religious beliefs in the classroom, FFRF emphasizes.
“By proselytizing students, this teacher is showing that she’s willing to put her personal beliefs — which public school students may not share — before the rights of students and her constitutional obligations,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “It is not a public school teacher’s decision as to what, if any, gods their students worship. That is a decision solely for each family to make.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is seeking to file a friend-of-the-court brief that sides with the state of Minnesota over anti-discrimination rules that religious institutions have legally challenged.
“Two religious colleges have sued the Walz administration because of language in the education budget that prohibits schools from requiring ‘faith statements’ from students applying for a program that lets them earn college credits while in high school,” a Minnesota TV station reported last year. “Two families with children eligible for the Postsecondary Enrollment Options program claim they won’t be able to use funds from that program at Crown College in St. Bonifacius or the University of Northwestern-St. Paul because those schools require all students on campus ‘share their Christian beliefs.’”
FFRF is filing a proposed brief today, Sept. 10, with the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to help defend Minnesota’s anti-discrimination rules.
“The state’s nondiscrimination rules for colleges that apply for Postsecondary Enrollment Options public funding are legitimate constitutional means to ensure students’ access to education,” the brief states. “Crown and Northwestern seek an incorrect, harmful and unprecedented interpretation of the First Amendment.”
Crown and Northwestern are petitioning the court to create a special carveout, the brief adds, by seeking the legal right to mandate that students sign divisive declarations of faith in order to participate in the state-funded, secular Postsecondary Enrollment Options education program. Crown and Northwestern are additionally asking the court to declare that they may accept or deny students’ applications based on students’ sexual orientation, gender identity and religion.
The colleges had implemented religious and divisive declarations of faith for students to sign. These included the statement, “We believe it is our duty, honor and delight to live under the Lordship of Christ.” Students had to acknowledge that they “can be saved only through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Students also needed to affirm the school’s position that marriage is a “covenant between one man and one woman” and that same-sex relationships are “sexual immorality” and “perversions of God’s intended purposes.” Students were required to agree with the following statement: “We do not affirm or support transgender identity or expression. Instead, we place our faith and trust in God’s redemptive plan.”
The state of Minnesota has an interest in eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure that publicly funded education is open to all students, FFRF points out. That’s why the state may set neutral and generally applicable nondiscrimination conditions on education programs that it funds. And private entities that seek to obtain state funding and access to public school students are reasonably required to abide by certain conditions for state funding. The Supreme Court has held that neutral and generally applicable laws are not subject to constitutional strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.
“The state has a significant interest in not funding and perpetuating discrimination in publicly funded education programs,” the brief stresses. “Eliminating discrimination in education is a compelling government interest.”
State-sanctioned discrimination is antithetical to the American public education system. In recognition of these principles, for more than half a century courts and legislatures have routinely expanded access and opportunities for education and created standards to promote equal opportunity as a consistent focus of federal education policy.
“Plaintiffs want to accept public money but avoid the neutral, generally applicable rules that attach,” FFRF’s brief concludes. “The special religious exemption they seek would severely undermine the state’s efforts and legitimate, compelling interest in ensuring equality in public education programs.”
For all of the above reasons, FFRF contends, the U.S. District Court of Minnesota should grant summary judgment in favor of the state.
FFRF Legal Director Patrick Elliott is the counsel of record for the brief. Legal intern Grace Kraimer and Staff Attorney Sammi Lawrence assisted in the research and drafting of the brief.
“Religious schools shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against public school students while accepting public money,” says Elliott. “FFRF’s brief will shine a light on why the schools’ arguments are both wrong and potentially harmful to Minnesota’s public school students.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A group of Christian broadcasters wants to mix religion and politics so badly that they have sued the IRS, hoping a federal judge will permit them to ignore a law they don’t like.
The law at issue here is the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits 501(c)(3) nonprofits (both secular and religious) from engaging in electoral activity. The Freedom From Religion Foundation strongly supports the Johnson Amendment and expects to see the judge in this case quickly dismiss the baseless lawsuit.
Keeping tax-exempt work separate from electoral action has been widely popular, including among churchgoers, and has prevented millions of dollars in dark money from flowing into U.S. elections. Polls routinely reveal that a majority of Americans think religious institutions should stay out of politics.
FFRF sued then-President Trump in 2017 after he signed an executive order that he claimed had “gotten rid of the Johnson Amendment.” Once in court, Trump’s lawyers admitted that he had no authority to overturn a federal statute by fiat.
Unfortunately, the IRS has been woefully lax in enforcing the Johnson Amendment. Many churches that subscribe to Christian nationalist beliefs flagrantly violate the rule, daring the IRS to take action. (FFRF regularly reports such instances to the IRS.) The new lawsuit asks a judge to declare that the Johnson Amendment does not apply to them, even though they claim not to have engaged in any electoral activity and have no reason to think the IRS would take any action against them.
In other words, they have suffered no harm and there is no case here, says FFRF Co-President Dan Barker, who adds: “The hubris of these plaintiffs is incredible. They insist their religious beliefs give them a free pass to ignore laws they don’t like and that the rest of us tax-exempt organizations must follow.”
Tax-exempt status is a privilege. Churches already receive favored treatment over secular nonprofits, but they are not entitled to ignore the other rules and statutes that apply equally to all 501(c)(3) educational nonprofits. The Johnson Amendment helps to ensure that nonprofits are engaged in actual nonprofit work, while simultaneously promoting election integrity.
Churches are uniquely exempted from filing tax returns with the IRS to prove their tax-exempt expenditures, which makes them financial black holes. Overturning the Johnson Amendment would open the floodgates for dark money to be funneled to political campaigns through churches. The Johnson Amendment is a wise and equitable rule that preserves the integrity of both nonprofits and churches, and as such must be protected and enforced.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned parent informed the state/church watchdog that a principal at Broadview Elementary School in Winchester, Tenn., concluded a parents, teachers and students meeting on Aug. 2 with Christian prayer. The complainant recorded audio of the prayer, which was addressed to the Christian god and which ended: “We pray to you father in heaven for your wonderful blessings and we ask those things in God’s name. Amen.”
FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi sent a complaint letter to Franklin County Schools Director Cary Holman noting that “government officials may not deliver an official, sectarian prayer to a captive audience.”
Students, their families and school staff all have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination when participating in school-sponsored events, FFRF emphasized. The district serves and employs a population with diverse religious beliefs, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics. A full 37 percent of the American population is non-Christian, including the almost 30 percent that is nonreligious. At least a third of Generation Z members (those born after 1996) have no religion, with one recent survey revealing that almost half of Gen Z qualifies as “Nones” (religiously unaffiliated).
The school district heard FFRF’s concerns — and worked to address them quickly.
“Based on the recording, the principal acknowledged it was her voice,” Holman wrote back in a recent email. “I had my deputy director participate in the meeting with the principal. During this time, I provided the Tennessee Code referencing prayer in schools. The principal understands what is expected and will lead accordingly moving forward.” Holman closed by promising that all officials in the district would be reminded of the law.
FFRF is glad to prod yet another school district into fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.
“If you see something, say something,” adds Joshi. “Here, a principal used her authority to impose religious prayer on an audience that would be wise not to question her. That’s abuse of power. Thankfully, a community member was proactive enough to tell us.”
FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor is appreciative of the school district’s corrective action.
“School officials who wish to pray can do so on their own time and dime,” she says. “Schools exist to educate, not to indoctrinate in religion. So it’s important that school functions avoid divisive religion.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is proud to announce $19,850 in scholarship money to the winners of the 2024 William Schulz High School Essay Contest.
College-bound high-school seniors were asked to write a personal persuasive essay based on this prompt: “How can young ‘Nones’ help transform the United States with their secular values, such as by voting?”
FFRF awarded 12 top prizes and 14 honorable mentions. (FFRF seeks to distribute essay scholarship monies to a higher number of students, so ties — such as fifth place in this contest — are not regarded in the typical tie fashion, where, in this instance, sixth place would be skipped.)
Winners are listed below and include the college or university they are now attending and the award amount.
First place Finn Mosher, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, $3,500 Second place Garrett Hartfelder, University of Southern California, $3,000 Third place Ashkon Shirazi, Brown University, $2,500 Fourth place Toby Shu, Georgetown University, $2,000 Fifth place (tie) Olivia English-Saunders, Michigan State University, $1,500 Lynn Sepersky, University of Wisconsin, $1,500 Sixth place Ivy Nichols, Colorado State University, $1,000 Seventh place Natalie Mendoza, Arizona State University, $750 Eighth place Quinn Weidner, North Carolina State University, $500 Ninth place (tie) Evelyn Dietz, Rollins College, $400 Brandon Norman, Mercer University, $400 Tenth place Emily Turner, Case Western Reserve University, $300 Honorable mentions ($200 each) Brietta Chen, Georgia Institute of Technology Anushka Chillale, University of Michigan Jayla Cole, Colorado College Abrahm Drake, Dickinson State University Ellie Emmelhainz, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Emily Fadgen, University of California-Riverside Tyler Howell, University of Florida Sarah Lam, UC-San Diego Samuel Lund, Colorado State University Jaiden Maltbia, Fisk University T Schiding, West Chester University Elijah Shewell, St. Mary’s College of Maryland Jacey Tanioka, Lewis & Clark College Aaminah Zeinelabdin, Howard University
The high school contest is named for the late William J. Schulz, a Wisconsin member and lifelong learner who died at 57 and left a generous bequest to FFRF.
FFRF warmly thanks FFRF’s Lisa Treu for managing the infinite details of this and FFRF’s other annual student competitions. And we couldn’t judge these contests without our volunteer and staff readers and judges, including: Don Ardell, David Chivers, Eric Evans, Richard Grimes, Tim Hatcher, Dan Kettner, Jeffrey LaVicka, Sammi Lawrence, Katya Maes, David Malcolm, Kurt Mohnsam, Chris O’Connell, Andrea Osburne, JoAnn Papich, Brooks Rimes, Sue Schuetz, Rose Mary Sheldon, PJ Slinger, Kimberly Waldron and Karen Lee Weidig
FFRF has offered essay competitions to college students since 1979, high school students since 1994, grad students since 2010 and one dedicated to students of color since 2016. A fifth contest, open to law students, began in 2019.
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
FFRF was informed that a Ten Commandments display was recently installed at the courthouse in Mount Vernon, Ill. The display is nearly 6-and-a-half feet tall and sits in the center of the first floor lobby. The display includes a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments, given its particular language and numbering. At the bottom of the display is the biblical quote for Proverbs 21:15, which reads: “When justice is done, it is a joy to the righteous but terror to the evildoers.”
“Government promotion of one particular religion deters the nonreligious and minority religions from accessing important government services,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi writes to Jefferson County Board Chair Cliff Lindemann.
By displaying this religious text in its courthouses, the county demonstrates a plain and undeniable preference for religion over nonreligion, and Protestant Christianity above all other faiths. Illinois’s Establishment Clause reads: “No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” FFRF is confident that state courts will find that a large Protestant Ten Commandments display by the county demonstrates preference for a religious denomination and mode of worship.
In displaying a gigantic Protestant version of the Ten Commandments along with a bible quote, and not quotes about citizenship or other secular virtues, the county government demonstrates preference for Christianity, FFRF emphasizes. That is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the references to the Christian Bible and Ten Commandments alienate the nearly 37 percent of Americans who are non-Christian, including the 30 percent of Americans who are nonreligious.
FFRF asserts that the display must be removed in order to respect the constitutional rights of all who use the Jefferson County Courthouse.
“A few months ago, I told a Minnesota jail to ‘Repaint and Repent.’ Now an Illinois sheriff has been similarly emboldened for no particular reason,” adds Joshi, a native Illinoisian. “It’s unclear why small-town officials want to push their narrow views on everyone so badly.”
FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor echoes this sentiment.
“It should be obvious to anyone that the First Commandment alone — ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me’ — is the antithesis of our First Amendment, which, by the way, is one of the principles that truly makes America great,” she says. “The county sheriff has no business telling residents of Jefferson County how many gods to worship, or if they should worship one at all.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned parent informed FFRF that the school principal concluded a parents, teachers and students meeting with Christian prayer on Aug. 2. The complainant recorded audio of the prayer, which was addressed to the Christian god and ended, “we pray to you father in heaven for your wonderful blessings and we ask those things in God’s name. Amen.”
FFRF has written to the district in hopes of bringing it back in line with the constitutional principle of state/church separation.
“Government officials may not deliver an official, sectarian prayer to a captive audience,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi writes to Franklin County Schools Director Cary Holman. “We ask the district to investigate and ensure that administrators and teachers are counseled against praying with students during the course of their official school duties.”
Students, their families, and school staff all have the First Amendment right to be free from religious indoctrination when participating in school-sponsored events, FFRF is insisting. It is a basic constitutional principle that public schools may not show favoritism towards or coerce belief or participation in religion — and this includes official prayer at any school event, to a room of students, teachers and parents.
Furthermore, imposing prayer on students and staff violates their religious rights. The district serves and employs a diverse population with diverse religious beliefs, including Jews, Muslims, atheists and agnostics. As much as 37 percent of the American population is non-Christian, including the almost 30 percent who are nonreligious. At least a third of Generation Z (those born after 1996) has no religion, with a recent survey revealing almost half of Gen Z qualifies as “Nones” (religiously unaffiliated).
FFRF reminds the district that it must be neutral with regard to religion in order to respect and protect the First Amendment rights of all students, families and staff. District staff must be made aware that including prayer in school events is unconstitutional.
“School districts exist to educate, not indoctrinate into religion,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “No public school employee has any right to use a meeting with community members as their personal church. The district needs to ensure these meetings focus only on policies impacting students and their parents.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
FFRF has awarded $35,000 in First in the Family Humanist Forward Freethought scholarships to eight students, thanks to the incredible generosity of FFRF benefactor Lance Bredvold. The students were selected by Black Skeptics Los Angeles (BSLA), an African American humanist-atheist-based organization.
BSLA is the first secular humanist atheist organization to specifically address college pipelining for youth of color through its ongoing scholarship and college and K-12 youth leadership partnerships. FFRF has proudly partnered with BSLA for 11 years to provide tuition grants, gradually increasing the funding and number of scholarships.
The following are the 2024 First in the Family Forward Freethought scholarship winners. · Rubi Alvarez, UCLA, $2,500. · Denim Fisher, Spelman College, $2,500. · Jahliyah Johnson, UC Riverside, $5,000. · Xavier Johnson, Florida State University, $5,000. · Gabrielle LaCourse, University of Southern Maine, $5,000. · Alvaro Molina, University of Kentucky, $5,000. · Pierce Smallwood, California Polytechnic State University, $5,000. · Dulcinea Villareal, University of Washington, $5,000.
FFRF member Lance Bredvold, who is not wealthy but is very generous, suggested the Forward Freethought College Fund, a needs-based tuition scholarship, and has contributed the bulk of the $200,000-plus received to date. Since 2018, more than $100,000 has been disbursed to help freethinking students who might not otherwise be able to attend college.
Those who would like to donate toward the Forward Freethought Fund, a needs-based scholarship dedicated to helping freethinking students who might otherwise be unable to attend college, may designate “tuition scholarships” in the ffrf.org/donate dropdown or earmark checks for “Forward Freethought Fund” or “tuition scholarships.” All donations to FFRF remain deductible for income-tax purposes.
“This initiative helps those who are really in need and are the generational vanguard of freethinkers,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “All the contributions we receive assist a truly worthy cause.”
More detailed bios and short essays by the winning students will appear in the upcoming October issue of Freethought Today, FFRF’s lively (almost) monthly paper. https://www.freethoughttoday.com/
Here are excerpts from this year’s winning essays.
Rubi Alvarez “The question I often pose to those who wonder how I can be moral without a belief in God is this: If the fear of hell is the only thing motivating your goodness, then is your goodness truly genuine? Being a good person should come from a place of empathy and understanding, not fear. Secular humanism encourages us to take action based on reason and compassion rather than dogma. It calls for us to recognize our shared humanity and to work together to create a more just and equitable world. In addressing issues like transphobia, homophobia, classism, racism, and many others, it is crucial to engage with the underlying social and cultural factors that perpetuate discrimination. This means not only advocating for policy changes but also working to shift societal attitudes and beliefs. In my community, this has involved challenging harmful narratives and providing alternative perspectives that celebrate diversity and inclusivity. By fostering understanding and empathy, we can build a stronger, more cohesive society that values each individual for who they are.”
Denim Fisher “I aim to contribute to a society where every individual is treated justly, regardless of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Secular humanism posits that human beings, not deities, are responsible for creating social change.
Marginalized human beings can make a difference in promoting meaningful social change by realizing that we are the bearers of our freedom. When advocating for a cause, passion and education are significant. An advocate is present, listens to learn and not to respond, and asks questions. Being an advocate requires an ego adjustment. Many of us enter a space and assume that we can speak to something because we are emotionally invested and charged, but the work of an advocate/activist is to train the mind by educating oneself on not just feelings, but facts. Education is a lifelong task. To ensure that history does not repeat, we must revisit the past.”
Jahliyah Johnson “Secular humanism can make a difference in creating social change by promoting that being kind and equal to one another as humans is something we should do not because of a moral code created by a god, but simply because we are all human. Theism often relates morality to belief, and I’ve heard many theists argue something to the effect of ‘if you don’t follow a god, how do you know right from wrong?’ This line of thinking is flawed because it assumes that humans are naturally amoral and cruel, and that assumption is fundamentally negative toward social growth and change because of the fact that it discourages kindness and understanding to others who do not subscribe to a certain belief system. Their humanity comes after their theism. Secular humanism focuses instead on a person’s humanity, no matter their religion, race, orientation, etc. This focus allows for meaningful change to be made because the mistreatment of our fellow human is condemned purely because it’s mistreatment of another human being.”
Xavier Johnson “‘Yo momma’ jokes, a staple of school humor, weren’t my style. But one day, facing bullying because I was ‘different,’ I retaliated with a ‘Yo momma’ joke.
‘Well, yo momma’s so slow, she thought a hard drive was a rough road,’ I quipped, surprising them. This small victory made me feel empowered. Up until then, I found solace in my academic pursuits, but, in a moment of desperation, I was determined to stand up and confront my bullies. Surprisingly, the joke sparked their interest in my coding skills despite them initially shunning me due to my ‘difference.’ This led to the formation of Together We Build, a diverse group of individuals from all backgrounds, sexual orientations and beliefs, focused on Lego robotics, breaking down social barriers. Our camaraderie birthed the school’s first Lego robotics club. The club extended beyond STEM, serving as a platform for discussing topics like bullying prevention and academic success. It evolved into a supportive community, prioritizing personal growth alongside robotics. Empowered by this experience, I honed my wit, using humor to foster connections and advocate for myself. This shift in approach propelled my acceptance and growth and paved the way for a future enriched with innovation.”
Gabrielle LaCourse “I’m an African American deaf woman who was adopted into a white Christian family. My family has allowed me to not participate in their beliefs and have allowed me to pursue my own, which I have appreciated. The bullying and misunderstanding of deafness have made me aware that society in my local area is not as educated as one would hope. I have multiple opportunities around me to spread awareness and I do it with compassion.
The bullying in middle school was by exclusion, which brought on depression, self-harm and thoughts of suicide. My mother and I decided to spend a lot of time at a barn riding horses. This really helped me realize that this time in my life didn’t mean it was the end of my world. I used it as a learning experience.
As a result, I learned to befriend the so-called outcasts and become a safe place for them. I’ve learned not to judge people by their looks. I get to know them and find out that they are truly human.”
Alvaro Molina “After several years of analyzing why I am not religious, I have found that it is primarily because I do not believe that God, or any god in general, is responsible for everything that happens around me. I think concepts like the bible and Christianity, specifically, are based on self-contradictory arguments. The use of the existence of hell and heaven and the belief that God is watching our every action is nothing more than a tactic to control the masses through fear and suffering.
As a member of the LGBTQ-plus community and an undocumented immigrant in the United States, I have succeeded, graduating with honors from my high school despite the difficulties with English, and I am now a fluent speaker of the language. However, I can also speak to how ugly it feels to be judged by someone who is not like you and does not know your story. I have received racist comments and ridicule upon arriving in the United States, as well as whispers and mockery for being part of the LGBTQ-plus community. If we were more mindful of how our words hurt others, we could have a healthier and better-functioning society, all striving for equity.”
Pierce Smallwood “During my time growing up in various religious institutions such as Baptist schools, Catholic churches, and missionary programs, there was one factor of Christianity that led me to abandon my belief entirely: the self-righteous yet inconsistent attitudes and behaviors that many of its believers possess.
This isn’t to say that Christians and other nonsecular individuals simply decide to not to follow their religious disciplines perfectly, but especially in the West, modern Christianity has fueled some followers to deem others inferior and treat them as such, a completely backward attitude from what is taught in the bible. These mindsets played a strong role in building the United States and have imposed morally unjust and unfair treatment on its citizens, who are only now receiving the breadcrumbs of what they deserve.”
Dulcinea Villareal “The main thing I try to do to instill these morals is accept everyone. But beyond that, I try to tell other people to accept everyone. In my town, there are a lot of conservatives with some very not nice things to say about queer people and those who aren’t Christian. It is a human right to belong, be loved, and not be alone. I always remind them that God said ‘love thy neighbor.’ I tie these values back to their religious texts because I want to remind them that they don’t get to just pick and choose what ideas they follow and what ones they don’t. I’ve always seen a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to choosing what is right and wrong based on words in a book rather than what you feel is the right thing to do as a human being. I’ve always followed the idea that you can control your own life based on your religion, but you cannot control my life based on your religion. I live by the notion that under all the layers of what makes us individuals, there is a base — human.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation has ensured that Tennessee’s Cocke County School District will no longer unconstitutionally organize baccalaureate ceremonies.
FFRF wrote to the district after being informed that Cosby High School had held a baccalaureate service at Northport Baptist Church in Newton, Tenn., on Sunday, May 5. The event was hosted by a district elementary teacher after being promoted on the district’s facebook page.
“It is well-settled law that public schools may not show favoritism toward nor coerce belief or participation in religion,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi wrote to the district’s Director of Schools Manney Moore.
Baccalaureate programs are religious services with prayer and worship and that’s why schools may not plan, design or host baccalaureate programs, FFRF emphasized. By hosting and promoting a baccalaureate ceremony, districts are demonstrating clear favoritism towards religion over nonreligion — and Christianity over all other faiths. That favoritism enlarges when district employees organize and host the service. By hosting and promoting these services, the district abdicated this duty — needlessly alienating the almost half of Generation Z that is religiously unaffiliated.
The district heard Joshi’s words and decided to sharpen up its respect for the Constitution.
“CCSS does plan to pay particular attention to instruct their employees to not be overly assertive with regard to their religious beliefs when acting in their official capacity as a government employee,” the legal counsel for the Cocke County School District recently responded. “Further, CCSS plans to refrain from posting any announcement of a baccalaureate service on their official Facebook page or any other CCSS social media platform.”
FFRF takes great pride in keeping end-of-year celebrations secular in public schools.
“Students do not need to be reminded of religion when they are celebrating the prior 13 years of educational achievements,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “FFRF will always look to keep students’ First Amendment rights protected.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Multiple district community members have reported that South Caldwell High School recently added a Latin cross to the spelling of its mascot name in the gym, with the capital “T” being modified to represent a Christian cross.
“The district violates the U.S. Constitution when it allows its schools to display religious symbols or messages,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writes to Superintendent Donald Phipps.
FFRF asserts that to protect students’ First Amendment rights, the district must immediately remove the religious display from the South Caldwell High School gym, and anywhere else it might appear.
The district boasts on its website: “We are committed to providing equitable opportunities for all students, valuing and celebrating their diverse backgrounds, cultures and perspectives.” Yet this mascot redesign and highly prominent display violate not only the constitutional prohibition against preferring religion over nonreligion or Christianity over all other faiths. Additionally, this religious display needlessly alienates, excludes and turns into second-class citizens, those students and teachers who are a part of the nearly 37 percent of Americans who are non-Christians, and the nearly one in three Americans who are now religiously unaffiliated. Gen-Zs are the least religious generation, with as many as half having no religious affiliation.
“It is the constitutional duty of every public school to remain secular in all forms,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “South Caldwell High School must adhere to this principle and remove this overtly religious symbol as soon as possible.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned WMS parent informed the national state/church watchdog that the WMS’s Boys’ Athletic Coordinator ends mass emails sent to parents in his official capacity with a New Testament quote in bold font: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes…’ —Romans 1:16.” The coordinator also serves as the sponsor for the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, head football coach and physical education teacher.
“When their school’s athletic program continuously praises the Christian god via email, student athletes will believe matching that open praise is essential to pleasing their team’s coach,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi wrote to Superintendent Tim Harkrider.
It is a basic constitutional principle that the government cannot show favoritism toward religion. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause requires that the government remain neutral between religions, and between religion and nonreligion. By citing a proselytizing message from the bible in official emails to students and parents, this school official and spokesperson displays favoritism toward religion over nonreligion, and Christianity over all other faiths. This needlessly excludes and alienates families such as the complainant’s, who are part of the nearly 30 percent of the population today that is not religious.
Student athletes are especially susceptible to coercion, FFRF noted in its legal complaint letter. Such promotion of religion by an authority figure, especially a coach, creates a dilemma for student athletes: Either they must profess to believe, against their conscience, or openly dissent, risking their standing on the team. That ultimatum is exactly what the Establishment Clause guards against.
FFRF’s action caught the attention of the district, which worked to correct the violation.
Austin Dunson, College Station Independent School District’s director of communications, reached out to FFRF after the district corrected the issue. “We have recently provided district leaders with guidelines to follow and communicate to their staff regarding our updated brand,” Dunson wrote. “This includes all staff adhering to a consistent email signature that only includes their name, title, campus/department and contact information.”
FFRF is pleased religion will stay out of public school sports programs.
“An email footer in an official school communication is not the coach’s private pulpit,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “Students look to their coaches for more playtime or recommendations, and shouldn’t have to worry about conforming to their coaches’ personal religious beliefs. No student should have to pray to play.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned community member informed FFRF that Community ISD hosted and promoted a baccalaureate service in the auditorium of Community High School in Nevada, Texas, on May 19.
According to its own advertisements, pastors delivered sermons to students at the district venue. District staff escorted students inside. Opening prayer, worship, Christian hymns, sermons and a closing prayer were delivered by various local Christian clergy. The district advertised the event via Facebook and asked seniors to “please bring your full regalia,” thereby confusing the baccalaureate with the official graduation ceremony. The district’s own invitation read: “You are invited to celebrate through praise and worship the graduating class of 2024.” The district later published photographs of the event on its social media.
“[Community High School] promoted, sponsored, and spent money for a religious ceremony on its property,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi wrote to the district. “The district must respect the constitutional rights of all its students to be free from religious coercion and indoctrination in their public schools, and so it must cease sponsoring or promoting baccalaureate ceremonies.”
Baccalaureate programs are religious services with prayer and worship. By hosting and promoting a baccalaureate ceremony, the district demonstrated clear favoritism toward religion over nonreligion, and Christianity above all other faiths. It is also telling that the service was held on a Sunday, the Christian sabbath. By hosting and promoting a church service, the district abdicated the constitutional duty to remain neutral toward religion, also needlessly sending a message to its nonreligious and nonChristian students that they are second-class citizens. Today 49 percent of Generation Z are religiously unaffiliated.
After FFRF sent the letter, action was taken.
The district’s legal representative, Robb D. Decker, confirmed that the issue has been resolved. “Based on the concerns raised in your letter, and in review of the materials that were published, the district has spoken with the leaders of that group and made clear to them that future services and materials promoting the event need to be far clearer about their sponsorship of the event and not creating an appearance that the district is a sponsor of or participant in the event,” he wrote.
FFRF is pleased the district will honor its obligation to separate religion from its publicly supported ceremonies.
“Private groups and churches may put on their own religious celebrations of graduating high school seniors, even renting school facilities, but the public schools may not promote, pay for, host or otherwise endorse these private events,” comments Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. “When they wish to celebrate graduating seniors, public schools must do so free from religious ritual at the official commencement ceremony.”
Organization Description: The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a national nonprofit organization with 40,000 members and several chapters all over the country. Our purposes are to protect the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
A concerned community parent informed the state/church watchdog that an art teacher who teaches kindergarten through sixth grade at Gosnell Elementary School had students paint the crucifixion scene for Easter. GES’s art show from May 24, 2024, proves this claim, showing some of the crucifixion paintings. This is reportedly also not the first year that the assignment has been given to students. These drawings were prominently displayed on the elementary school walls.
“If the District turns a blind eye to overt proselytization in its classroom, it becomes complicit in an egregious constitutional violation and breach of trust,” FFRF Patrick O’Reiley Legal Fellow Hirsh M. Joshi wrote to the district.
Public school students have a constitutional right to be free from religious indoctrination in their public schools. It is well settled that public schools may not show favoritism toward or coerce belief or participation in religion. Moreover, public schools may not provide religious instruction. There is simply no legitimate educational reason to assign any public school student to depict the Christian cross in their artwork. By including such pervasively sectarian assignments, the district abdicates its constitutional duty to remain neutral toward religion, which needlessly excludes and alienates the 49 percent of Generation Z students who are religiously unaffiliated and clearly is an attempt to proselytize.
The district took this opportunity to learn from its mistake. FFRF received a letter from the District Legal Counsel Phillip M. Brick, Jr., who wrote that, “to avoid any ongoing issues, the district art teacher will not assign a project that includes drawing a crucifix in the future.”
“School districts are for education, not indoctrination into religion,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says. “Students do not need to show their devotion to a teacher’s god in order to get a good grade.”
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
By Meredith Thomson
The American Humanist Association (AHA) is honored to recognize world renowned journalist, investigative reporter, and author Amy Goodman as the 2024 Humanist of the Year. Goodman is the co-founder and main host of Democracy Now!, a progressive global news program that is free of corporate influence. Her award-winning investigative journalism work spans Chevron Corporation’s role in Nigeria, Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara, and more.
Shortly after graduating from Harvard in 1984, Goodman helped launch Democracy Now! and has grown it to become one of the leading US-based independent daily news broadcasts in the world. As a producer and host, Goodman interviews people on the front lines of the world’s most pressing issues, allowing a range of people to speak for themselves in ways that would normally not reach the mainstream media. Goodman and her colleagues often focus on issues they consider under-reported or ignored by mainstream news coverage, like racial injustice and peace activism.
“As we stand with journalists around the world who deeply believe that the mission of a journalist is to go to where the silence is, that the responsibility of a journalist is to give a voice to those who have been forgotten, forsaken, beaten down by the powerful – it’s the best reason I know for us to pick up our pens, our microphones and our cameras both into our own communities and out to the wider world. The media can be, must be, a major force for peace.” -Amy Goodman, Right to Livelihood Acceptance Speech
Goodman has won many honors throughout her career for her work with Democracy Now!and for her investigative journalism work, undergoing considerable risk to bring underreported stories to the forefront. Her reporting on East Timor and Nigeria has won numerous awards, including the George Polk Award, Robert F. Kennedy Prize for International Reporting, and the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia Award. Goodman has received the Society for Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi Award for Excellence; American Women in Radio and Television Gracie Award; the Paley Center for Media’s She’s Made It Award; and the Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship. The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard honored Goodman with the 2014 I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence Lifetime Achievement Award. She is also the first journalist to receive the Right Livelihood Award, widely known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’. She is the first co-recipient of the Park Center for Independent Media’s Izzy Award, named for the great muckraking journalist I.F. Stone, and was later selected for induction into the Park Center’s I.F. Stone Hall of Fame.
She has also co-authored six New York Times bestsellers, including Democracy Now!: Twenty Years Covering the Movements Changing America, which chronicles the powerful movements shaping our world.
As an advocate for factual reporting that builds bridges between communities, Goodman sticks to facts and holds politicians and corporations accountable. Her commitment to grassroots political journalism is not just inspiring—it’s essential for the preservation of democracy and human rights.
In a time when disinformation spreads rapidly and journalists face increasing threats and backlash, uplifting fearless reporting has never been more critical.The AHA is honored to have Amy Goodman wrap up our 83rd Annual Conference on the evening of September 15th. The Annual Conference will be held virtually on September 14-15th and, in addition to Goodman’s remarks, will feature interactive sessions, inspiring speakers, and opportunities to connect with fellow humanists.
Organization Description: The mission of the American Humanist Association is to advance humanism, an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces. Advocating for equality for nontheists and a society guided by reason, empathy, and our growing knowledge of the world, the AHA promotes a worldview that encourages individuals to live informed and meaningful lives that aspire to the greater good.
By Meredith Thomson
The American Humanist Association’s annual conference, AHACON24: The Future is Humanist, is happening this weekend, and it’s shaping up to be one of our most exciting conferences yet! With a jam-packed schedule of inspiring sessions and big announcements, this year’s conference is set to push humanism forward in bold new ways.
This is also the first conference led by AHA’s new President, Candace Gorham, and new Executive Director, Fish Stark, who couldn’t be more excited to lead us into a humanist future. Fish is planning on unveiling a bold initiative for the American Humanist Association at AHACON24. The big reveal? A brand-new program that will take on Project 2025 and make a real impact in fighting White Christian Nationalism as we head toward November. Fish is fired up about one of the most important initiatives of our time, and he’s ready to share all the details during a meet and greet on Saturday night.
This session is the perfect chance to get to know Fish, hear his vision for the future of the AHA, and ask questions or just listen in. Plus, with all the networking opportunities over the weekend, there’s even a chance for one-on-one time with him.
The weekend will also spotlight some incredible humanists, including Ted Chiang, who will be accepting the Inquiry and Innovation Award, and Karen Hao, who’s being honored with the Humanist Media Award. Their remarks are exclusive to the conference, so don’t miss your chance to hear from these thought leaders. Attendees will also celebrate notable figures like journalist Amy Goodman and other powerful voices in the humanist movement.
AHACON24, themed “The Future is Humanist: Shaping Tomorrow Together,” takes place September 14-15, 2024, and will feature sessions on everything from social justice to science and countering Christian Nationalism. It’s all happening virtually, so you can join from anywhere.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Dissent Dispatch: Your Weekly Update
In this week’s Unbelief Brief, we look at criminal charges against an Iranian actress for dancing in public and Erdogan’s vow to purge military officials for supporting a secular democracy.
EXMNA Insights looks back on the second anniversary of Iran’s hijab protests.
The Unbelief Brief
In Iran, an actress has been criminally charged with “violating Islamic norms” for… dancing. Anywhere else in the world, with only a few exceptions (such as the Taliban’s Afghanistan), a statement so absurd would be taken as a joke.The actress, Sahar Dolatshahi, was caught red-handed in a TV program “moving her head and shoulders to music.” Iran’s authorities opened an investigation and brought charges against her for this display of immodesty. “Judicial action” was reportedly also taken against “the platform responsible for distributing the series” in which Dolatshahi acted.
This is the second instance of a high-profile actress in Iran being criminally charged for failure to comply with Islamic norms in two months. It is no wonder that such a dystopian state of affairs draws the sympathy and indignation of those unaccustomed to living under the nightmare of Islamic theocracy. It is fitting, then, that two years after the murder of Mahsa Amini in police custody, Parisians have taken to the streets and marched to demand Iranian women’s freedom, coinciding with a hunger strike that 34 women imprisoned in Iran are undertaking. The situation of extreme dissatisfaction with the tyrannical government of the Islamic Republic is not sustainable, and something—sooner or later—is bound to break.
Finally, a Muslim-majority country which still has some semblance of secularism is finding itself under continued and renewed pressure from leaders who seek to destroy it. In Turkey, President Erdogan has vowed a “purge” of military officials who allowed graduating military students to take an oath to defend a “secular, democratic Turkey.” This particular reference to secularism and democracy in the oath of service was removed two years ago, in line with the desire of the conservative Erdogan government to break down the barriers between mosque and state. It is no surprise he would take issue with it. Under Erdogan’s governance the systematic assault on the principles upon which Turkey was founded seems to be never ending..
EXMNA Insights
On this second anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s tragic death at the hands of Iran’s morality police, we at Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA) honor her memory and the brave women who continue to resist Iran’s draconian mandatory hijab law. Amini’s unjust arrest and death for allegedly violating the country’s strict hijab requirements sparked a global outcry against a law rooted not in morality but in control and oppression.
In his first press conference since becoming president, Masoud Pezeshkian reassured Iranian women this week that “[the] morality police were not supposed to confront [women]. I will follow up so they don’t bother [them]”. This promise, however, is doubtful to carry any weight since a new “Hijab and Chastity Bill” is currently in the final stages of approval which will carry even harsher penalties for women who refuse to wear the hijab.
Iran’s mandatory hijab law is emblematic of a broader system that seeks to police women’s bodies and choices. By criminalizing the simple act of choosing whether or not to wear a headscarf, the Iranian regime enforces a narrow, patriarchal view of womanhood—one in which women’s value is measured by their adherence to oppressive standards of modesty. Women who have bravely removed their hijabs in protest have faced brutal crackdowns, beatings, and imprisonment, exposing the regime’s fear of women’s autonomy.
At its core, hijab mandates and the modesty culture that sustains them are built on the same foundations of misogyny that have long been used to justify the subjugation of women. Whether it’s in Iran, elsewhere in the Islamic world or in the West, modesty and purity cultures reduce women to objects of temptation and shame, rather than allowing them to exist as full, autonomous human beings. We must continue to stand with the women of Iran and around the world, fighting for a future where every individual’s freedom of choice is respected. Mahsa Amini’s legacy demands nothing less.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Welcome to This Edition of Dissent Dispatch
This week’s Unbelief Brief spotlights mob violence in Bangladesh, a terrorist attack in Afghanistan and Iranian citizens growing dissatisfaction with their government.
Persecution Tracker Update: A deeper dive into the blasphemy related violence in Bangladesh.
The Unbelief Brief
A recent mob assault in Bangladesh is a dark reminder of the near anarchistic violence of a decade ago. Utsav Mandol, a Hindu adolescent or young man—his age variously reported as 15, 19, and 22—was accused of posting blasphemous material against the Prophet Muhammad on social media. He was subsequently brought to the police station by locals, whereupon he was taken into custody. However, an angry mob formed, managing to enter the police station to attack Utsav. Initial reports indicated he was murdered, but more recent reporting states he was beaten and hospitalized and is still alive. Such incidents are commonplace in neighboring Pakistan, but this particular one is so noteworthy—and uniquely distressing—because of the history Bangladesh has with attacks like this. “Hacked to death” was a horribly common headline in Bangladesh in the mid-2010s as attacks on atheist and secular bloggers raged. Until now, crackdowns on the perpetrators of such violence seemed to have stamped it out. One can only hope that this mob attack represents an isolated incident and not a return to darker days that had only temporarily receded.
In Iran, meanwhile: a recent survey—conducted in November 2023 but recently made public—found that “over 90%” of the country’s residents are dissatisfied with the current state of the country, something which should come as no surprise given the economic conditions and repressive events in the Islamic Republic during the last two years. Somewhat surprising is that the survey was “conducted by a department affiliated with the Ministry of Culture” but nevertheless made public, given how terribly it reflects on the regime. Roughly a third of respondents even said “the country’s situation is beyond repair.” This state of affairs is not reducible merely to theocracy—but it is the logical conclusion of an authoritarian, ultra-conservative state that refuses to respond to its citizens and clutches ever more tightly onto a destructive religious ideology.
Finally: ISIS has asserted that they are responsible for a recent suicide attack in Kabul, Afghanistan. The attack, which targeted “employees of the Directorate of Monitoring and Enforcement of Taliban Decrees,” has led the Pentagon to “reaffirm” the threat posed by ISIS, including ISIS-K, the branch that carried out the attack. It is another reminder of the nature of violent religious extremism—leading to infighting as much as the oppression of outgroups, as different brands of authoritarians argue over which brutal, hellish nightmare to bring to life. Just as well, it is a reminder of the unavoidable destruction and murderous tendencies of Islamic jihadism, particularly as terrorism makes headlines the entire world over: in just the last few days, a suspect was arrested in Canada for a plot to cross the border and target Jews in a mass shooting on the anniversary of October 7th, and seven individuals in Indonesia have been arrested for planning to attack Pope Francis on his visit to the country. Wherever this ideology goes, it brings the constant threat of death.
Persecution Tracker Update
Our full entry on the recent blasphemy mob attack in Bangladesh: here.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Welcome to the Latest Edition
This week’s Unbelief Brief covers another victim of Iran’s draconian hijab law and the return of a conservative Islamic political party in Bangladesh.
In EXMNA Insights we reflect on the bravery of a female paralympic athlete from Afghanistan.
An EXMNA Update on the latest WikiIslam cyber attack.
The Unbelief Brief
Iran has, in the last two years, shown that they are more than willing to enforce and tighten their overwhelmingly harsh hijab restrictions against women on the street who refuse to comply with them—lethally in the case of Mahsa Amini. With one recent act, they seem to have demonstrated a willingness not to keep their efforts confined to “normal” private citizens, but even to extend them to honored and prestigious figures in public life. Just recently, the filmmaker Rakhshan Banietemad and actress Baran Kosari, her daughter, were charged with crimes after “pictures of the two without the mandatory head scarf at a film event were posted online.” Both have received awards in the past at the country’s largest film festival, and Banietemad has the distinction of being one of the country’s “first female screenwriters and film directors,” being 70 years old herself. It seems in character for such women to refuse to abide by the oppressive restrictions of the Islamic Republic—and for the Islamic Republic to punish them for daring to act on their own free will while being women.
Moving over to Bangladesh, where student-led protests against authoritarianism deposed the government of prime minister Sheikh Hasina this summer: the interim government, led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, has taken the eyebrow-raising step of unbanning the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami political party. The Shahbag protests of 2013, also spearheaded by students, were fueled in part by calls to ban the group amid aspirations for a more secular Bangladesh. The party had been banned from contesting elections in the last decade up until this point. In fact, former Prime Minister Hasina banned the party outright just days before she was forced to resign and leave the country—not just from contesting elections. The new government termed Hasina’s total ban a politically-motivated attempt to consolidate her own power based on unfounded claims of terrorist activities.
Jamaat-e-Islami now vows to attempt to re-register for the ability to contest elections once again. Although this decision from the new government simply restores the status quo that had existed until just a month ago, whether the party manages to gain a foothold back into Bangladeshi politics will be revealing. The students who led the protests against Sheikh Hasina’s government, an administration widely criticized as corrupt and authoritarian, premised their actions on a commitment to democratic values and to secularism, much like the Shahbag protestors of a decade prior. The unbanning of Jamaat-e-Islami is not necessarily intended as a betrayal of those values. Nevertheless, it may be worth asking whether an avowedly Islamist political party has any place in a secular democracy. While the members of Jamaat-e-Islami ought to be free to voice their desire for an Islamic state, that political project must never come to pass, a fact that should be more acutely felt in such a moment of optimism for Bangladeshi democracy.
EXMNA Insights
Zakia Khodadadi’s Bronze Medal win in the Paris 2024 Paralympics is not merely a personal achievement but a reflection of the double burden of being both a woman and Hazara. Her story, marked by a dramatic escape from a country rife with persecution, underscores a pressing issue: the systemic violence inflicted on minorities by the Taliban.
The Hazara people, a Shia minority, have been subjected to repeated atrocities, with the 1998 Mazar-i-Sharif massacre being a particularly stark example of an attempt by the Taliban at religiously inspired genocide of the Hazaras. The Taliban’s statements during this massacre—declaring Hazaras as “kafir [infidels]”—reveal the extreme persecution that Shia and other Muslim minority groups suffer by being branded heretics and then murdered as apostates. This historical backdrop is crucial for understanding the current dangers faced by the Hazara community, including threats against women and athletes like Khudadadi.
Recent reports highlight the harsh reality of Khodadadi’s situation. After performing as the first female Afghan athlete at the 2021 Paralympic games, she was forced to flee Afghanistan due to the Taliban’s severe persecution of the Hazara. This escape was not a mere act of individual heroism but a necessary measure to protect her life against the oppressive regime of the Taliban.
Now living in exile in France and competing as part of the Refugee Paralympic Team, it is crucial to remain aware of the severe conditions that forced her to flee and the broader patterns of violence and discrimination faced by the Hazara people and Afghan women in general. Her story is a call to action for the global community to ensure support for persecuted groups, as not just a symbolic measure, but in hopes of making a tangible difference.
EXMNA Updates
WikiIslam is under attack!Following Meta’s ban of WikiIslam links across its platforms, WikiIslam is again under a denial of service (DoS) attack. While the initial cyber attack briefly took WikiIslam offline, we were quickly able to restore its operation. The attack, however, is still ongoing. Those who wish to silence the truth may experience transient successes but ultimately the truth will not be defeated.
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Hello and Welcome
This week’s Unbelief Brief looks at the Taliban’s decree against the sound of women’s voices and how Pakistan’s Supreme Court is kowtowing to extremists.
In EXMNA Insights we delve deeper into Islam’s disdain for dogs and the prohibition on keeping them as pets.
Persecution Tracker Updates: Afghanistan and Pakistan meting out harsh blasphemy punishments
The Unbelief Brief
You may have heard that the Taliban have recently mandated all women go completely covered in public, from head to toe, with no part of their face visible. It is the inevitable conclusion of the inhumanity of their ideology. You may or may not have heard just how unbelievable the new law’s provisions are. It is part of a cumulative strategy for “the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice,” and, as the Associated Press reports, is truly unthinkable:
“Women should veil themselves in front of all male strangers, including Muslims, and in front of all non-Muslims to avoid being corrupted. A woman’s voice is deemed intimate and so should not be heard singing, reciting, or reading aloud in public. It is forbidden for women to look at men they are not related to by blood or marriage and vice versa.”
Also banned now: “the publication of images of living beings”; all music; “the transportation of solo female travelers”; and “the mixing of men and women who are not related to each other.” As said: unbelievable, and the shadow of the Taliban makes Afghanistan only darker with each passing year that they hold power.
Pakistan, by contrast, is nowhere near this level of despotism, though there seem to be many who wish to make it so. A mob of such people recently stormed the Pakistan Supreme Court demanding the resignation of the Chief Justice because of a ruling which granted bail to an Ahmadi Muslim accused of blasphemy. To our dismay, the Court appears to have caved and is now promising to “review” aspects of the verdict. It’s becoming a tale as old as time in Pakistan: the extremists and arsonists in the country are too big a faction to meaningfully oppose, and they are instead appeased at every turn in a desperate effort to prevent things from really spiraling out of control.
Finally, a small bit of good news—and a reminder that vestiges of sanity are still with us in a world barreling away from secularism. A judge in Maine has ruled—or, more accurately, simply reaffirmed—that schools receiving state funding must comply with state anti-discrimination laws, something which has long irked religious schools seeking, primarily, to deny entry to LGBT+ students. This is, at least, good news for now, as an appeal could very well end up before the Supreme Court, and there is little doubt what six justices there will do with it.
EXMNA Insights
Yesterday was National Dog Day in the US—a celebration of the deep bond between humans and their canine companions. But Islam’s view on “man’s best friend” is strikingly different. According to an often-cited hadith, “Whoever keeps a dog, except for herding or hunting, will lose two Qirats of reward every day.” This has led to a widespread belief that dogs should not be kept as pets. Muhammad even claimed that Angel Gabriel once skipped visiting his home because of a puppy hiding under the bed. Gabriel allegedly told him, “Angels do not enter a house with a dog.” Soon after, Muhammad ordered the killing of all dogs, sparing only those guarding large fields—likely a nod to their practical role in farming rather than any divine command. His disdain for dogs didn’t stop there; black dogs, in particular, were singled out as embodiments of the devil.
These views are outdated and cruel since in today’s world, dogs are indispensable. For many, especially those with physical or mental disabilities, dogs are more than pets—they’re essential companions that provide much-needed independence and improve the overall quality of life. Beyond that, pet dogs help reduce social isolation, boost physical activity, and lower stress. The undeniable benefits of dog ownership highlight how Islam’s prohibition is irrational, outdated, and cruel. In the light of modern understanding, Islam’s stance on dogs reveals a disconnect with the vital role these animals play in contemporary society. Once again, Muhammad’s personal biases are enshrined in Islam, invalidating its claim of being a timeless, universal religion. Instead, Islam clings to the misguided views of a 7th-century charlatan, refusing to discard them as unfounded and irrelevant.
This year, we hosted our very first Apostasy Day Meme Contest, and on Thursday, August 22nd, we celebrated by announcing the top three winners!
In 3rd place, we have “We Have Different Values Than the West” by Reddit user World_oyster_! This clever meme uses a familiar image to point out a common justification used by both Muslims and Western “progressives.”
In 2nd place, it’s “Hotel Islam” by Anonymous! Drawing inspiration from the classic “Hotel California,” this meme features an Imam at a dilapidated motel saying, “You can check out, but you can never leave.” Happy people line up, while a bin of decapitated heads nods to Sahih al-Bukhari 6922.
And nabbing 1st place is “Islam is the Fastest Growing Religion” by JJ!
This meme hilariously critiques the idea that Islam’s growth equates to its truth. JJ humorously points out how Dawah culture sidesteps the more uncomfortable parts of the religion, making assumptions about why people convert and stay. The meme even references Tafsir ibn-Kathir’s interpretation of verses like 5:33 (waging war against Allah) and 9:29, which commands fighting others based on religious differences.
Thanks for joining us for another EXMNA contest! Got an idea for our next one? Let us know at info@exmuslims.org!
Organization Description: Ex-Muslims of North America is a non-profit organization that focuses on providing support for apostates from Islam and spreading awareness of the dangers behind militant Islam. Ex-Muslims of North America advocates for acceptance of religious dissent, promotes secular values, and aims to reduce discrimination faced by those who leave Islam. We envision a world where every person is free to follow their conscience, irrespective of religious dogma or oppression.
Welcome to Another Edition of Our Newsletter
This week’s Unbelief Brief brings you yet another disturbing enforcement of Iran’s hijab law, another clothing law in Tajikistan, and finally takes you state-side to Texas.
In EXMNA Insights we provide commentary on the upcoming Apostasy Day 2024. And don’t forget, our Apostasy Day Meme Contest winners will be announced on Thursday!
The Unbelief Brief
The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to be an autocratic, repressive, and brutal nightmare. Yet another woman has been shot for her improper adherence to hijab mandates. Arezoo Badri, a 31-year-old mother of two, was driving with her sister in her car which “had a confiscation notice against it,” apparently for “multiple alleged violations of the hijab law.” Police tried to pull her over to carry out the confiscation, and when she did not comply, they shot her while the car was moving, puncturing her lung and striking her spine. She is alive but hospitalized, paralyzed for the moment and perhaps for life. Another “success” for Iranian law enforcement.
In another Muslim-majority country, Tajikistan, an autocratic government is pressing hard in the opposite direction. Previously this year, the nation had banned the hijab in an effort to promote the “traditional,” “original” culture of the land. They now appear to be taking a further step—a prohibition on “black clothes.” Ironically, the prohibition has been issued as a fatwa from the Council of Ulemas, which is itself backed by the otherwise staunchly secular state. The fatwa prohibits women specifically from wearing black clothes, presumably targeting Islamic dress in an indirect way. But it also asserts that women must not wear “tight-fitting and transparent clothing.” It seems Tajikistan’s Council of Ulemas has somehow managed to create a union between repressive religious modesty culture and repressive anti-religious authoritarianism.
Finally, moving stateside, one theocratic official of the state of Texas decided to briefly remove his mask and openly voice his contempt for the First Amendment and the Constitution. Mike Morath, the state’s Education Commissioner, testified recently at a hearing regarding new state-approved lesson plans, which, while requiring instruction on the Bible, apparently “remov[ed] large sections on other religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and all mentions of the Islamic prophet Muhammed.” When asked by one lawmaker if he was concerned this lesson plan would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Morath replied: “Then why does the bill, at the bottom of page 5, explicitly give teachers who use this new curriculum immunity for violating the Establishment Clause in the United States Constitution?” We shall see whether the argument that state law allows public employees to violate the US Constitution holds up in court.
EXMNA Insights
As Apostasy Day approaches, it’s crucial to highlight the continued presence of laws in various Islamic countries that criminalize apostasy. In nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, leaving Islam is not only socially stigmatized but also legally punishable, often by death. Apostasy laws reflect a rigid adherence to classical Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), which derives from both the Quran and the Hadith.
According to Sahih Hadith, apostasy is condemned with severe consequences. For instance, in Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 9, Book 84, Hadith 57), the Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying: “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” This Hadith is frequently cited by Islamic scholars and legal authorities in countries that enforce laws against apostasy. In addition all major schools of Islamic law (fiqh) are unanimous on the punishment for apostasy – death. The legal consequences of such laws vary by country, but they represent an ongoing barrier to freedom of belief and religious autonomy.
These apostasy laws and their roots in Sahih Hadith demonstrate the tension between religious orthodoxy and human rights, a challenge faced every day by most ex-Muslims around the world today.
Other relevant Hadiths on the subject:
Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 9, Book 83, Hadith 37): The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
This Hadith is a central reference for legal authorities in countries that enforce capital punishment for apostasy.
Sahih Muslim (Book 16, Hadith 4152): It is narrated that the Prophet Muhammad said: “It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim except in one of three cases: the married adulterer, a life for a life, and the one who forsakes his religion and abandons the community.”
This Hadith reinforces the legal framework for apostasy laws, emphasizing that leaving Islam is considered a capital offense.
Sahih al-Bukhari (Volume 9, Book 89, Hadith 271): Another relevant narration states: “A man embraced Islam and then reverted to Judaism. Mu’adh bin Jabal came and saw him with Abu Musa. Mu’adh said, ‘What is wrong with this man?’ Abu Musa replied, ‘He embraced Islam and then reverted to Judaism.’ Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down unless you kill him, as it is the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.'”
Ex-Muslims of North America (EXMNA) stands firmly with those who have chosen to leave Islam, advocating for the fundamental human right to freedom of belief. Apostates, often facing persecution, violence, or death in many parts of the Islamic world, deserve the right to make their own choices regarding faith without fear of legal or social retribution. On Apostasy Day, we reaffirm our commitment to defending the rights of ex-Muslims everywhere and call for an end to laws that punish individuals simply for leaving a religion.
On the Horizon
Stay tuned for the winners of our Apostasy Day Meme Contest! To be announced on Apostasy Day, Thursday August 22!
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Friday Evening, September 13, 2024
MRFF DEMANDS INVESTIGATION OF 3-STAR PENTAGON GENERAL’S DISTURBING TIES TO NEW APOSTOLIC REFORMATION (NAR)AND ITS GOAL OF SUBVERTING DEMOCRACY
On the weekend of August 29-31, 2024, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler, who recently got his third star and a new position as Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, was photographed giving a presentation – in uniform – at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in D.C. During the Eiflers’ three years in Alaska, from 2021 until this past summer, Lt. General Eifler’s wife, Sherry, became a member of “Alaska’s War Council,” part of the extensive network of prophets, apostles, and kingdom warriors known as the New Apostolic Reformation — a politically influential Christian dominionist movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it.
U.S. Army Lt. General Brian Eifler speaking in uniform at New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held in Washington, D.C., from August 29-31, 2024
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos MRFF demands investigation of 3-Star Pentagon general’s disturbing ties to New Apostolic Reformation By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Friday, September 13, 2024
On a September 4 Zoom call of “Alaska’s War Council,” Eleanor Roehl, co-founder of Kingdom Warriors Alaska, Kingdom Alliance Network and Alaskan Representative on Cindy Jacobs’s Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders, opened the call by welcoming her fellow “War Council” members:
“Good evening. Greetings to you from Anchorage, Alaska. We want to welcome of course the War Council on tonight. … And of course we have Sherry Eifler, living in Washington, D.C., who we just saw – her and of course her husband Brian in D.C. last weekend. … It is so great to have Sherry Eifler stationed in D.C. as a part of our War Council.”
And who is Sherry Eifler’s husband Brian, referred to so familiarly by Eleanor Roehl? Well, that would be U.S. Army Lieutenant General Brian Eifler, who recently got his third star and a new position as Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel of the United States Army, moving to D.C. after three years in Alaska as Commanding General, 11th Airborne Division. During the Eiflers’ three years in Alaska, Lt. General Eifler’s wife, Sherry Eifler, became a member of “Alaska’s War Council,” part of the extensive network of prophets and apostles and prayer warriors known as the New Apostolic Reformation. And what was the event in D.C. that Eleanor Roehl had just seen Sherry Eifler and her 3-star general husband Brian at? That would be the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, held less than a month ago, from August 29-31, 2024. And it wasn’t as if Lt. General Eifler was just tagging along with his “Alaska’s War Council” wife and her New Apostolic Reformation pals to this NAR event. Oh no! This 3-star general was an active participant, giving a presentation (that, for some reason, involved a map of the Asia-Pacific region) to an audience that included Apostle Cindy Jacobs herself! And he even put on his 3-star Army general uniform for the occasion, as photos on the Indiana Canopy of Prayer’s Facebook page show.
H/T to NAR researcher Kira Resistance for spotting the above photos and NAR expert Frederick Clarkson, a Senior Research Analyst at Political Research Associates, for passing them on to MRFF.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), as anybody who follows us knows, routinely goes after military personnel, especially high-ranking officers, who blatantly violate the Department of Defense and service branch regulations that strictly prohibit the wearing of military uniforms while participating in religious events. There’s no question that Lt. General Eifler violated these regulations when giving his presentation at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s Reformation Prayer Network gathering in uniform. But this is infinitely more serious than that, given that the NAR isn’t just a religious movement but also a powerful, dangerous, and growing political movement that seeks to end democracy as we know it. Apostle Cindy Jacobs, whose big NAR gathering Lt. General Eifler just participated in, was one of the Trump-supporting prayer leaders outside the Capitol Building on Jan. 6, saying at the beginning of the video in the tweet below, as the breach of the Capitol was getting underway, “And we’re right in front of the Capitol and the lord had given me a vision and he showed me that they would break through and go all the way to the top.”
At the time of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Lt. General Eifler, then a 1-star general, was stationed at the Pentagon as the Army’s Chief Legislative Liaison. Don’t know much about the NAR? You’re not alone. But if you’re familiar with the now-iconic White House photo of people laying their hands on Trump, who they believe was anointed president by God, that’s as good as any place to start.
The blond woman next to Trump is Apostle Paula White (now Paula White-Cain since she married her third husband, Jonathan Cain of the band Journey), Trump’s spiritual advisor. And here is a must-watch video, preserved for posterity by PFAW’s Right Wing Watch, of Paula White on November 4, 2020, leading a prayer service to secure Trump’s reelection. (I have no idea what the guy nonchalantly walking back and forth behind her reading something is doing.)
Now, I probably know a bit more about the NAR than most people because of the kind of work I do, but I’m the first to admit that what I know barely scratches the surface of this seemingly endless web of prophets and apostles and networks and churches. Fortunately for us, there are people who have been closely following and reporting on the NAR for decades, among them Senior Research Analyst at Political Research Associates Frederick Clarkson and Rachel Tabachnick, a former associate fellow at Political Research Associates and now an independent researcher, writer, and speaker. So, before getting back to Lt. General Eifler, his “Alaska’s War Council” wife, and his participation in uniform at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering in D.C. in August, let’s take a few minutes to turn to the experts and become better acquainted with this nefarious network. A November 17, 2020, Religion Dispatches article by Frederick Clarkson titled “Beneath the ‘Wacky’ Paula White Video is a Dark and Deeply Undemocratic World Propping Up the President” included the following quotes from Rachel Tabachnick, that do a good job of concisely conveying the growth and dominionist ambitions of the NAR (emphasis added):
“The apostolic and prophetic networks that now dominate organized Christian Zionism have transitioned from more passive narratives of events to take place in the afterlife toward narratives requiring dominion over the world in this life. The political implications of this transcend the role of the U.S. alone, and engages many “nationalisms” around the world, as millions are taught an increasingly politicized interpretation of the prerequisites required for the return of Jesus and the end of the natural world.”
and …
“White and many other prosperity doctrine evangelists have adopted the church governance models of the New Apostolic Reformation. White began 2012 with a sermon titled ‘Season of Apostolic Reformation,’ telling her congregation that they must align with this new order. ‘God is a theocracy, not a democracy,’ White stated, and warned congregants to ‘get in, get out, or get run over.’”
“The NAR doesn’t merit our considered attention because some of the leaders may sound nutty to those outside the movement, but because it’s driven by theocratic notions of total societal dominion, including the end of democracy as we’ve known it; and it deserves our attention because it’s developed the political capacities to make these ambitions a lot less of a pipe dream than they seemed even five years ago.”
For those who really want to learn all about the NAR, an excellent resource, already mentioned, is Frederick Clarkson’s “A Reporter’s Guide to the New Apostolic Reformation,” co-authored by Canadian scholar André Gagné, whose recent book American Evangelicals for Trump: Dominion, Spiritual Warfare, and the End Times is featured in the Salon article “Meet the New Apostolic Reformation, cutting edge of the Christian right” by Paul Rosenberg. The NAR are Christian dominionists, meaning, for those unfamiliar with the term, they believe that fulfilling the “7 Mountains Mandate” — conquering the seven spheres of influence, or “mountains,” (family, religion, government, education, business, arts/entertainment, and media) — is a prerequisite for Jesus to return. On the “Alaska’s War Council” September 19, 2023, Zoom call, Lt. General Eifler’s wife shared a “vision” the lord had given her about the seven mountains:
“The lord gave me a concept that was so much bigger than I was able to fully describe so I began to draw it out and it started with mountains. And then the question I asked God was, ‘What is creative ministry?’ And I had a strong impression it was ministry that’s aligned with our unique identity in Christ lived out in our authority in Christ in the seven mountains of influence. And those seven mountains of influence, if you’re not familiar, are family – everybody’s in the family mountain, right? – religion – everyone’s in the religion mountain – government, because at least in the United States we all have a right to vote – business, education, entertainment, media arts. Those are our mountains. All of these mountains have been established by God for his people to be ministers in. Yes, ministers. Using our God-designed and purposed gifts in all of the mountains that we are in. He has placed us each uniquely in these mountains. Then I saw rivers and streams going down the mountains into the sea, followed by a flash of the throne room of God. The lord is releasing new kingdom creativity to align and partner with bringing his kingdom from heaven to earth. He is calling us to minister in the seven mountains of influence in a new way, remembering that his power, authority, creativity, and purpose flow from his throne room to us, his people. It flows to us and through us. So, in this release of this new creativity, he is calling his children to align with and stand in the authority of their kingdom identity, as royal sons and daughters of the king of kings and as the royal priesthood that he has called us to.”
Yes, visions. NAR people have visions, like this one that the founder of the Indiana Canopy of Prayer, the group that posted the photos of Lt. General Eifler at Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s event, had:
“As I was driving into Indianapolis on I-70E, I had an open vision. The Capitol building in Washington D.C. was picked up and set down in the middle of our capitol [sic] city, Indianapolis. The Lord spoke to me and said, ‘This isn’t a natural governing building, it is a spiritual governing building, but I wanted you to see the importance and the power that I was setting down.’ Next, I saw lines like ribbons going from the top of the building in all directions. They went up and then curved down in all different directions. They went up and then curved down to the ground in many locations. Where they landed, there were big golden stars. The Lord said, ‘These stars represent 24/7 Houses of Prayer that I will raise up.’ Then He said, ‘I want a CANOPY of Prayer over the State of Indiana.’”
Now, setting aside the danger of having visions while driving, the above is very typical of the kind of visions these people reportedly have. Then there are the “declarations” and “decrees,” which are defined in the very useful “A Glossary of New Apostolic Reformation Terms” as follows:
19. Decree & Declare – this is a fruit of word of faith (WoF) theology, the idea being that our words carry some form of inherent power, and are causative. So instead of obeying scripture – “in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Phil 4:6) NARites believe they need to exercise their faith, speak to their mountain, and enforce their dominion in a given situation. They attempt to “speak life” into the dead, dispel hurricanes, quench fires, and restore finances with their decrees and declarations. This “little god” behavior fails every time, because only God can decree or declare. Another form of this is called “speaking into a situation.”
On the February 28, 2024, Zoom call of “Alaska’s War Council,” Sherry Eifler “released” this declaration:
“We declare the military will be God’s righteous warriors of the kingdom of God in partnership with the Lord’s angel army.”
Well, ain’t that special. The wife of a 3-star general — a 3-star general who gave a presentation at a major NAR event — “declaring” that the military will partner with the “Lord’s angel army.” Needless to say, this is extremely troubling, particularly since some NAR leaders teach that believers can command angels, “activating” or “releasing” them for a particular assignment. You might be thinking that this is Lt. General Eifler’s wife saying these things and not Eifler himself, but don’t forget that he himself was at Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s big NAR event in August giving a presentation. Even if Lt. General Eifler isn’t as deeply immersed in NAR theology as his wife clearly is — and we have no way of knowing whether he is or not since, like many high-ranking military officers that MRFF has encountered, he plays it safe by confining his social media presence to military-related posts. He does describe himself on Twitter as “Man of Faith, Servant Leader, Sheep Dog,” and a few of his tweets promote evangelical speakers coming to his base, like Victor Marx, whose website says he “explains what manhood and Christianity should look like in our day,” and whose latest book’s foreword is written by Charlie Kirk, who has called the separation of church and state a “fabrication” and whose Turning Point USA organization bused Trump-supporters to Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6.
Whether or not Lt. General Eifler believes everything his wife believes, the fact remains that he appeared at and gave a presentation in uniform at NAR Apostle Cindy Jacobs’s annual Reformation Prayer Network gathering, indicating that he supports and condones the objectives of this movement – a movement that seeks to destroy democracy as we know it. That really doesn’t “align,” to use a word from Sherry Eifler’s seven mountains vision, with the oath taken by Lt. General Eifler to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, now does it? And this is why MRFF is demanding an investigation of Lt. General Eifler, as you can read in MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s letter to United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks below. To wrap things up, I leave you with a few words from Lt. General Eifler’s friends and wife.
MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen H. Hicks demanding an investigation and punishment of NAR-connected U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Brian Eifler
September 13, 2024 The Honorable Kathleen H. HicksUnited States Deputy Secretary of Defense1010 Defense PentagonWashington D.C., 20301-1010
Madam Deputy Secretary Hicks, It is my sad, yet critically urgent, duty to bring to you today a truly heinous matter of shockingly abject, alleged treasonous malfeasance and misfeasance by none other than the U.S. Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Lt. General Brain S. Eifler. My name is Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein and I am the Founder and President of a large, First Amendment civil rights advocacy organization called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF: mrff.org). In its nearly 20 years of hard-fought civil rights battles, MRFF has represented over 90,000 active duty, reserve and national guard members of the American armed forces and veterans as well as individuals at all 18 national security agencies, the Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard) and the Department of Transportation (U.S. Maritime Service). MRFF’s central mission is to vigorously protect the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state in the aforementioned Federal agencies. Nearly 1,100 courageous individuals work here at MRFF, both paid and volunteers. In this regard, there are MRFF representatives on most DoD installations in the Continental United States (CONUS) and overseas as well as even on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers et al. I won’t belabor the tragic point here other than to direct your immediate and complete attention to the breaking news story immediately below. This stunningly revelatory article is authored by MRFF’s Senior Research Director, Ms. Chris Rodda, and is concomitantly being publicly released contemporaneously with this demand letter from MRFF to you, ma’am. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/9/13/2269887/-MRFF-demands-investigation-of-3-Star-Pentagon-general-s-disturbing-ties-to-New-Apostolic-Reformation From the incontrovertible information assiduously researched and now publicly released by MRFF with this breaking news story, it appears as though the United States Army Lt. General in charge of ALL its personnel, Lt. General Brian Eifler and his spouse, are apparently inextricably intertwined with one of the most, if not THE most, pernicious and radically extremist Christian nationalist organization on planet Earth; to wit, The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). Lt. General Eifler’s alleged despicable and outrageously shameful actions of criminally eviscerating the solemn oath he swore to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution (vice his favorite flavor of extremist Christian nationalism) have been boldly and brazenly perpetrated whilst attired in his full United Staes Army uniform where he has officially briefed the Christian extremist attendees at an unknown number of NAR events. MRFF has photos and videos (see breaking news article supra) to substantiate these claims of alleged treason. Indeed, his alleged, indefensible, abhorrent actions of seethingly sectarian fundamentalist Christian nationalism, bigotry, exceptionalism, primacy, exclusivity, supremacy and triumphalism have savagely ripped asunder the vast array of inter alia DoD and U.S. Army Directives, Instructions and Regulations, Army Core Values and Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Articles deliberately designed to prevent his alleged, monstrously noxious, and illicit actions. When your boss, DoD Secretary Lloyd Austin, assumed his current position in January of 2021, he promised ON THE RECORD to America and to Congress that he would proudly serve as a lodestar for religious and racial equality at DoD. He also swore to eradicate racial and religious extremism in the U.S. military ranks. So, Madame Deputy Secretary, how the HELL do you explain these rancid, alleged actions of exactly THAT by YOUR U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Lt. General Eifler?! Fix this unmitigated, disgraceful disaster NOW, Madame Deputy Secretary! MRFF DEMANDS, IN THIS SPECIFIC REGARD MADAME DEPUTY SECRETARY, THAT YOU TAKE THE REQUISITE, EXPEDITIOUS AND AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS TO HAVE THE U.S. ARMY’S CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION (CID) THOROUGHLY AND AGGRESSIVELY INVESTIGATE LT. GENERAL EIFLER’S ALLEGED TREASONOUS ACTIONS AND PROSECUTE HIM, AND ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO HAVE AIDED AND ABETTED HIM EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO THE FULL EXTENT OF MILITARY AND RELATED FEDERAL LAW AT A PUBLIC TRIAL BY GENERAL COURTS MARTIAL. Lt. General Brian Eifler (and perhaps an unknown number of colleagues of his throughout DoD?) has allegedly comprehensively disgraced this uniform and the oath he swore to our nation’s Constitution. His alleged actions of support, succor, and advancement of the extremist, Christian nationalist NAR lay to utter waste the good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion necessitated to ensure an effective American fighting force. His alleged radicalized support of the vicious Christian nationalist NAR is a nefarious, metastasizing cancer on our honorable United States military and its nonpareil national security mission. SO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Madame Deputy Secretary, profoundly and swiftly investigate Lt. General Eifler, and any and all enablers at DoD, and, if his actions of treason to the United States are found to be substantiated as MRFF believes they will be, publicly and visibly prosecute him and any others at general courts-martial proceedings IMMEDIATELY! Your solemn and official duty to the American people and our beloved Constitution requires nothing less. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, Esq.Founder and PresidentMilitary Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)505-250-7727
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America (JWV) hails MRFF’s victory in pressuring the U.S. Air Force Academy to release committed donor funds to send Jewish cadets to Jewish Warrior Weekend at West Point
11 September 2024 Jewish War Veterans of the United StatesHails Mikey Weinstein, Founder and PresidentOf the Military Religious Freedom Foundation for HisFearless Advocacy and Victory for Jewish Cadets of the U.S. Air Force AcademyThe Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America (JWV), founded in 1896, the oldest veterans’ service organization (VSO) in the United States, and the only VSO committed from its founding to the explicit opposition to all forms of bigotry, hails Mikey Weinstein, U.S. Air Force Academy Graduate of the Class of 1977, Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), and member of JWV Post 354, for the victory of the MRFF in pressuring the U.S. Air Force Academy to release committed donor funding to send Jewish cadets to the Jewish Warrior Weekend at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York. Less than one hour after MRFF demanded that the Air Force Academy leadership release of the committed donor funding for the Jewish cadets’ trip to the Jewish Warrior Weekend, the Office of the Superintendent announced the release of the previously committed donor funds. Incoming JWV National Commander Gary Ginsburg of Rochester, New York will attend the Jewish Warrior Weekend in support of Jewish cadets and midshipmen from West Point, the Air Force Academy, and the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. The JWV praises Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF for their fulfillment of their unique purpose and the JWV mission: to oppose all forms of bigotry, to protect the good name of the Jew wherever unjustly assailed, and to ensure that all Jewish-American service members fulfill their obligations to the United States and their faith without fear or favor, and with equal fervor. Respectfully Peter J. Nickitas, National Judge Advocate, for:Barry Lischinsky, Col., U.S. Army (Ret.),National Commander, Jewish War Veterans of the United States cc: Barry Lischinsky, Col., U.S. Army (Ret.),National Commander, Jewish War Veterans of the United StatesGary Ginsburg, National Vice Commander, Jewish War Veterans of the United States
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Wednesday Afternoon, September 11, 2024MRFF REMEMBERS 9/11
MRFF VICTORY!
WITHIN ONE HOUR OF MRFF’S DEMANDUSAFA “SUDDENLY” ALLOWS JEWISH CADETSTO TRAVEL TO WEST POINT FORJEWISH WARRIOR WEEKEND Within one hour of MRFF’s press release and demand yesterday to the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA)’s superintendent Lieutenant General Tony D. Bauernfiend, MRFF received word and confirmation from multiple clients at the USAFA that the superintendent is now “suddenly” allowing Jewish cadets to travel to West Point for Jewish Warrior Weekend! There is NO doubt that this happened because MRFF publicly exposed USAFA’s religious bigotry on behalf of our 154 Air Force Academy, faculty cadet and staff clients. MRFF is confident the Academy will claim this decision was made “a long time ago,” and feign surprise that Jewish cadets never found out about it until “just now,” which would be a typical act of mendacity.
United States Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel. The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
A Few Highlights of MRFF Exposing The U.S. Air Force Academy’s Past Transgressions Against Cadets of the Jewish Faith
JONATHAN LARSENCOVERS MRFF Air Force Academy Allegedly Quashes Jewish Event While Airing Christian Sermons Military academy has long history of subjecting cadets to forced proselytization By: Jonathan Larsen Tuesday, September 10, 2024
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) tells me that a U.S. Air Force Academy cadet claims the school’s leader is stifling a Jewish group activity while sharing evangelical Christian content internally at the academy. The MRFF is not identifying the USAF cadet who shared the information with the group, but MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein tells me his group is taking action. The USAF Academy did not immediately respond to my request for comment on the MRFF’s allegations. According to an email the cadet sent to the MRFF, the academy’s superintendent — Lt. Gen. Tony D. Bauernfeind, a nominee of Pres. Joe Biden — has sat on a request for Jewish students to be allowed to use its gifted funds to attend an event at West Point this weekend. The event, Jewish Warrior Weekend, is held twice a year at varying locations. According to the cadet’s email yesterday to MRFF, “The new Superintendent has instituted a policy requiring his personal approval for organizations to use their gifted funds, placing their attendance at this important event in jeopardy.” As a result, the cadet claims, “Jewish cadets are facing uncertainty regarding their participation.” By contrast, the cadet claims, the academy under Bauernfeind has subjected cadets, faculty, and staff to explicitly Christian messaging. […]
“I would be hard-pressed to even imagine a single person in the United States for whom antisemitism is more quotidian than Mikey Weinstein. He and his family are routinely attacked forbeing Jewish and have been for years, if not decades. … “… So I pay attention when Weinstein writes, as he did onThursday, ‘This time it just feels very different.The anti-Jewish hatred, I mean.’” — Veteran journalist and TV news producer Jonathan Larsen on Mikey Weinstein’s Daily Kos op-ed“Jews, Jews, Jews; How Do We Choose?”
Background Email from a Jewish Air Force Academy Cadet on the possibility of not being able to attend “Jewish Warrior Weekend” and the “incredibly offensive” playing of fundamentalist Christian worship services in dining hall
From: (USAF Academy Jewish Cadet/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Jewish Cadet TestimonyDate: September 10, 2024 at 2:21:53 PM MDTTo: “mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org“ Good Afternoon Sir, My name is (USAFA Jewish cadet’s name withheld), and I am a member of the Jewish Community at USAFA. I was informed of your organization by my friend (USAFA cadet’s name withheld). Recently the new Superintendent has completely overhauled the funding system at USAFA, for all organizations that use gift funds, which has caused us to likely be unable to attend Jewish Warrior Weekend. This is a bi-annual event hosted at the various service academies, which allows Jewish Cadets and Midshipmen from around the country to connect with the entire Jewish military community. Never in past years have we faced this problem, as our attendance at this semester’s event is still in the air. All of this comes as this past weekend as I entered the dining facility (Mitchell Hall), I was surprised to see an online church sermon from New Life Church on the Mitchell Hall projector. I find this incredibly offensive, as I call USAFA my home, as I prefer to not be pseudo-proselytized to while I eat my meal. I appreciate your help. I would like to keep my anonymity regarding this issue, and be referred to as “Jewish Cadet.” Respectfully,Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx
MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s 9/10/24“Open Letter of Revulsion to the Christian Nationalist United States Air Force Academy”sent to Air Force Academy Superintendent Lieutenant General Tony D. Bauernfiend
September 10, 2024 Lieutenant General Tony D. BauernfiendSuperintendentUnited States Air Force Academy (USAFA) RE: Egregious First Amendment Violations Under Your “Leadership” at USAFA Hey, Lt. Gen. Bauernfiend, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING at USAFA vis-à-vis your disgusting and relentless efforts to promote fundamentalist Christianity?! We at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) had just contacted you a mere 13 days ago (https://conta.cc/4dHNeQq) about yet another shameful promotion of the ”favorite religious faith of USAFA, i.e. Fundamentalist Christianity,” and now you are at it yet again even MORE egregiously??!! The MRFF is currently representing 154 USAFA faculty, cadets, and staff under your command on this REPULSIVE matter at hand, 117 of them practicing Christian’s themselves. Many of the others are of the Jewish faith, I might add, as well as a number of other minority faith and no faith traditions. The specific request for help from MRFF below and the accompanying photograph (photo credit belongs to MRFF) details the wretchedness of what is happening under your command at USAFA. From: Xxxxxxx XxxxxxxxxSubject: Concerns Regarding Religious Endorsements at USAFADate: September 9, 2024 at 7:01:18 PM MDTTo: [MRFF staff email address withheld]Cc: mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org, info@militaryreligiousfreedom.org Good evening, I am a Firstie at the United States Air Force Academy, and I have encountered several concerning situations this past week that I would like to bring to your attention. This Sunday, during breakfast and lunch at Mitchell Hall, a live sermon from New Life Church was broadcast on the large projector screen in the center of the room. Additionally, at the football game against San Jose State on Saturday, Christian rock and rap music were played over the loudspeakers. These instances occurred while Jewish cadets are facing uncertainty regarding their participation in Jewish Warrior Weekend at West Point, a bi-annual event for Jewish cadets from all service academies. The new Superintendent has instituted a policy requiring his personal approval for organizations to use their gifted funds, placing their attendance at this important event in jeopardy. It is troubling to witness Christianity being promoted at mandatory events, such as meals and football games, while other faiths face administrative hurdles for participation in their own religious observances. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, Xxxxxxx XxxxxxxFirst Class CadetUnited States Air Force Academy
Attached is a photo of new life church’s live stream at Mitchell hall. Also further context for the football game, both the commandant and the superintendent were present and the music was rather audible. HOW DARE YOU PIPE THE SUNDAY RELIGIOUS SERMONS ET AL FROM THE FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN MEGA ENTITY, THE “NEW LIFE CHURCH,” LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE HIGHWAY FROM USAFA, ONTO THE GIANT VIEWING SCREENS OF THE ACADEMY’S CAVERNOUS DINING FACILITY, MITCHELL HALL, WHERE CADETS MUST BE CAPTIVE AUDIENCES THEREIN IF THEY WISH TO EAT THERE??!! Oh, and nice job on blasting sectarian Christian rap and rock songs over the loudspeaker systems at Falcon Stadium directly prior to USAFA’s football loss to visiting San Jose State 4 days ago. How wonderfully convenient for all those who subscribe to such Christian sectarian precepts! By the by, Lt. Gen. Bauernfiend, tell us all about your unwavering support of USAFA’s Jewish cadets to participate in “Jewish Warriors Weekend” at West Point this coming weekend?! I guess if you don’t allow it, these Jewish USAFA cadets can always enjoy a rousing, nonsecular, fundamentalist Christian sermon in Mitchell Hall on Sunday, eh, bro?! BESIDES SAVAGELY VIOLATING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION’S FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITION OF ESTABLISHING RELIGION, AMONG A NUMBER OF OTHER DoD AND USAF DIRECTIVES, INSTRUCTIONS AND REGULATIONS, YOU AND YOUR FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN-ADORING USAFA STAFF ARE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 1-1, SECTION 2.16. 2.16. Balance of Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clause. Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for free exercise of religion and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must ensure their words and actions do not discriminate against any individual or group because of their faith, belief, or absence of belief, or extend preferential treatment for the same. Leaders must ensure that their personal expression is not reasonably associated with their government role, but may engage in such expression per DAFI 52-201, Religious Freedom in the Department of the Air Force. (Emphasis added) MRFF demands that an immediate, transparent and aggressive Air Force investigation be launched from the Air Staff at the Pentagon in D.C. as we surely would never trust YOU to conduct such an inquiry into your own USAFA-directed, malodorous malfeasance, and misfeasance. MRFF further demands punishment! Indeed these public and visible consequences MUST be levied against any and all USAFA personnel, including especially YOU, sir, who are found per this official USAF investigation to have either directly or indirectly supported these rancid, First Amendment No Establishment Clause and DoD/USAF regulatory violations! You should be miserably ashamed of yourself, sir, and your only 39 days of “senior leadership” at USAFA to date. You have managed to only infinitely buttress the already sorry-as-hell, well earned & decades long, despicable record of USAFA as a willing generator of poisonous, fundamentalist Christian Nationalism. With great sincerity and no respect whatsoever, Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, Esq.Founder and PresidentMilitary Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)USAFA Graduate, Class of 1977
For a two-decade history of MRFF’s numerous battles against outrageous Christian proselytizing and Christian nationalism at the Air Force Academy, visit:
MRFF’s longest-serving Advisory Board member, Reverend MeLinda Morton, a former USAF chaplain who served at the Air Force Academy, shares her reaction to the Academy’s New Life Church dining hall proselytization: “Twenty years later and NOTHING has changed!”
Mikey, Why does this sound SO familiar? Twenty years later and NOTHING has changed! Sermons at mandatory meal formations?? And we need not play semantic games with whether a Sunday Mitchell Hall meal is “mandatory”. True, in general, a cadet is not “required” to be seated at a Sunday breakfast or dinner…but where else is a three or four degree to eat on the weekend? Most underclass cadets have no access to private transportation for travel off campus or to other eating venues on-base; even if they had the disposable funds or free time to eat out. Therefore, Mitchell Hall is the only Academy-provided dining option for the Cadet Corps weekend or weekday. Anything presented during these regulated dining periods should be secular in nature. Announcements of optional cadet activities, such as the Cadet Chapel worship schedule may be presented in the same format as other optional scheduled activities. Denominationally specific activities such as retreats, religious study sessions, or other religious activities should be communicated to cadets through denominationally specific email or text lists, and during denominational worship services. By my count, on any given Sunday morning there are no less than four Christian services held in the Cadet Chapel, three to four more Christian services held at or through the Academy Base Chapel, and numerous Christian churches provide transportation to eligible Cadets who desire to worship off campus in specific religious communities. Any Cadet wishing to hear a conservative Christian sermon has ample on-base and off-base opportunities. (Currently the Cadet Chapel is under renovation. Therefore, these many Christian services may be held at other convenient venues around the Cadet Area.) Attempting to present one Christian denominational expression as normative for Cadet religious contemplation is a clear sectarian power play destined to divide and weaken the esprit de corps of the entire Academy. Such sectarian intrusions into shared Cadet space demean the sincerely held religious, philosophical, and humanitarian beliefs and practices of other Cadets. All Cadets should respect the right of fellow service members to believe and worship as they choose, as well as the right to not hold or express any particular religious belief. As evidence of the military’s high regard for common religious practices, each formal Cadet meal begins with an opportunity for Cadets to silently pray or reflect. However, projecting conservative Christian sermons into common Cadet mealtimes sends an inescapable message that such sectarian speech has the approval of command authority and is privileged religious speech and practice at the U.S. Air Force Academy. MeLinda S. Morton, J.D., Ph.D.
SUPPORT MRFF’s SOCIAL MEDIA Please Help IncreaseMRFF’s Social Media Engagement
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Tuesday Evening, August 6, 2024
TWO TRIBUTES LAUD MRFF’s EFFORTS:“OUR MILITARY IS A SECULAR ORGANIZATION, PERIOD.”AND“WHY I SUPPORT MRFF”
Today we share two of the many gracious supportive messages MRFF receives. On point sentiments such as those expressed below inspire our foundation’s fight for the Constitutionally Guaranteed Separation of Church and State in our U.S. Military:
”Our military is a secular organization, period.” From: (MRFF Supporter’s Name & E-mail Address Withheld)Subject: Our military is a secular organization, period.Date: August 5, 2024 at 4:19:21 PM MDTTo: Military Religious Freedom Foundation Our military is a secular organization, period. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation protects the Constitutional rights of all service members to worship as they please and practice their chosen religion, without coercion, and without retribution for holding a particular “faith,” or, none at all. A military member’s career choice and progression should not be impacted, one way or another, by his or her religiosity. Christian Nationalist Commanders in our military weaken it, and themselves, in terms of leadership abilities. They destroy readiness, unit morale, and combat effectiveness, ironically, putting those they lead at risk, America’s sons and daughters. Mikey Weinstein committed many years ago to support the military, the Air Force Academy his Alma Mater, having seen first hand the results of a military divided by religious faith and the discriminatory outcomes that affect combat readiness. The MRFF protects the Constitutional provided protections regarding religious faith and I can think of no better advocate for all military members than Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has faced many threats to himself and his family over the years for standing up to the religious bullying that impacts the careers of our service members and reduces the effectiveness of our military as a fighting force. I know of no truer Patriot and military advocate than Mr. Mikey Weinstein. I donate to the MRFF because our military service members deserve an advocacy organization, their careers hard enough without the added career impact of religiosity testing for advancement by Army of God Commanders, themselves in violation of their oaths. I donate to the MRFF because I believe in our military, want them to succeed in their careers with allegiance to their oath of supporting our Constitution without regard to religious affiliation. Your MRFF donation is not about the MRFF. It’s about support to our military members! It’s about sustaining an effective military fighting capability, many deployed as we speak to various hotspots around the world. Let’s help them Be All They Can Be without the Christian Nationalist Patriotism testing required of proselytizing Commanders. They’re already Patriots! Patriots, every one of them, that answered the call to defend this nation! Support our military members by supporting the MRFF!
”Why I Support MRFF” From: (MRFF Supporter’s Name & E-mail Address Withheld)Subject: Why I support MRFFDate: August 6, 2024 at 10:19:13 AM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org In 1966 I joined the USAF. During basic training my unit was marched one Sunday to the base chapel for Christian services. I am Jewish but I had no say in the matter. My first permanent military base was in Mississippi in 1967. My office supervisor, knowing somehow that I was Jewish, assigned me to clean the latrines and told me I would have to do it daily unless I attended his off-base church. I had no recourse so I volunteered for Vietnam for quick orders out of there. When I heard about Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) over a decade ago I realized what a great organization it was, not for me but for military personnel who do not want to be harassed by ultra Christian staff. They finally had recourse and it is Mikey Weinstein and his great staff that work tirelessly to protect members of other or no religion, including Christians, from this continued abuse. I donate as often as I can and would hope others see the terrific and positive impact they have. Thank you in advance for your considerate support.
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Afternoon, September 5, 2024
MRFF VICTORY!!!
MRFF STOPS BIBLE-WAVING COMMANDER FROM CARRYING AND HOLDING UP BIBLE DURING PT RUNS AND REWARDING TROOPS FOR COPYING HIM WITH THEIR OWN BIBLES
“Simply put our commander started carrying and holding his bible high in the air for the whole unit to see before after and during these PT runs. He never actually ‘said’ anything about why he was doing this but I can assure you that the message was fully received by our unit. Shortly after he began doing this some of our younger members of our combat unit also started bringing their bibles for these training runs and holding them up in the air whenever our commander did it during these PT exercises. “Then on the following mornings of PT exercises our commander would always ‘reward’ these young troops by picking them to lead as element leaders of our unit at the front of our PT running formations. This clearly sent the message of his ’special approval’ for those troops who also carried their bibles and raised them whenever he did during our PT runs.” — Active Duty Senior NCO and MRFF Client
(The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.)
E-mail to MRFF from grateful active duty senior NCOin Bible-waving commander’s unit “Our commander stopped bringing and displaying his bible and the younger troops had been previously advised by our unit EO designee, after Mr. Weinstein’s intervention with that phone call, to stop as well.”
From: (Active Duty Senior NCO/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: MRFF stopped our commander from promoting his bible in physical conditioning runsDate: September 5, 2024 at 9:14:43 AM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Hello to Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF action team. I am an active duty senior NCO in a combat unit. And yes I am also a Christian (Church of Christ) who is married to my Christian wife and we are raising our kids Christian. I recently reached out to our (military installation name withheld) MRFF Rep regarding the divisive religious actions of our (combat unit designation name withheld) commander regarding early morning physical training (PT) runs with our unit. Simply put our commander started carrying and holding his bible high in the air for the whole unit to see before after and during these PT runs. He never actually “said” anything about why he was doing this but I can assure you that the message was fully received by our unit. Shortly after he began doing this some of our younger members of our combat unit also started bringing their bibles for these training runs and holding them up in the air whenever our commander did it during these PT exercises. Then on the following mornings of PT exercises our commander would always “reward” these young troops by picking them to lead as element leaders of our unit at the front of our PT running formations. This clearly sent the message of his “special approval” for those troops who also carried their bibles and raised them whenever he did during our PT runs. Just like every military unit ours also has members from many different religions including Muslims and Sikhs and Jews as well as members who don’t follow any faith structure at all. They as well as Christian troops like myself were shocked by all of this! I knew something had to be done but didn’t want to face the anger of our commander. I’ve been in the (military branch name withheld) long enough including a number of intense combat engagements down range to know that what our commander did with his promotion of his bible during our PT runs badly hurts our unit solidarity rather than helps it. I realize that as a senior NCO I should have spoken up to him personally but frankly feared his reaction if I tried. Believe me I and other NCO’s involved here don’t feel happy about our failure to act. I and the others won’t let that happen again. Instead I contacted our MRFF Rep here after doing a little “quiet research” and getting advice from one of our (military installation name withheld) JAGs and she put me in immediate touch with Mr. Weinstein. Within an hour of my call with Mr. Mikey Weinstein he had called me back explaining that he had contacted the Exec. Officer for Colonel (name withheld) who is the commander of (senior reporting unit designation name withheld). Mr. Weinstein told me that on my behalf and the behalf of at least 35 other members of our unit (2/3s of whom are also Christians like me) who wanted our commander to stop promoting his bible during our PT runs, he had made the demand to have these actions stop immediately as violations of the civil rights of our unit members by our commander. It worked. We have had 5 PT runs since that time and there have been no further bible displays during any of them at all. Our commander stopped bringing and displaying his bible and the younger troops had been previously advised by our unit EO designee, after Mr. Weinstein’s intervention with that phone call, to stop as well. Our commander has said absolutely nothing at all about no longer using his bible during our PT exercises. But I can tell you that the damage has been done as many of us have lost respect for him as a result and also for not mentioning any of this after he was forced to stop by MRFF contacting our superiors to make him stop. On behalf of our entire unit, I want to thank our MRFF Rep here at (military installation name withheld), Mr. Mikey Weinstein and the whole of the MRFF for handling this matter. I realize that we should have confronted our commander ourselves but again were very concerned about inciting him to anger against us for doing so since this involved his personal Christian faith. The MRFF took that fear away and got the job done. A lot of lessons learned here and everyone is very grateful to the MRFF for all of this! Thank you to the MRFF for doing what we should have done in the first place but didn’t. Easy for those who weren’t involved to criticize us for asking for MRFF’s help but none of you were here to go through this fxxxing mess. (Active Duty Senior NCO/MRFF Client’s name, rank, MOS/AFSC, unit designation, and military installation all withheld)
When leaders say something, subordinates respond accordingly, whether it’s imitating their commander by bringing their Bibles to PT runs in 2024 or following the lead of their “born-again” Christian commandant at the Air Force Academy two decades ago.
Veteran/VA employee thanks MRFF for “assistance in responding to disgustingly abusive and in-your-face Christian Supremacist inspired religious/racial harassment”
From: David (last name withheld) Subject: LetterDate: August 31, 2024 at 12:22:56 PM MDTTo: <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Mikey/MRFF, Thanks for recent advice and assistance in responding to disgustingly abusive and in-your-face Christian Supremacist inspired religious/racial harassment (…Project 2025 preview?) directed at me as an employee then promptly ignored if not actively encouraged by the administrators of the Phoenix VAMC. While my situation is not fully resolved, the MRFF crew has been extremely helpful in providing advice and encouragement in my ongoing effort to push-back for the Constitution, our shared civil rights, and my sworn oath to protect both! My name is David (last name withheld) (…and please feel free to publish my name) and I am a retired veteran of 23 years. I served honorably with or in four branches of the U.S. military with great personal pride. I have always wanted to make a difference by protecting those who could not or cannot protect themselves. I also happen to be a 53-year-old black man. While I was raised in a Southern Baptist faith tradition, I became an Atheist/Humanist assuming that I could exercise my freedom of belief as someone not convinced of the existence of god(s). If you stand up for what is right and fair, you will be appreciated and revered. I was wrong. In 2019, while working as a nurse at the Phoenix VA’s Southeast clinic in Gilbert AZ, I was on a team of three that took care of veterans. A private contractor serving VA clients (a.k.a. Provider), that my team of nurses lead, was going to have a meeting about daily workload (NORMAL). This provider decided that we would have a prayer session in the room where I see my patients (NOT NORMAL)! Being an Atheist/Humanist, I stated that I would not be participating and attempted to excuse myself until whomever wanted to pray were done, then I would return to the meeting. She grabbed my hand and stated that she, “was going to pray for me to become a good Christian whether I want to be or not”. Pulling my hand away in shock, this provider would not relent stating once again (after trying to grab me a second time) that she, “was going to make me a good Christian today” and “I was going to pray with them”. Pulling my hand away again, I said “no, and never touch me again”! The provider grabbed my hand a ridiculously aggressive third time! After offering some choice words about keeping her hands to herself, I left to seek guidance and possibly file a complaint. Later that week while I was speaking with my Admin Clerk in the clinic office area, the provider loudly stated something smelled bad in the POD. Appeared extremely confused by her statement, everyone began asking what she was talking about and someone offered deodorizing spray. Spraying vigorously, she held her nose proclaiming “I know where the smell is coming from” then pointing directly at me “it’s Dave, he stinks”. Everyone working in the POD was shocked. This exceedingly arrogant, condescending, and racist provider got in my face saying “black people stink”. A complaint was filed immediately on my behalf as I filed one as well (EEO Complaint #1). The VA ‘No Fear’ Policy proclaims the “VA does not tolerate unlawful discrimination, workplace harassment or retaliation based on… race, color, religion… and does not tolerate retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices…”. The Phoenix VAMC response? Since filing my EEO complaint, I have been: -ARRESTED for enforcing the VAMC’s masking mandate during COVID pandemic,-removed and given ‘No Contact Order’ at clinic where the incident occurred,-shipped around to almost every clinic under the Phoenix VAMC system,-blacklisted by other contract providers,-treated like shit by co-workers because I reported over-the-top religious AND racial discrimination. These abusive, illegal, and unethical examples of vicious retribution led to filing two more EEOC Complaints and a ‘Section 1983’ Civil Rights lawsuit in Federal District Court in Phoenix. 5 years after filing my original complaint in 2019 I received a response from the EEOC-OFO (Office of Federal Operations) to my appeal of the EEO Administrative Judge dismissal my original appeal: -New hearing ordered to assess the provider’s statements contrary to my claims verified by witness testimony.-A hostile work environment had clearly been created and allowed to continue by the providers and VA Administrators based on obvious Religious and Racial discrimination.-The judgement in favor of the VA by the administrative judge SHOULD NOT have been granted. I have never known an organization so hell bent on violating employees’ rights and protecting the people who violate those rights. I find it shameful for an administrative judge to so blatantly ignore Constitutional mandates and my civil rights to protect whatever they may identify with (religiously and/or culturally). My successful appeal of that judge’s decision highlights the Phoenix VAMC’s ongoing environment of Christian supremacy and retribution for anyone willing to call them on it! The MRFF’s recent assistance in my 5-year battle with this bureaucratic maze of gutless hypocrisy and ‘naked ass covering’ has been a tremendous assistance to my morale and drive to see this in-your-face un-Constitutional and highly unethical situation to a full resolution!! I can highly recommend active-duty military and veterans contact MRFF in response to what will obviously be even more intrusively over-the-top attempts to support the supremacy of one religious view over all others (i.e., Project 2025)! Sincerely, David (last name withheld) (PS. Freedom is scary. Deal with it!)
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Afternoon, August 29, 2024
MRFF DEMANDS EQUAL ADVERTISING OFCOURSES ON NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONSAFTER USAFA HAWKS COURSE DEVOTED TO CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST C.S. LEWIS
“The Air Force Academy last week published an article focusing on a Philosophy Department course that teaches based on the non-fiction works of Christian apologist C.S. Lewis,featuring such works as ‘The Abolition of Man,’ which is popular among politically conservative circles. “It’s telling that the academy’s public affairs team chooses to cover this course in particular without mentioning the diversity of courses offered by the Philosophy Department or other departments in the institution that focus on non-Christian faiths that might have a more liberal worldview. The article is effectively virtue signaling to the dominionist factions within the academy’s staff and graduate communities, saying, ‘We’re a safe place for you to practice the belief that Christians are morally superior to members of other faiths.’” — U.S. Air Force Academy MRFF client
PHOTO AND CAPTION FROM ARTICLE ON AIR FORCE ACADEMY WEBSITE: Cadet 2nd Class Grace Dailey displays a copy of C.S. Lewis’s “The Abolition of Man” Aug. 20, 2024. The book is one of many Dr. Adam Pelser uses to teach his “C.S. Lewis and Philosophy” course at the U.S. Air Force Academy. (U.S. Air Force photo by Trevor Cokley)
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Of all its courses, Air Force Academy hawks course devoted to Christian apologist C.S. Lewis By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Thursday, August 29, 2024
Just like civilian colleges and universities, the U.S military’s service academies offer a well-rounded education that includes the humanities and philosophy along with the kind of courses you’d expect at institutions whose job it is to prepare future military officers for their military careers. At the Air Force Academy, some two dozen courses are offered by the Philosophy Department, and one of these courses — or, more specifically, the Academy’s promotion of this one course to the exclusion of all others — has raised the ire of 62 Academy cadets, faculty, staff, and 10th ABW (Air Base Wing) personnel. The course is “C.S. Lewis and Philosophy,” taught by Dr. Adam Pelser. On August 7, U.S. Air Force Academy Strategic Communications published an article titled “Examining the works of C.S. Lewis: critical thinking and ethics,” which was (and still is at the time of this writing) promoted as “Featured News” on the homepage of the Academy’s website.
Now, C.S. Lewis is known for two things — The Chronicles of Narnia and being a Christian apologist, with works such as The Case for Christianity and Mere Christianity. But only one of C.S. Lewis’s books is shown in the photos of the smiling cadets in the U.S. Air Force Academy Strategic Communications “Featured News” article about the Academy’s “C.S. Lewis and Philosophy” course. That book is The Abolition of Man, which, unlike C.S. Lewis’s numerous other non-fiction works, is not a work of Christian apologetics or even a religious book per se. As Lewis says near the beginning of the book, which was essentially his criticism of an English book being used in England’s schools at the time, “I may add that though I myself am a Theist, and indeed a Christian, I am not here attempting any indirect argument for Theism.” The book also quotes from a wide range of philosophies and belief systems including ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Chines, Greek, and Roman, Old Norse, Hindu, and even Australian Aborigine. But, as the caption below the photo of the smiling cadet joyously holding up her copy of The Abolition of Man in the U.S. Air Force Academy Strategic Communications “Featured News” article says, “The book is one of many Dr. Adam Pelser uses to teach his ‘C.S. Lewis and Philosophy’ course.” Since this “one of many” of C.S. Lewis’s books is a rare departure from Christian apologetics among his non-fiction works, it stands to reason that the “many” other C.S. Lewis books used in the course are indeed Christian apologetics books, i.e. books written to convert people to Christianity. As one member of the group of 62 Academy cadets, faculty, staff, and 10th ABW personnel that has come to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation(MRFF) with serious objections to the Academy’s hawking of this particular course as “Featured News” on its homepage wrote in an e-mail to MRFF (emphasis added):
“It’s telling that the academy’s public affairs team chooses to cover this course in particular without mentioning the diversity of courses offered by the Philosophy Department or other departments in the institution that focus on non-Christian faiths that might have a more liberal worldview. The article is effectively virtue signaling to the dominionist factions within the academy’s staff and graduate communities, saying, ‘We’re a safe place for you to practice the belief that Christians are morally superior to members of other faiths.’”
“Delighted to see the USAF Academy returning to classic philosophy and virtues from its descent into modern wokery.” “This is the ‘crticial’ theory the USAF academy needs to be teaching.” “Delighted to see my alma mater continuing to teach the timeless truths grounded in the fertile soil of Christianity.”
Among the Academy’s Philosophy Department course offerings, no other philosopher besides Christian apologist C.S. Lewis gets an entire course devoted just to them. Additionally, the C.S. Lewis course is not the only one to elevate the Academy’s preferred religion of Christianity above all other belief systems. While all the “lesser” religions are lumped together in courses such as “Comparative Religion,” Christianity gets its whole own course, “Philosophy and Christian Thought.” (We’ll just hope that one isn’t taught by the member of the Academy’s Philosophy Department who got their masters in theology from Liberty University.) In this case, MRFF is not demanding that the Air Force Academy’s article about the “C.S. Lewis and Philosophy” course be taken down, but that the Academy’s Office of Strategic Communications:
“… immediately provide another comparable news article from USAFA’s Office of Strategic Communications. This subsequent article will profile USAFA curriculum classes devoted to other religious faiths and non-faith traditions, besides Christianity, and will be composed and distributed in the very same fashion as the current promotional story on C.S. Lewis and Christian apologetics published with all too obvious great glee by USAFA.”
Below is the entire e-mail from one of the group of 62 Academy cadets, faculty, staff, and 10th ABW personnel who have sought MRFF’s help in getting the Academy to “do a better job of conveying the diversity of beliefs and faiths of its student body,” followed by MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s demand letter to the Superintendent of the Academy.
From: (MRFF USAFA Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: USAFA’s Christian Apologetics CourseDate: August 27, 2024 at 4:14:05 AM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Mikey — The Air Force Academy last week published an article focusing on a Philosophy Department course that teaches based on the non-fiction works of Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, featuring such works as “The Abolition of Man,” which is popular among politically conservative circles. It’s telling that the academy’s public affairs team chooses to cover this course in particular without mentioning the diversity of courses offered by the Philosophy Department or other departments in the institution that focus on non-Christian faiths that might have a more liberal worldview. The article is effectively virtue signaling to the dominionist factions within the academy’s staff and graduate communities, saying, “We’re a safe place for you to practice the belief that Christians are morally superior to members of other faiths.“ Comments on the academy’s LinkedIn post pointing to the story reflect the effect of this story, with many conservative commenters leaving such notes as: * “Delighted to see the USAF Academy returning to classic philosophy and virtues from its descent into modern wokery.”* “This is the ‘crticial’ theory the USAF academy needs to be teaching.”* “Delighted to see my alma mater continuing to teach the timeless truths grounded in the fertile soil of Christianity.” The public affairs office must do a better job of conveying the diversity of beliefs and faiths of its student body. If Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts are “absolutely vital to USAFA’s mission of developing leaders of character,” as its chief diversity officer said in 2021, then public affairs efforts must reflect that by alternating its focus on groups other than the majority. Otherwise the academy’s student body will continue to reflect the dominionist influences that jeopardize freedom of worship in this country. (Name, title, and all other identifiers withheld)
MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s demand letter to Air Force Academy Superintendent Lieutenant General Tony D. Bauernfiend
August 29, 2024 Lt. General Tony D. BauernfiendSuperintendentUnited States Air Force Academy (USAFA) RE: MRFF Demand Letter to Rectify Yet Another Repugnant Example of USAFA’s Fundamentalist Christian Nationalism Sir, by way of introduction, I am the Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF.org). MRFF has currently provided vigorous, civil rights First Amendment advocacy to just under 90,000 Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard United States armed forces clients, including many veterans. About 95% of MRFF’s clients are in fact practicing Christians. Specifically, MRFF has several hundred clients under your command at USAFA from among the Air Force Academy faculty, staff, and Cadet Wing, and the 10th Air Base Wing (ABW). I know that you are very new to your current job as the Superintendent of USAFA (August 2, 2024), but, unfortunately, we have yet ANOTHER bad fundamentalist, Christian supremacy situation at USAFA. Sadly, this present matter only adds to many disgraceful years of USAFA’s well-established and chronicled outrageous, unconstitutional Christian oppression, exclusivity, triumphalism, and tyranny. Lt. General Bauernfiend, as if your unfounded assertion “There are perfect spiritual beings” at your recent introductory Commander’s Call as the brand new USAFA Superintendent was not enough to cause enormous concern, the article released on August 7, 2024, from your Office of Strategic Communications at USAFA confirms that fundamentalist Christianity will continue to be, as it always has been, the illicit and unconstitutional “USAFA approved solution” under your command. Indeed, General, to this ignominious end, please see the USAFA-damning news article directly below, which is just now breaking: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/8/29/2266297/-Of-all-its-courses-Air-Force-Academy-hawks-course-devoted-to-Christian-apologist-C-S-Lewis Why, of the hundreds of academic courses at USAFA you are responsible to the American taxpayers for, did your Public Affairs office choose to solely highlight the ONLY course dedicated to Christian apologetics? Why, for that matter, is C.S. Lewis the ONLY individual who gets an ENTIRE semester course to himself, while Plato, Aristotle, and other incontrovertible giants in the history of philosophical ideas get lumped together in the bargain bin of “Ancient Western Philosophy”? Where, for that matter, is the course dedicated to Moses Mendelssohn, the Jewish apologist famous throughout Europe in his day? Or Katip Celebi, the 17th-century Muslim philosopher and scholar? Oh, there are innumerable more salient examples, sir! Perhaps you’re now getting the concept of our USAFA clients’ righteous fury here, General? Of all the Academy classes to highlight, your Public Affairs office’s choice of a course on the most popular Christian apologist of modern times, to the exclusion of all other germane topics, is both repugnant and odious. From the comments we are seeing on social media, it seems that this sectarian, literally in-your-face article promoting nonsecular, Christian apologetics greatly pleased its intended audience of extremist, right wing, ultra-conservative USAFA grads and related partisan allies. **FYI, sir: MRFF is representing 62 USAFA cadets, faculty, staff and 10th ABW personnel on this matter, 47 of whom also practice Christianity, either Protestant or Roman Catholic. The remaining MRFF clients come from an array of other faith and non-faith traditions. To be clear, MRFF and its clients are not just infuriated about the fact of this articlebeing published per se. Indeed, sir, rather, their wrath is focused on the atrocious fact that it was published to the utter exclusion of all or any other religious or non-faith philosophies, their traditions, and their respective well-known promoters, just as C.S. Lewis is vis-a-vis Christianity. The fact that this article was published and heavily promoted by USAFA is particularly egregious given USAFA’s well-deserved wretched reputation for shamelessly promulgating fundamentalist Christian nationalism for decades. Thus, MRFF and its 62 USAFA clients see clearly malevolent malfeasance, vice mere misfeasance, in its nefarious production and distribution beginning on August 7, 2024 and continuing thereafter on social media et al under your direct auspices as the new USAFA Superintendent. MRFF’s Demand: On behalf of its 62 USAFA clients on this sordid matter, and in the interest of promoting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and the Constitutional mandate of church-state separation, and in accordance with the UCMJ, and numerous Directives, Instructions and Regulations of DoD and the Dept. of the Air Force (see specifically Air Force Instruction 1-1, Section 2.16), MRFF demands that you immediately provide another comparable news article from USAFA’s Office of Strategic Communications. This subsequent article will profile USAFA curriculum classes devoted to other religious faiths and non-faith traditions, besides Christianity, and will be composed and distributed in the very same fashion as the current promotional story on C.S. Lewis and Christian apologetics published with all too obvious great glee by USAFA. Standing by, Lt. General Bauernfiend, to have you confirm your compliance with MRFF’s demands on behalf of its 62 USAFA clients under your direct command herewith. Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, Esq.Founder and PresidentMilitary Religious Freedom Foundation505-250-7727
For a two-decade history of MRFF’s numerous battles against outrageous Christian proselytizing and Christian nationalism at the Air Force Academy, visit:
“Civil rights organizations like MRFF are essential in a voluntary military within a democracy, and your unwavering presence has rectified numerous injustices by religious extremists”
From: (Name withheld)Subject: RE: In MemoriamDate: August 27, 2024 at 1:24:56 PM MDTTo: info@militaryreligiousfreedom.org Mikey, First, it’s inspiring to see the incredible individuals highlighted in your latest article, “In Memoriam,” who dared to stand up despite the significant pressures, especially considering how sensitive the topic of religion is in our society. Second, thank you for the critical work you do at MRFF. Throughout my military career, I’ve faced several issues where you responded within hours, sometimes even minutes. The overwhelming Christian majority often struggles to comprehend the inappropriate, and sometimes illegal, imposition of their beliefs on other service members. For many service members, particularly those in subordinate roles, this can seem like an impossible situation, with the potential to ruin careers or lead to even more tragic consequences. MRFF serves as a beacon of hope for those unable to effect change on their own. Civil rights organizations like MRFF are essential in a voluntary military within a democracy, and your unwavering presence has rectified numerous injustices by religious extremists who often fail to recognize the harm in their actions. I was reminded of the insidious religious pressures that exist on LinkedIn recently. A USAFA graduate congratulated the Philosophy Department for a course on C.S. Lewis and Philosophy, which he hailed as a return to Christian values, saying, ‘Delighted to see my alma mater continuing to teach the timeless truths grounded in the fertile soil of Christianity.’ This post received 35 likes, and numerous people defended the sentiment vehemently. Imagine, however, the uproar that would ensue if a course on Al-Farabi were introduced with the express purpose of pushing Islamic values. The same individuals who praised the promotion of Christian values would likely denounce such a course as an affront to American ideals. This double standard starkly illustrates the privilege and entitlement that often go unchecked in a predominantly Christian environment, and it underscores the critical need for organizations like MRFF to advocate for true religious neutrality and protect the rights of all service members, regardless of their faith—or lack thereof. I fully support the work MRFF does and give permission to use my name in any context that could help further the cause. At the same time, I deeply appreciate and commend the organization’s dedication to keeping the anonymity of others sacrosanct, as this protection is vital for those who might otherwise face severe repercussions for speaking out. Thank you! (Name withheld) (all opinions given are my own and do not reflect the opinions/stances of the USAF)
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Wednesday Evening, August 28, 2024
THEANALYSIS.NEWSINTERVIEWS MRFF’s MIKEY WEINSTEIN:“PROJECT 2025 WILL DECAPITATE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. MILITARY”
High-profile guests on theAnalysis.newshave included: Zbigniew Brzezinski • Noam Chomsky • Phil Donahue • Daniel Ellsberg • Danny Glover • Bob Graham • Chris Hedges • Naomi Klein • Abby Martin • Bob Moses • Ralph Nader • Trita Parsi • Run-DMC • Bernie Sanders • Jill Stein • Rashida Tlaib • Nina Turner • Gore Vidal • Roger Waters Additional guests from MRFF: Col. (U.S. Army-ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson, a MRFF Advisory Board Member and former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, and MRFF Board Member (in memoriam) Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV
Mikey Weinstein and host Talia Baroncelli on theAnalysis.news
MRFF COVERED BYSFGATE.COM Second Most Popular News Site in California After the Los Angeles Times Disturbing object unearthed inCalifornia’s Mojave Desert mystifies experts By: Ariana Bindman Wednesday, August 27, 2024
Aware of MRFF’s 2012 exposure of photos of U.S. Marines posing with a logo resembling the notorious Nazi SS Bolts originally associated with Nazi Germany’s Schutzstaffel (SS), SFGATE contacted MRFF pertaining to their coverage of a mysterious chest found buried in the California desert, which was emblazoned with red SS Bolts.
“Thoughts on my Air Force Academy ClassmateMikey Weinstein” I’m grateful for your creation and leadership of the MRFF, Mikey, in this battle against Christian nationalistic intrusion into our military. From: (1977 Air Force Academy grad’s name withheld)Subject: Thoughts on my Air Force Academy Classmate Mikey WeinsteinDate: August 25, 2024 at 1:29:43 PM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> My name is (name withheld). I’m also a 1977 graduate of USAFA. I knew of Mikey Weinstein, but did not know him personally while we attended USAFA. I’m not sure how or when I became aware of Mikey and his MRFF. But as a passionate loyalist to the constitution, his enemy became my enemy. […]
“Merchant Marine Academy” From: (name withheld)Subject: Merchant Marine Academy.Date: August 24, 2024 at 6:25:21 PM MDT Hey “Mickey”, why don’t you go back to Hell from where you came from. You should know the place since your stinking Talmud teaches you that Jesus is there, boiling in a vat of his own excrement. And it also teaches you Khazarian Mafia FAKE JOOS that his mother was a whore who had a tryst with a dozen Roman soldiers at once, doesn’t it, you fucking piece of shit ! It’s no wonder that you can’t stand a picture of Jesus Christ, since your demented Rabbis from the Synagogue of Satan teach you such horrible lies, and because His blood is on all of you. To read response froma MRFF Supporter:
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Saturday Afternoon, August 24, 2024
IN MEMORIAM MRFF TAKES A LOOK BACK ATFRIENDS, BOARD MEMBERS, AND ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS WHOSE CONTRIBUTIONS WE WILL NEVER FORGET
ED ASNER Dear Friend, Ardent MRFF Supporter,MRFF Thomas Jefferson Award Honoree
Ed Asner receives MRFF 2010 Thomas Jefferson Award from MRFF Founder & President Mikey Weinstein
Ed, himself a military veteran, was an American icon as both a superb and celebrated actor as well as a tenacious, never-say-die, civil rights activist. From the very first moment he heard what MRFF was doing, Ed was never too busy to enthusiastically pitch in and help. And help he did! Ed personally appeared in MRFF media pieces and attended MRFF fundraisers in the L.A. area. His broad, selfless, and determined support for MRFF resulted in Ed’s winning of the MRFF 2010 Thomas Jefferson Award, which is our highest honor.
AMBASSADOR JOSEPH C. WILSON IV Military Religious Freedom Foundation Board Member MRFF Thomas Jefferson Award Honoree
Joe was a loyal, fierce, and steadfast advocate of MRFF’s mission to ensure constitutionally-mandated church-state separation in the U.S. armed forces and Veterans Administration for over 13 years. He will always be remembered fondly and is deeply missed.Click to read full bio
GLEN DOHERTY Dedicated MRFF Advisory Board Member, Former Navy SEAL, Killed in 2012 Libya Consulate Attack
Glen was one of the first MRFF Advisory Board members and was a passionate core contributor to the fight to prevent a fundamentalist Christian coup within the United States Armed Forces. Glen lived and died believing in the righteous cause of religious tolerance and dialogue among all peoples and faiths around the globe. Click to read full bio
ROSS PEROT A great patriot and an even greater human being who tremendously helped our MRFF clients in need, particularly medical need, on dozens of occasions
Mikey and Bonnie Weinstein with Ross Perot
Mikey Weinstein on his long-time family friendship with Ross Perot: “My family has known the Perot family for 70 years ever since my dad, Jerry Weinstein, met and became extremely close friends and midshipman classmates with Ross during Plebe Summer with the U.S. Naval Academy Class of 1953 in the summer of 1949. “Ross literally knew me before I was even born. I have wonderful childhood memories of him, including when he visited me on several occasions during my cadet years at the USAF Academy. But it was as an adult that I really got to know him. “I worked for him professionally on two occasions and became his first General Counsel at Perot Systems Corporation in the late 1980s after first representing him as legal counsel in my New York City-based law firm. In fact, the second time I worked for Ross, in the early 2000s, became my very last job before starting and directing the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).”
GOVERNOR RICHARD LAMM Three-term Governor of Colorado,One of MRFF’s first Advisory Board members
Dick’s unimpeachable integrity, character, dignity, intelligence and honor and his kind, avuncular nature made him a joy to work with. Through the many years of his active MRFF Advisory Board advocacy and membership, he helped out often behind the scenes with matters we were engaged with, especially in Colorado, but elsewhere as well. He was a magnificent, loyal and relentless supporter of MRFF’s mission and a consistent personal donor to its civil rights cause.
ROBERT T. HERRES First Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,MRFF Advisory Board member
During his 36 year Air Force career, Bob Herres served in fighter-interceptors, technical intelligence, the Flight Test Center and Space Systems before tours as a wing commander in Strategic Air Command. Later, he was commander of Air Force Communications Command, the Eighth Air Force, and as the Joint Staff J-6, was promoted to general to become commander of NORAD and the first commander of US Space Command. He ended his active duty career with a three-year assignment as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the first to hold that position.
EAGLE MAN, ED McGAA Enrolled Oglala Sioux tribal member,Marine Corps fighter pilot, Author,MRFF Advisory Board member
Ed received a law degree from the University of South Dakota, was an author, speaker, publisher, and veteran. He served as a Marine in Korea and flew 110 combat missions as a fighter pilot in Vietnam. Ed authored 14 books including Mother Earth Spirituality, Nature’s Way, Rainbow Tribe, Native Wisdom, Black Elk Speaks IV, and Exposing Terrorism: Indigenous Spirituality and Religious Extremism.
A.A. “TONY” VERRENGIA Pioneer in NASA’s manned spaceflight programs,MRFF Advisory Board member
General Tony Verrengia was a pioneer in the manned spaceflight programs of NASA for over 25 years, including holding key staff positions in the Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and the Space Shuttle program management offices. From 1983-84 he served on the interagency task force in Washington D.C. that obtained President Reagan’s approval to proceed with the International Space Station development. He received numerous military decorations and NASA awards. In 1983, for his work on the Space Shuttle program planning, he was honored by the Sons of Italy in America with its highest honor, the Marconi Award. In 1987 he was knighted by the Republic of Italy as a Cavallieri Ufficiali, for his work in assisting the Italian government in creating its new space agency.
WILLIAM E. BARKER U.S. Marine Corps Major, Junior ROTC Instructor,MRFF Board Member,MRFF Thomas Jefferson Award Honoree
Over his 19 years as Junior ROTC instructor, Bill Barker sent over 65 students to military academies – the highest number of students referred to military academies by any one instructor in the nation. His other accomplishments included being selected to be on the NRA’s National Coach Development Staff, for which he worked with rifle coaches of all levels, and served as the New Mexico State Director for the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the American Legion Junior Shooting Program.
RICHARD T. SCHLOSBERG III Former publisher and chief executive officer of the Denver Post, publisher and chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Times, executive vice president of The Times Mirror Company,MRFF Advisory Board member
Dick Schlosberg graduated from the United States Air Force Academy and earned a master’s degree with honors in business administration from Harvard Business School. He served five years as an Air Force pilot and was a veteran of the Vietnam War. In 2003, Richard was honored by the Air Force Academy and named one of its distinguished graduates. Dick also served as President and CEO of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, retiring in 2004.
HOWARD BRAGMAN Public relations giant with a specialty of advising LGBTQ clients coming out of the closet,MRFF Advisory Board member
In 2001, Howard was elected to the Board of Directors of the National Foundation for Jewish Culture and he created and chaired the Jewish Image Awards honoring depictions of Judaism in film and on television. His record spans more than two decades of activism for the AIDS/HIV community, lesbian and gay civil rights and First Amendment protections. He has received awards and honors from numerous groups including AIDS Project Los Angeles, The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, The Life AIDS Lobby and Congregation Kol Ami. Howard was one of the first individuals to join MRFF’s Advisory Board and provided invaluable professional assistance, particularly in the early formative years of the foundation. His brilliance and professional intuition is missed. His friendship, zeal to provide assistance and help whenever called upon, and empathetic disposition will never be forgotten.
“Note of Thanks” From:(Name and e-mail address withheld)Subject: Note of ThanksDate: August 23, 2024 at 12:17:55 PM MDTTo: <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Dear Mikey, I wanted to thank you and your organization the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. I am a Registered Nurse Advocate from Eastern Wa and after hitting a dead end while seeking assistance in halting an unconstitutional chaplaincy program, I really felt that you cared, you were passionate and you assisted me in connecting to the appropriate people. I had not found this tenacity when reaching out to the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has no obligation to help my case given the absence of a military nexus. I received no response from these other organizations and had resorted to despair. I contacted Mikey as a last ditch effort and I felt heard and appreciated and for the first time experienced a glimmer of hope. His response was immediate and he included me in his correspondence and followed through. I have not seen this level of passion with any other of the mentioned organizations. The separation of church and state is not only a moral issue but a practical, legal and political one. Religious freedom has never been more important as it is today. The Christian Nationalist agenda that underlies the “Conservative Promise” in the Heritage Foundation’s project 2025 manifesto, is a direct threat to democracy and should be opposed with vigor and passion at every level. The Conservative- majority U.S. Supreme Court has effectively chipped away at the wall separating church and state in a series of new rulings over the last two years. This should give the population pause. Mikey Weinstein is fierce, passionate and in my interactions with him it is obvious that he cares and is invested a rarity not seen often enough in large organizations that tout advocacy. Yours truly, (Name withheld) (Town Name withheld), Wa.
“JBSA (Joint Base San Antonio) Follow-up” From: (Active Duty U.S. Army Enlisted Member/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: JBSA (Joint Base San Antonio) Follow-upDate: August 23, 2024 at 12:59:53 PM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Mr. Mikey Weinstein, I want to thank you for your prompt and effective assistance with a recent request I made to your organization. I am an enlisted member of the Army stationed at JBSA (Joint Base San Antonio) – Fort Sam Houston, TX. For the last few years while assigned here I have encountered repeated incidents (multiple times a week) of the entry point guards ending their ID checks with “Have a blessed day.” While seemingly innocent this imposes a religious aspect onto a required military interaction.There are many people I have spoken with over time at this assignment (approximately 40) and all have experienced the same greeting. There are many Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen on post here. This is a major training center as well as having a MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station), the number of forced religious tinged interactions must be immense. Even religious personnel I have spoken with about this have conceded that it is an unconstitutional situation for someone in a position of authority to impose upon others. We have armed personnel who have control of whether you can gain entry injecting religious messaging, innocuous or not, into a professional encounter. Last week after the third or fourth instance of the week I attempted to find out how to contact the Security Forces Squadron on post to make a complaint. Fortunately, during my search I found the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. I contacted your organization via email. Quickly thereafter your group followed up with me and asked for specifics about these interactions. After providing that information you were able to immediately get to work contacting JBSA leadership. I am pleased to let you know that what had previously been happening in almost every interaction dropped to one in ten. I want to again thank you and your organization for all that you have done and continue to do for our servicemen and women. (Active Duty U.S. Army Enlisted Member/MRFF Client’s name, rank, unit, and MOS all withheld)
From: James SwartsSubject: Valuing the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Date: August 20, 2024 at 8:06:18 PM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Dear Mr. Weinstein, As a point of introduction, I should note that it has been several years now since I met you, Mr. Weinstein, when you spoke at Rochester Institute of Technology here in Rochester, in what I thought was a wonderful presentation and a real eye opener. Your message resonates with me more today than it even did at that time. Your presentation made me realize the value of the MRFF, and the work of your organization. I look forward to hearing from you, and the work of MRFF. With that said, I would like to mention that I served six years in the U.S. Navy, during which time I served at sea including in the illegal invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965, and three years with the NROTC Unit at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy New York. That service made me aware of the religious and racial intolerance that I found embedded in military culture. Subsequent to my Naval service I earned both Bachelor and Master’s Degrees in History which helped to open my eyes to the meaning of the United States Constitution and the importance of the separation of church and state. It also gave me pause to reflect on the military’s coercion of forcing personal to participate in religious activities. After a lengthy career as a federal officer I returned to seminary and earned my Master of Divinity Degree (MDiv) while pursuing ordained ministry. Then I was invited to teach history at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Geneseo, the state honors college. I devoted fourteen of the following sixteen years in that position. It was early in my teaching career that I attended the aforementioned presentation by Mr. Weinstein at R.I.T., which had a profound influence on me and helped bring together the many pieces of my military, civil service, history education, and theological education to zero in on the evil I had recognized, and experienced, personally and historically. It helped me to incorporate my strong belief in religious tolerance, and emphasize the need to keep religion out of our government and out of our military in many of my courses. MRFF serves as a beacon of enlightenment of religious freedom by protecting those in the military, and veterans, from coerced religious indoctrination. Peace, Rev. James L. Swarts, M.A., M.Div.President, Veterans For Peace, Chapter 23, Rochester, NY2021 VFP Chapter of the Year
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Monday Evening, August 19, 2024
ENTHUSIASTIC PRAISE FROMHARVARD UNIVERSITY SENIOR FOR“MRFF’S UNYIELDING SUPPORT OF OUR U.S. CONSTITUTION IN THE ARMED FORCES”
“I had not heard about either you nor the MRFF until last night’s lengthy discussion. After hearing everything that was said and doing a little research on your MRFF site, I wanted to thank you and your team there at the MRFF very much for all you have done and all you have endured to fight against the Christian nationalism I was raised in. “The MRFF’s unyielding support of our U.S. constitution in the armed forces for so many years inspires me and so many others here at Harvard and no doubt everywhere else.” — E-mail from Harvard University senior
Harvard University
E-mail to Mikey Weinstein from Harvard University senior
“Harvard University grapevine praise for the MRFF” From: (Harvard University Senior’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Harvard University grapevine praise for the MRFFDate: August 18, 2024 at 10:10:12 AM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Hello, Mr. Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. I’m a senior and intercollegiate athlete at Harvard Univ. and was involved in a long after dinner discussion last night about politics, the military and religion with a large group (about 25 or so) of my classmates, teammates and other friends here at school. Your name and your org. were enthusiastically brought up by several of them, three of whom are veterans and two of whom were in the audience when you spoke here a few years ago in Cambridge, Mass. I wish I could have been there too. I am all too aware of Christian extremism as I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian household. My father is an ordained pastor and former Air Force chaplain. He has never forgiven me for questioning in good faith some of the basic tenets of the evangelical denomination he rigidly imposed on me, my mom and my siblings. We have not spoken in several years now, unfortunately. I can tell you that he would never support what the Military Religious Freedom Foundation does. I don’t know if he and I will ever reconcile especially if he knew I was communicating with you, Mr. Weinstein, of all people. I had not heard about either you nor the MRFF until last night’s lengthy discussion. After hearing everything that was said and doing a little research on your MRFF site, I wanted to thank you and your team there at the MRFF very much for all you have done and all you have endured to fight against the Christian nationalism I was raised in. The MRFF’s unyielding support of our U.S. constitution in the armed forces for so many years inspires me and so many others here at Harvard and no doubt everywhere else. I plan to become a monthly supporter of the MRFF as soon as I get employed after graduation next Spring. Until then, please keep my name and contact info anonymous. But my friends and I will be in touch, sir. Please keep up the good fight, Mr Weinstein and the MRFF! For all of our sakes.
Flyer for Mikey Weinstein’s 2015 lecture in Cambridge, Massachusetts, hosted by the Humanist Community at Harvard, mentioned in Harvard senior’s e-mail above
“TEARS” From:(name withheld)Subject: TEARSDate: August 16, 2024 at 10:46:41 AM MDT SIR, For that son of a bitch to say you are a proponent of CRT is the pinnacle of insult. These white devils {I am white} are terrified of reality. They think their fake religion makes them invulnerable to a mistake. Manifest destiny is a cancer that has become an integral metastasizing tumor that they have come to worship. Your people were destroyed by us. I am sorry that our fear of reality makes us ignorant and blind. We have not changed. White fear has gripped these assholes and they are as terroristic, fascist and dangerous as they have ever been. I am ashamed of these whites. Please survive and let us watch these pigs twist in the wind with their hate and phony history. Here we are on the brink of disaster brought to us by the white man and they are proud of where we are. our Nation respected this home planet. These pigs raped it. I will just go on and on about my disrespect for my people but know that you are the answer. It’s just that my people are too stupid to know the question.Take It Easy But Take It, (name withheld) P.S. I AM ASHAMED OF WHITE PEOPLE!
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Afternoon, August 15, 2024
MRFF ASSISTS NATIVE AMERICAN OFFICER INFURIATED BY DEMEANING PRESENTATION BY SO-CALLED “HISTORY EXPERT” FROM COMMANDER’S CHURCH
“When I viewed one of the presented slides with my assembled military unit I became so outraged and sick to my stomach I didn’t know what to do? I was just incredulous! “This slide stated that during the 1870’s the main 3 missions of the U.S. Cavalry stationed at our installation was to ‘(1) Fight and defeat the Sioux Nation hostiles on the battlefield, (2) Domesticate the Sioux Nation hostiles and, (3) Bring the Sioux Nation hostiles to the grace of Jesus Christ.’” “After this power point and when the mandatory meeting was adjourned it all just got worse. I spoke with the senior officer (whom I will refer to as my ‘sub-commander’) who had arranged this presentation … My sub-commander just dismissed my complaint by telling me that it sounded as if I was a proponent of ‘Critical Race Theory’ and, further, was improperly trying to use DEI (‘Diversity, Equality and Inclusion’) as a weapon. He then said something I will never forget or forgive. He told me that he was well aware of my Native American heritage and that it was likely that my Native American heritage ‘helped’ me get an appointment to my alma mater, the United States (military branch withheld) Academy.” — Excerpts from Sioux military officer and MRFF client e-mail
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Dehumanizing presentation by “history expert” from commander’s church infuriates Sioux officer By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Thursday, August 15, 2024
In an astounding display of Christian nationalist bigotry, supremacy, and historical just-making-crap-up, a local so-called “history expert,” brought in by a military commander from his off-base evangelical megachurch to deliver a presentation on the history of the base, told a unit assembled at a mandatory gathering that the soldiers stationed at the installation in its early days were there to “domesticate” the Sioux Indians and bring them to Jesus. Now, as you might imagine, this “history expert’s” presentation did not go over well, to put it mildly, particularly with one of the unit’s officers who happens to be a Native American and enrolled member of his Sioux tribe. Describing the appallingly offensive presentation and the effect it had on him in an e-mail to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), MRFF’s client wrote:
“When I viewed one of the presented slides with my assembled military unit I became so outraged and sick to my stomach I didn’t know what to do? I was just incredulous! “This slide stated that during the 1870’s the main 3 missions of the U.S. Cavalry stationed at our installation was to ‘(1) Fight and defeat the Sioux Nation hostiles on the battlefield, (2) Domesticate the Sioux Nation hostiles and, (3) Bring the Sioux Nation hostiles to the grace of Jesus Christ.’”
The history geek in me can’t help but interject here to tell Mr. local “history expert” that the primary mission of the soldiers stationed at this fort during that time period was to accompany and protect railroad surveyors and construction gangs until the transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869 and to patrol the railroad for a number of years afterwards. So, no, Mr. local “history expert,” their mission was not to “domesticate,” as you so demeaningly and dehumanizingly put it, the Sioux people or bring them to Jesus. MRFF has often assisted Native American service members whose culturally boneheaded Christian zealot military superiors have seen nothing at all wrong with, for example, telling a Native American subordinate to wear his “best Indian clothes” for their traditional “Puritan” Thanksgiving event last year. (Because a Native American service member would of course have a closet full of “Indian clothes” that they wear to kick back in when they’re off duty.) And that wasn’t even an isolated incident. A few years earlier another commander at another base told a Native American in their unit to dress up like an “Indian” to add to the “historical” nature of their “Pilgrim Heritage” event. But, despite having had quite a few Native American clients over the years, never have we at MRFF encountered anything as beyond the pale as what our Sioux officer client was subjected to when he dared to complain about the appalling presentation (emphasis added):
“After this power point and when the mandatory meeting was adjourned it all just got worse. I spoke with the senior officer (whom I will refer to as my ‘sub-commander’) who had arranged this presentation with this so-called local community ‘history expert’ civilian who lived off base in the adjoining town. I explained how enraged I was about what was written about my Sioux people on that particular slide. My sub-commander just dismissed my complaint by telling me that it sounded as if I was a proponent of ‘Critical Race Theory’ and, further, was improperly trying to use DEI (‘Diversity, Equality and Inclusion’) as a weapon.”
Yep, it’s the MAGA boogeymen — CRT and DEI. Think this commander couldn’t say anything worse than that? Think again …
“He then said something I will never forget or forgive. He told me that he was well aware of my Native American heritage and that it was likely that my Native American heritage ‘helped’ me get an appointment to my alma mater, the United States (military branch name withheld) Academy.”
As you’ll read in the e-mail below from MRFF’s client, the commander who made these abhorrently racist remarks as well as the unit commander have thus far received only slap-on-the-wrist punishments, but an investigation has been launched, and MRFF is assisting our client with filing both IG and EEO complaints. MRFF’s client has no intention of letting this MAGA-infused, Christian supremacist affront to decency go unpunished, writing:
“I won’t let this unbelievably demeaning moment against my Sioux heritage go without a fight. And the MRFF is leading the way for us!”
Here’s MRFF’s client’s whole e-mail, detailing the entire revolting story:
From: (Active Duty Military Officer/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Thanks MRFF from a Native American Military OfficerDate: August 14, 2024 at 8:21:24 AM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> I am an active duty military officer in the United States (military branch name withheld). I am also a graduate of the United States (military branch name withheld) Academy. I am married with (number of children withheld) kids. Our family proudly follows my Native American spiritualist religious faith which is over 9,000 years old. I very recently asked for help from the MRFF directly to Mr. Weinstein after suffering a humiliating experience regarding my Native American ethnicity at a mandatory gathering of my military unit a few days ago. For the record I am an enrolled member of the (specific tribal name withheld) Sioux tribe and my military occupational specialty involves the direct oversight and use of nuclear weapons. Within the last week or so our unit commander conducted a regularly scheduled “All-Hands” gathering which included a presentation by a local civilian “history expert” who gave a power point presentation on the history of our installation going back to the 1860’s and 1870’s. When I viewed one of the presented slides with my assembled military unit I became so outraged and sick to my stomach I didn’t know what to do? I was just incredulous! This slide stated that during the 1870’s the main 3 missions of the U.S. Cavalry stationed at our installation was to “(1) Fight and defeat the Sioux Nation hostiles on the battlefield, (2) Domesticate the Sioux Nation hostiles and, (3) Bring the Sioux Nation hostiles to the grace of Jesus Christ.” After this power point and when the mandatory meeting was adjourned it all just got worse. I spoke with the senior officer (whom I will refer to as my “sub-commander”) who had arranged this presentation with this so-called local community “history expert” civilian who lived off base in the adjoining town. I explained how enraged I was about what was written about my Sioux people on that particular slide. My sub-commander just dismissed my complaint by telling me that it sounded as if I was a proponent of “Critical Race Theory” and, further, was improperly trying to use DEI (“Diversity, Equality and Inclusion”) as a weapon. He then said something I will never forget or forgive. He told me that he was well aware of my Native American heritage and that it was likely that my Native American heritage “helped” me get an appointment to my alma mater, the United States (military branch name withheld) Academy. He then asked me, if I had been of Japanese ancestry, whether I would have wanted to challenge Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s statement after Japan surrendered in World War 2 that he needed “1 million Christian bibles and 10,000 Christian missionaries to subdue and control the Japanese”? I was just so stunned by his racist attitude and dismissiveness! I was literally speechless. I was flabbergasted! That entire slide was so messed up and offensive! “Domesticate the Sioux Nation hostiles” sounded like the U.S. Cavalry viewed us as mere animals like “domesticating” feral dogs, cats or horses. And that statement about “Bring the Sioux Nation hostiles to the grace of Jesus Christ” was equally as offensive. All of it was wrong! Other members of our unit came up to me and apologized for what had happened as most folks are well aware of my Sioux heritage. I did some digging and found out that this “history expert” attends the same off base mega evangelical church as our unit commander. It seems likely that our sub-commander was trying to kiss up and curry favor perhaps with our unit commander by arranging this presentation but I don’t know for sure? I just know that I was completely humiliated. I spoke with my wife who was also shocked. She agreed with my decision to ask for help from Mr. Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF. I was well aware of the MRFF from my days as a (cadet or midshipman) at the Academy. Mikey shared our anger at what had gone down at that mandatory meeting. He immediately contacted our organizational commander and demanded punishment for what had occurred. I know that an internal investigation has been launched and that I am supposed to speak with the assigned investigating officer soon. In the meantime I have learned that the sub-commander has so far received “verbal counseling” for his role in this as well as the statements he made to me about CRT, DEI and my appointment to the Academy. I also understand that our unit commander has to date received some sort of “written counseling” for what happened. I hope there is more punishment to come but there is no guarantee. The MRFF is helping me file both IG and EEO complaints as well. I won’t let this unbelievably demeaning moment against my Sioux heritage go without a fight. And the MRFF is leading the way for us! Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF, my whole family and I thank you for being there for me and my family in this terrible matter. Please do not release any information which might identify me in this situation as my wife and I do not want to be on the business end of any sort of military organizational retaliation. (Active Duty Military Officer/MRFF Client’s name, rank, MOS/AFSC, assigned unit and installation all withheld)
In Memoriam:Enrolled Oglala Sioux Tribal Member,MRFF Advisory Board MemberEagle Man, Ed McGaa(1936 – 2017)
Captain McGaa (USMC, Ret.) was an enrolled Oglala Sioux tribal member, OST 15287. After serving in Korea, he earned an undergraduate degree from St. Johns University, MN. He then later rejoined the Marine Corps to become a fighter pilot. Captain McGaa, returned from 110 combat missions to dance in six annual Sioux Sun Dances. A Bush Award recipient, he studied under two Sioux holy men; Chief Eagle Feather and Chief Fools Crow and the interpreter for Black Elk Speaks, Ben Black Elk. Ed held a law degree from the University of South Dakota and was the author of twelve books; three of which were published by Harper Collins. Ed’s book, Mother Earth Spirituality, was reprinted 50 times. His biography, Warrior’s Odyssey, was published by Amazon. Captain McGaa was one of the very few to ever fly 5 combat missions in a row: “It was probably about a 12 hour period or less. Afternoon off, hot pad on, getting close to midnight. A small airstrip, probably for Helio Couriers was the battle area. The downed Spad and Skyhawk A-4, managed to crash land there near the downed H-46’s. Major Tom Duffy, later KIA, and I had to fight all afternoon following the 3rd mission. While I was being re-armed and fueled for the 4th mission at darkness, the Squadron C.O. pointed out that a new pilot going into those mountains bearing 37’s and 51’s would have been a death sentence. We heard that 3 missions were the limit, and you were pretty tired by then anyway. A lot of adrenaline goes into a bombing mission under fire and repeated passes. I could have said ‘No’ but the Skipper pointed out those bombs being loaded were life or death for those Marine grunts on board each H-46. I didn’t have much choice. Dark Death was out there – no question. Both the Commander flight surgeon with my Colonel saluted me when the plane captain signaled start up of my 2nd J-79 engine. That is when I yelled at my Skipper, “Colonel, can I have a drink waiting IF I get back?” They both saluted me again and nodded affirmatively. I had no idea I would somehow be able to do a 5th attempt after finding out one chopper load was overrun. Later we found out all aboard were murdered in the High Lands – no POW list. I returned and they handed my drink up to me via the Plane Captain’s ‘cigar box’ on a pole, it had to be loaded. When we saw the Skipper and the high ranking Navy commander standing near the revetments by the loading area with what looked like a big canteen cup (My requested drink), I told my RIO (rear seater-no controls) that no way could I go back out. It had to be loaded with something. They did pass it up to me but I did not commit myself – not until about the 3rd long drink. Suddenly, miraculously I was full of energy and went back out. We saved the 2nd helo. Gun ships and two H-46’s got in. The enemy battalion was thoroughly mauled.” Captain McGaa passed away in 2017.
MRFF Recommended Reading THE GUARDIAN Ex-US air force specialist with Christian nationalist ties leads combat trainings Michael Caughran’s history raises questions about extent to which his far-right and survivalist activities overlapped with his enlistment By: Jason Wilson Wednesday, August 14, 2024 “A former US air force survival expert with militia and Christian nationalist connections is running survival and live-fire combat trainings in remote locations throughout the Pacific north-west, boasting on his website that the training incorporates trained law enforcement officers, “church security” operatives, and current and former US military members.”
“MIkey Whineystein is a Communist turd!!!” From:(name withheld)Date: August 14, 2024 at 10:07:14 AM MDTTo: Mikey Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org>Subject: MIkey Whineystein is a Communist turd!!! Little penis Mikey Whineystein takes Gorge Soros money and sucks George Soros Communist penis!!! MIkey mother sucks Donkey dicks in Hell!!! WE ARE MANY, WE ARE LEGION, WE ARE ANONYMOUS.
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Thursday Evening, August 1, 2024
MRFF VICTORY!!!
FRAMED CHRISTIAN AMERICAN FLAGREMOVEDWITHIN 24 HOURS, DUE TO MRFFFROM SO-CALLED “HERITAGE DISPLAY” IN MILITARY INSTALLATION HQ BUILDING
“Without the MRFF’s aid this clearly illegal Christian American flag display would never have been removed. We all know thatthe MRFF takes the heat for all of us when it intervenes and our appreciation is both sincere and enormous. Thank you to the MRFF and Mr. Weinstein.Because we are in a highly secure area it was not possible to get a before and after photo…” Excerpt from letter to MRFF by— Senior Active Duty Officer and MRFF ClientChristian Flag for Illustrative Purposes added by MRFF Flying the Christian Flag in the face of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), our U.S. military once again proves they are in march step with the dangers of Project 2025 which are set to destroy DEI in the military. “Project 2025,”the MAGA-worshipping Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s dictatorship of Americawill allow carte blanche massive full-blown approval for U.S. Military Chaplains to minister any way they want! MRFF Matters – 8/1/24 – Mikey Weinstein on MRFF’s Victory over Christian Exclusivity by Having Framed Christian American Flag Removed. Click to watch (2:10) video
Letter From Senior Active Duty Officer and MRFFClient Expresses Gratitude for MRFF’s Swift Action in Effectuating the Removal of the Large, Framed “Christian American Flag” From Unit’s So-called “heritage display” in HQ Building Facility. From: (Senior Active Duty Officer/MRFF Client’s E-mail Address Withheld)Subject: Christian American Flag Removed by the MRFF’s Intervention: Long overdue thank youDate: July 31, 2024 at 7:34:21 AM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Mr. Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, I apologize for not writing sooner with an expression of sincerest gratitude for the swift action of the MRFF Reps at our military installation and Mr. Mikey Weinstein for effectuating the removal of a large, framed “Christian American flag” from our unit’s so-called “Heritage Display” in our HQ building facility. Because we are in a highly secure area it was not possible to get a “before and after” photo which I know the MRFF wanted here. I am a senior officer in our unit and for the record am a Christian myself. I was the initial individual of many who reached out to our MRFF Reps and Mr. Weinstein for help. This framed Christian American flag looked like the regular American flag but had a red Christian cross over a dark blue background where the stars are normally located on the American flag we are all used to seeing. It was horrifying to see this as an integral part of this military heritage official display. We have troops of many faiths in our unit and also those who follow no faiths at all. It had been placed there in the midst of a display of the history of our unit’s storied combat history through the years. Our Command Chaplain had the idea which was enthusiastically endorsed by our Commander. As soon as it had been erected there was huge disapproval in our ranks about it. I and some others personally spoke with our Commander as to how wrong this display was but he had been convinced by our Command Chaplain and his own lackey Staff Judge Advocate (both extremely conservative, evangelical Christians) that the display was “completely legal’ as it was “only part of a historical representation” of our unit’s combat record through many years of military service. I tried to push back that it violated a number of regulations and the Constitution but got nowhere. You can push your Commander only so far. We needed help. Within 24 hours of asking for help from the MRFF, this framed “Christian American flag” was removed from the otherwise non-objectionable heritage display in the lobby of our HQ building facility. I had given our MRFF Reps the contact info to pass onto Mr. Weinstein for our Commander’s senior command chain. Mr. Weinstein had several direct conversations with them and the unconstitutional display was then removed immediately with no explanation at all by our Commander or his Command Chaplain nor SJA legal staff. This all went down a few months ago and I should have sent in a proper thank you note but most of us who reached out to the MRFF were expecting retaliation from our unit’s leaders. And, well, we just waited and probably too long. I got the silent treatment myself from the Commander for several weeks but things seemed to have settled down now. I guess I’ll have to await to see my fitness evaluation/report before I know for sure. Senior Active Duty Officer/MRFF Client’s ID Info All Withheld Click to Read in Inbox
Mikey Weinstein’s April 2024 Op-Ed on “Project 2025”
MRFF OP-ED “It’s Project 2025, Stupid” By: MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Back in 1992, political consultant James Carville coined the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” to help explain the essence of what was then at stake in the pending Presidential election between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Carville was intending to boil down to the most basic explanative brevity of the true grit of what that next election was all about. Today we face the brutal reality of an America more bitterly divided than at any time in its history, with the debatable exception of the Civil War. This existential chasm is literally tearing apart families, marriages, friendships, businesses, and every other type of human relationship extant in the United States today. If you’re not seeing that you’re either seriously impaired or asleep. Most voters are completely unaware of an impossibly wretched set of policy proposals developed by a slew of ignoble right-wing entities but spearheaded by the ultra-conservative, MAGA-worshipping Heritage Foundation. Ready? It’s called “Project 2025.” Its official name is “The Presidential Transition Project.” OK, are you tracking with me so far?! Before you do ANYthing else please, Please, PLEASE click the links in the next two paragraphs and, well, BEHOLD! Just LOOK at the mind-blowing hellscape of what is left of America if this wickedly evil, anti-Constitutional, anti-democratic, and wholly fundamentalist Christian nationalist screed, born from the ignominious depths of the shameful, stinking MAGA womb, is EVER allowed to be wielded like a flame thrower upon our nation’s way-too-naive-and-sedentary population. Project 2025 plans to purge the government of tens of thousands of non-MAGA personnel and replace them with MAGA loyalists are already well under way. The goal, according to a must-read Axios article, is (emphasis added) “to install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists across government to rip off the restraints imposed on the previous 46 presidents.” The vetting process includes filling out Project 2025’s “Presidential Personnel Database & Presidential Administration Academy Questionnaire.” Prospective appointees will attend the “Presidential Administration Academy” to be ready “on Day One” to “immediately begin rolling back destructive policy and advancing conservative ideas in the federal government.” Project 2025’s plans for the military are equally sweeping, as laid out in the 920-page Project 2025 book Mandate for Leadership. Fundamentalist Christian chaplains will be unfettered in their proselytizing, the most senior flag officers (three and four stars) will be “instructed” to make sure they’re “not pursuing a social engineering agenda,” courses at the military academies will be audited “to remove Marxist indoctrination” and tenure for (presumably non-MAGA) professors will be eliminated. And, of course, the current policies that allow transgender individuals to serve will be reversed. We at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (mrff.org) fight ‘round-the-clock to prevent our nation’s military, its 18 intelligence agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Maritime Service from EVER being transformed into a fatal force multiplier for the blood-thirsty MAGA maniacs who developed and plan to implement Project 2025, fueled by the appalling propellant of fundamentalist Christian nationalism. And we at MRFF have been, are, and will continue to be the direct targets of the cowardly wrath of these same MAGA villains. (To this end, please see Margaret Atwood’s disturbingly dystopian The Handmaid’s Tale or the TV series of the same name streaming on Hulu). So, in the ensuing seven months before our next national elections, may I respectfully urge you to IMMEDIATELY take at least 300 to 600 seconds out of your busy day? Why? Because you MUST think about and deeply internalize NOW the beyond-shocking consequences to our country should Project 2025 ever be actualized by those who planned, developed and intend to implement it with unremitting fury and vengeance. Indeed, actualized well beyond that of the ugly lynch mob of “Unite the Right” racists and nazi-loving fascists and Christian nationalists displayed in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12 of 2017. It will savagely terminate justice, freedom, and democracy in America. It will turn our United States military into the quintessential MRFF nightmare of a zombie army of imperious, fundamentalist Christian crusaders. It will propel tyranny and despotism and autocracy and fascism. It will spew bigotry, misogyny, and hatred of “The Other” and prejudice writ unimaginably ginormous as newly bedrock U.S. policy. It will spell The End of all we know as decency and American freedoms as laid out in our precious U.S. Constitution. There is still some small amount of time left to spread the word and try to wake up our friends and family and acquaintances as to their, and our, pathetically putrid, pitiful, and deserved fate if we don’t all FIGHT like HELL to prevent Project 2025 from ever being birthed and then wielded like a berserk nuclear weapon by Christian extremist, MAGA monstrosities. The answer is beyond obvious lest we ever wonder why the America we all grew up in has pervertedly morphed into the murderously oppressive, repulsive, Christian nationalist country of “Gilead” in Atwood’s seminal book referenced above. It’s Project 2025, stupid!
Military superior tries to force Christian Vacation Bible School on his subordinate families
From: (Active Duty Enlisted Member’s/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Military superior tries to force Christian Vacation Bible School on his subordinate familiesDate: July 20, 2024 at 10:14:48 PM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Hello Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF Team here at (military installation name withheld) as well as all MRFF staff everywhere. Thank you all for getting some actual justice for us here against one of our superior officers who was trying to get us to pay his church to have our kids proselytized to his own Christian Faith. I am an active duty military enlisted service member and the leader of 32 fellow active duty service members who reached out for the MRFF’s help here recently at (military installation name withheld). Our assigned military unit is large and diverse as to ethnicity, faith and political views et al. One of our MRFF Reps here on base has helped me write this e-mail to MRFF so that other folks can see the abuses that went on here.
From: (Spouse of Active Duty Enlisted Member/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Thank you MRFF from our Jewish military familyDate: July 21, 2024 at 8:37:27 PM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Dear Mr. Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF, Mr. Weinstein thank you for taking both of my calls today. I am the wife of one of the 32 enlisted MRFF clients you all are representing at (military installation name withheld) in the matter of one of our unit’s most senior officers trying to force us all to have our children attend the Christian Vacation Bible School which he and his wife are teaching. As I mentioned to you in the second call today, our family is Jewish so this whole thing was particularly hurtful, painful and insulting to all of us. Especially when this officer mentioned that his Vacation Bible School can save the souls of the children even if the mom and dad’s souls can’t be saved. Just a terrible insult to our Jewish family and heritage and the families of the other 31 MRFF clients most of whom happen to be Christian.
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
Monday Afternoon, July 29, 2024
MRFF DEMANDS REMOVAL OF BIBLE AND CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST POSTER CREATED BY U.S. NAVY HISTORIAN FROM BUFFALO VAMC POW/MIA TABLE DISPLAY
A group of 11 veterans of various religions (including two Christians) and no religion has sought MRFF’s help to get a Christian Bible and a poster depicting a Christian Bible removed from the POW/MIA table display at the Buffalo, New York, VA Medical Center. The offending poster, showing a Bible with a large Christian crossas one of the table’s items, was created by the U.S. Navy’s official Naval History and Heritage Command and explains the presence of the Bible on the table in the language of Christian nationalism: “The Bible represents faith in a higher power and the pledge to our country, founded as one nation under God.” But that’s not the worst part of the poster. That distinction goes to the tag line under the title “The POW/MIA Table,” which says: “A Place Setting For One, A Table For All” No, U.S. Navy historian, a POW/MIA table with a Christian Bible on it is most certainly NOT “A Table For All”
Article heading on official Navy historian website, corrected by MRFF
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos No, U.S. Navy historian, a POW/MIA table with a Christian Bible on it is NOT “A Table For All” By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Monday, July 29, 2024
Last week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation(MRFF) received the latest of the many e-mails we’ve gotten over the years from veterans who want the Christian Bibles removed from the POW/MIA, or “missing man,” tables in the VA medical facilities where they receive their medical care. MRFF has had numerous successes in getting these only-Christians-matter symbols of superiority removed from the POW/MIA tables in VA facilities. The latest Christianized POW/MIA table display that a group of veterans of various religions (including two Christians) and no religion has sought MRFF’s help with is this one in the cafeteria at the Buffalo, New York, VA Medical Center.
In addition to the photo of the table itself, the veteran who sent MRFF the photos also sent a photo of the large poster next to the table, which prominently shows a Bible with a large cross on it as one of the table’s items.
As I’ve written on previous occasions, a Bible was NOT a part of the original missing man table tradition begun by combat fighter pilots during the Vietnam War. Neither was it a part of the American Legion’s version when it passed a resolution in 1985 to set a POW/MIA table at its events. No, the Bible was not part of these table displays until over three decades after the tradition was begun, when the VFW Ladies Auxiliary published a script for the setting of the table in a 1999 issue of its magazine, adding a Bible to the table’s items. This was quickly followed by the National League of POW/MIA Families putting out a script for the setting of the table that was almost identical to the one published in the 1999 issue of the VFW Ladies Auxiliary magazine, including the addition of the Bible. Unfortunately, many people, apparently including the U.S. Navy’s historian, now wrongly believe that the National League of POW/MIA Families version is the original tradition and that the Bible they added has always been part of the table display. Following the National League of POW/MIA Families script explaining the significance of each of the table’s items, the poster created by the U.S. Navy’s official Naval History and Heritage Command, which sits next to the table at the Buffalo, New York, VA Medical Center, explains the presence of the Bible in a nice Christian nationalistic historical revisionist way (emphasis added):
“The Bible represents faith in a higher power and the pledge to our country, founded as one nation under God.”
But that’s not the worst part of the poster. That distinction goes to the tag line at the top of the poster under the words “The POW/MIA Table,” which says (emphasis added):
“A Place Setting For One, A Table For All”
How on earth is a POW/MIA table with a great big Christian Bible on it “A Table For All”? It is most certainly not for all! It is only for Christians and patently dishonors every non-Christian POW and MIA as well as all the non-Christian veterans who have to see it staring them in the face at their VA medical facility. Another thing that struck us about the photo of this table at the Buffalo VA Medical Center was how big the Bible is and that this already very large Bible is taking up twice as much space by being open. And this isn’t even the biggest one we’ve seen. In recent years these Bibles have been getting so big and taking up so much of the POW-MIA tables that if a missing man were to return they wouldn’t have room to eat, as said in the title of a post back in January about the Bible in this next photo.
Although no Bible of any size should be on these tables in any VA or DoD facility, the enormous size of some of them, which is usually accompanied by their being prominently and dominantly placed at the front of the display, takes their offensiveness and disrespect to a new level, making these table displays more of a tribute to the Christian religion than to the POWs and MIAs that they’re supposed to honor. Now, shuffling back to Buffalo (sorry, couldn’t resist), Mikey Weinstein has sent one of his meek and mild letters to Michael J. Swartz, the Healthcare System Director for the VA Western New York Health Care, of which the Buffalo facility is a part, demanding that the Bible, which is in clear violation of VA regulations, be removed. […]
MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein’s e-mail to Michael J. Swartz, Healthcare System Director, VA Western New York Health Care, demanding that the Bible and poster be removed from the POW/MIA table display at the Buffalo VA Medical Center
From: Michael L Weinstein <mikeyw4444@icloud.com>Subject: Egregious Constitutional Civil Rights Violations Under Your LeadershipDate: July 24, 2024 at 2:03:45 PM MDTTo: Michael SwartzCc: Tanya J. Bradsher, Philippe Jaoude, Samantha Gugenberge, Royce Calhoun, Danielle Bergman, fFrancesca Lee Michael J. SwartzHealthcare System DirectorVA Western New York Health Care716-862-8529 RE: Healthcare System Director Swartz, on behalf of its 11 military veteran client patients at your Buffalo, New York VAMC facility, MRFF demands that you immediately remove the illicit, unconstitutional Christian Bible from the referenced POW/MIA “Missing Man Table” in the Medical Center’s cafeteria as well as the sign showing a Bible with a Christian cross in the facility’s cafeteria, which is under your personal control and direction. (See explicit photographs at bottom of this demand letter; All right, title and interest in those photographs belong to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation) Dear Healthcare System Director Michael J. Swartz, My name is Mikey Weinstein, and I am the head of a large civil rights organization called the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF, https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org). MRFF currently represents just over 89,000 active duty, reserve, National Guard, and military veteran clients as well as many clients among the 18 national security agencies and DHS (Coast Guard) and DOT (U.S. Maritime Service). MRFF’s specific mission is to protect the constitutionally-mandated wall separating church and state in the above-referenced governmental venues. MRFF has been retained by 11 honorable military veterans who are also patients under your direct leadership as Healthcare System Director, VA Western New York Health Care. Of these 11 honorable American military veteran patients/MRFF clients, 2 are practicing Christians (1 Protestant and 1 Roman Catholic), 2 practice the Jewish faith, 2 practice the Islamic faith, 1 practices the Hindu faith, 1 is a Buddhist, and 3 follow non-faith traditions. Healthcare System Director Swartz, I won’t belabor the point here. The POW/MIA “Missing Man Table” in your Buffalo, New York, VA Medical Center has a very large sectarian Christian Bible prominently displayed on it to the utter exclusion of any other religious faith or non-faith traditions. In addition to this extremely large, open Christian Bible, which takes up nearly half of the table and dominates the display, an impossible-to-miss sign next to the table explaining the table’s items also prominently shows a Bible with a large Christian cross on it. **Please see the e-mail below my signature in this demand letter from one of our 11 MRFF client complainants on this sordid matter, which provides excellent detail (including explicit photographs) as to the scurrilous, unconstitutional violations occurring under your specific direction, sir. Healthcare System Director Swartz, your allowing this sectarian display to promote and proselytize Christianity and ONLY Christianity is an atrocious and singularly ignominious act of illicit, unconstitutional Christian supremacy, exclusivity, triumphalism, and exceptionalism. It flagrantly violates not only the No Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and its construing caselaw but your own VA regulations as well. The display of Christian proselytizing material as the sole religious item in a VA medical center display is in clear violation of the VA’s own regulations and policies regarding religious displays, which state that a display “should not elevate one belief system over others,” such as VA Directive 0022, “Religious Symbols in VA Facilities,” January 31, 2020, (emphasis added): 2. POLICY. Religious symbols may be included in a passive display, including a holiday display, in public areas of VA facilities (see subsection a. below), if the display is of the type that follows in the longstanding tradition of monuments, symbols and practices that simply recognize the important role that religion plays in the lives of many Americans. Such displays should respect and tolerate differing views and should not elevate one belief system over others. … b. VA is committed to inclusivity and nondiscrimination and evaluates all displays in public areas on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the policy stated above. VA particularly encourages the placement of diverse religious symbols together in passive displays in public areas. This display of a Christian Bible would not even be allowed as a permanent display in a VA facility chapel, let alone a highly visible, public space as it is on this POW-MIA table. VA medical facility chapels are required to be “religiously neutral” at all times when there is not an actual service taking place for a particular faith group, as is clearly stated in VHA Directive 1111, “Spiritual Care,” July 21, 2021 (emphasis added): 9. CHAPELS AND OTHER WORSHIP FACILITIES a. Chapels. The chapel, or a room set aside exclusively for use as a chapel, must be reserved for patients’ spiritual activities, such as: worship, prayer, meditation and quiet contemplation. Such chapels are appointed and maintained as places for meditation and worship. When VA chaplains are not providing or facilitating a religious service for a particular faith group, the chapel must be maintained as religiously neutral, meaning it cannot be viewed as endorsing one religion over another. Religious literature, content and symbols must be made readily accessible to VA patients and visitors in a chapel or Chaplain Service office at their request. The only exception to the policy on maintaining chapels as religiously neutral are the chapels at VA medical facilities which were built with permanent religious symbols in the walls or windows. In these cases, the VA medical facility Director must also designate an appropriately sized room or construct a religiously neutral chapel, which is maintained in accordance with this VHA directive and VA Space Planning Criteria … So you can better understand the history of sectarian Christian Bibles placed on these “Missing Man Table” displays, please take a good look at this article by MRFF’s Senior Research Director Ms. Chris Rodda: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/Bibles-dont-belong-on-pow-remembrance-tables Additionally, here is a useful timeline for your further review as well, clearly showing that a Christian Bible on the “Missing Man Table” was NEVER a part of the original “Missing Man Table” POW/MIA table tradition and was not added until over three decades afterward: 1967 – The POW/MIA table tradition was created by the Red River Fighter Pilots Association, an association of Vietnam combat pilots informally known as the “River Rats.” They began the tradition in May of 1967 at a meeting at Korat Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand, held by a group of pilots to discuss ways to prevent so many pilots from being shot down and captured. The original tradition created by the River Rats at this meeting did not include a Bible among the table’s items. 1985 – The American Legion passed a resolution to set a POW/MIA table at its events. In its official chaplains manual, the American Legion listed the items to be placed on the table. In keeping with the original tradition, a Bible was not among the items in the American Legion’s version. This was the version that became the standard, and is still widely used today. 1999 – The VFW Ladies Auxiliary published a script for the setting of the POW/MIA table in a 1999 issue of its magazine, adding a Bible to the table’s items. This is the earliest evidence of a Bible being added to the table. c. 2000 – The National League of POW/MIA Families put out a script for the setting of the POW/MIA table that was almost identical to the one published in the 1999 issue of the VFW Ladies Auxiliary magazine, including the addition of the Bible. The National League of POW/MIA Families script first appeared on the organization’s website in 2000. This new National League of POW/MIA Families version, created over three decades after the original, Bible-free tradition was begun by the River Rats, is now wrongly thought by many to be the original tradition, and has led many to think that a Bible has always been included on POW/MIA tables and that it was the National League of POW/MIA Families that originated the tradition. Thus, Healthcare System Director Swartz, on behalf of its 11 military veteran client patients at your Buffalo, New York, VA Medical Center facility, MRFF demands that you immediately remove the illicit, unconstitutional Christian Bible from the from the referenced POW/MIA “Missing Man Table” display as well as the sign showing a Bible with a Christian cross in the facility’s cafeteria, which is under your personal control and direction. We await your timely response. Sincerely, Michael L. “Mikey” Weinstein, Esq.Founder and PresidentMilitary Religious Freedom Foundation505-250-7727
From: (Retired Senior U.S. Military Officer’s name and e-mail withheld)Subject: Buffalo VA Medical Center POW/MIA tableDate: July 23, 2024 at 10:30:05 AM MDTTo: mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org Dear Mikey I am a retired, senior military officer. On the morning of July 19th, 2024, I had the privilege of receiving care at the Buffalo New York VA Medical Center. As always, the staff was caring and competent. After my appointment, I went to the cafeteria as it was close to noon. In the cafeteria, there as a POW/MIA Missing Man Table. (picture attached). I was hurt and disappointed to see an open, new testament Bible on the table. The presence of this Bible, which does not represent my faith, seemed to negate and ignore the sacrifice and legitimacy of our uniformed services men and women of other faiths, or of no specific religious belief, who sacrificed or devoted their lives for our freedoms. Next to the POW/MIA table was a poster that explained the contents of the table. As you can see by the attached picture of this poster, there is not only a Bible displayed, but the Bible has a large cross on it. That is when my feelings of disappointment turned to anger. This outrageous poster actively excludes all those of other faiths or viewpoints. I was reminded of the words of Elie Weisel, Nobel laureate and Jewish prisoner in the Auschwitz and Buchenwald concentration camps: “The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it is indifference. The opposite of faith is nor heresy, it is indifference. The opposite of life is not death, it is indifference.” To me, this poster is a display of indifference. It is insulting and hurtful. This should not be allowed in any VA Medical Center. Kindly delete my name from any reference to this letter, as I receive certain aspects of my care at the Buffalo VA Medical Center and I do not want to cause any relationship problems nor public exposure of my identity. Respectfully, (Retired Senior U.S. Military Officer’s name, rank, and service branch withheld)
Previous MRFF successes getting Bibles removed or replaced on POW/MIA tables at VA facilities and military installations
Received via snail mail News Flash: George Washington led his army in prayer, You sir have demons who hate God and the Blood of Jesus Action: Repent or perish We love you enough to warn you and tell you the truth
(Sender’s name and address redacted)
SUPPORT MRFF’s SOCIAL MEDIA Please Help IncreaseMRFF’s Social Media Engagement
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
MRFF ACTION LEADS TO PUNISHMENTFOR OFFICER WHO RELENTLESSLY DOGGEDSUBORDINATES TO SEND THEIR KIDS TOVACATION BIBLE SCHOOL TAUGHT BY HIM
“He would just not stop trying to sell us on this Vacation Bible School crap at every mandatory unit meeting we were having. It felt like he was stalking us all. He spoke constantly about ‘the evil work of the devil in this world’ and made a special point to invite the non-Christians in our unit to have their kids attend to ‘save their souls even if mom and dad refuse to be saved.’” “Everything started moving fast as soon as our combat unit’s quarterly performance awards were announced just a couple weeks ago in early July at another mandatory unit assembly. There are 5 different awards and all 5 ‘coincidentally’ went to military members who had their kids attend our senior officer and his wife’s Vacation Bible School.” — Excerpts from MRFF client e-mail
MRFF Matters – 7/23/24 – MRFF’s Win Vs. Commander Pushing OWN Vacation Bible School on Subordinates
MRFF OP-ED ONDAILY KOS Trending story on Daily Kos Officer who relentlessly harassed subordinates to send kids to his Vacation Bible School punished By: MRFF Senior Research Director Chris Rodda Tuesday, July 23, 2024
Vacation Bible School (VBS) has been a staple of Christian churches for well over a century in the civilian world and in recent decades has also become ubiquitous at military base chapels. Every summer, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) receives quite a few inquiries from service members, particularly those with children, about the VBS programs on their bases and whether or not these programs are constitutional. The short answer is yes, they are. As long as these VBS programs are run and advertised solely by the chapel, are completely voluntary, and are free from any coercion or pressure on military parents to send their children, there is no problem. In MRFF’s two decades of defending and protecting the religious freedom of our men and women in uniform, we have rarely come across a VBS program that violated either military regulations or the Constitution in any way. This year, however, we have a doozy of a Vacation Bible School story — a story of appalling “abuse,” as one of MRFF’s clients called it, by one of the most senior officers in a large military unit. This fine Christian officer relentlessly hounded his subordinates for months to sign their children up for Vacation Bible School — not a base chapel Vacation Bible School but the Vacation Bible School that he personally teaches at his off-base church. As one of MRFF’s clients, writing on behalf of 32 service members in this unit who reached out to MRFF for help, explained:
“In mid-May of this year one of our military combat unit’s most senior officers started “advising” us at official unit meetings to be sure to get our kids into Christian Vacation Bible School this summer. Not just any such Vacation Bible School but the one that our senior superior officer and his wife were personally teaching at their off base evangelical megachurch.”
But wait. There’s more. The subordinates of this predatory proselytizer of an officer would have to pay for the privilege of their children attending his VBS, as MRFF’s client continued in their e-mail:
“Oh and by the way as if this wan’t all messed up enough, there was a ‘suggested tithe offering’ (aka tuition for Vacation Bible School) of $90 per kid! For most of us that amount of money was just way too much even if we had wanted our children to attend.”
MRFF’s client also gave us a sampling of this odious officer’s sales pitch lines for his VBS, delivered at mandatory unit meetings (emphasis added):
“In trying to get us to submit to his never ending pressure this senior officer would say stuff like ‘public school tries and always fails to prepare your kids for life (he and his wife home school their own kids of course) but our Vacation Bible School prepares them for the afterlife.’ He would just not stop trying to sell us on this Vacation Bible School crap at every mandatory unit meeting we were having. It felt like he was stalking us all. He spoke constantly about “the evil work of the devil in this world” and made a special point to invite the non-Christians in our unit to have their kids attend to ‘save their souls even if mom and dad refuse to be saved.’”
And, then, as MRFF’s client wrote, to top it all off, unit members who did send their children to their superior officer’s Jesus Camp were rewarded professionally for their Christian conformity:
“Everything started moving fast as soon as our combat unit’s quarterly performance awards were announced just a couple weeks ago in early July at another mandatory unit assembly. There are 5 different awards and all 5 ‘coincidentally’ went to military members who had their kids attend our senior officer and his wife’s Vacation Bible School.”
By the time it was announced that all of the unit’s quarterly performance awards were being given to service members who had sent their kids to the offending officer’s VBS, MRFF’s base reps and Mikey Weinstein had already been involved for several weeks, and, as a result, not only did this sorry excuse of a military officer receive a written reprimand in his official personnel file but, as the leader of MRFF’s 32 clients wrote in the email below, “the quarterly awards for last quarter have just now been suspended indefinitely until further notice pending additional investigation.”
From: (Active Duty Enlisted Member’s/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Military superior tries to force Christian Vacation Bible School on his subordinate familiesDate: July 20, 2024 at 10:14:48 PM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Hello Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF Team here at (military installation name withheld) as well as all MRFF staff everywhere. Thank you all for getting some actual justice for us here against one of our superior officers who was trying to get us to pay his church to have our kids proselytized to his own Christian Faith. I am an active duty military enlisted service member and the leader of 32 fellow active duty service members who reached out for the MRFF’s help here recently at (military installation name withheld). Our assigned military unit is large and diverse as to ethnicity, faith and political views et al. One of our MRFF Reps here on base has helped me write this e-mail to MRFF so that other folks can see the abuses that went on here. I was raised Catholic but converted to Baptist after I married my wife. We are raising our kids Baptist. We have 23 other Christian service members in our MRFF client group here besides me and several Jewish, Muslim, Hindu service members along with some atheists and agnostics. I am asking that MRFF please continue to protect all of our identities so that none of the 32 of us who asked the MRFF for help will suffer any reprisal or blowback. In mid-May of this year one of our military combat unit’s most senior officers started “advising” us at official unit meetings to be sure to get our kids into Christian Vacation Bible School this summer. Not just any such Vacation Bible School but the one that our senior superior officer and his wife were personally teaching at their off base evangelical megachurch. Oh and by the way as if this wasn’t all messed up enough, there was a “suggested tithe offering” (aka tuition for Vacation Bible School) of $90 per kid! For most of us that amount of money was just way too much even if we had wanted our children to attend. In trying to get us to submit to his never ending pressure this senior officer would say stuff like “public school tries and always fails to prepare your kids for life (he and his wife home school their own kids of course) but our Vacation Bible School prepares them for the afterlife.” He would just not stop trying to sell us on this Vacation Bible School crap at every mandatory unit meeting we were having. It felt like he was stalking us all. He spoke constantly about “the evil work of the devil in this world” and made a special point to invite the non-Christians in our unit to have their kids attend to “save their souls even if mom and dad refuse to be saved”. I could tell you many other jacked up things he said about all of this but I want to keep this short. We never had a clue whether this officer’s own superior chain of command knew what he was doing to us or even gave a shit if they did know? We contacted Mr. Weinstein through one of our base MRFF Reps. Mr. Weinstein spent a good amount of time learning what had happened to us and explained how serious it was that our senior officer was violating our civil rights. Mr Weinstein then contacted our senior leadership and worked with us to cause an official unit investigation to happen. It took some weeks. Mr Weinstein and our base MRFF Reps were with us each step of the way. Everything started moving fast as soon as our combat unit’s quarterly performance awards were announced just a couple weeks ago in early July at another mandatory unit assembly. There are 5 different awards and all 5 “coincidentally” went to military members who had their kids attend our senior officer and his wife’s Vacation Bible School. I can tell you that Mr. Weinstein was in contact immediately again with our most senior leadership when the 5 quarterly awards were publicly announced. He made it clear that there was an obvious cloud over the awardees given the situation with our senior officer’s Vacation Bible School pressure tactics. Mr Weinstein demanded punishment for our senior officer who ran the Vacation Bible School with his wife. Last week our unit was informed at another mandatory meeting that the quarterly awards for last quarter have just now been suspended indefinitely until further notice pending additional investigation. In the meantime our base MRFF Reps and Mr. Weinstein are working with us to file EEO and IG complaints about all of this bullshit. We have heard and confirmed that this particular senior officer has now received a written reprimand in his official (military branch name withheld) personnel file over his nonstop stalking and pressure tactics to get our kids into his Vacation Bible School. While this is something very positive we wish there had been greater adverse action taken against this senior officer. As Mr. Weinstein said, “had some of the facts here changed so that this was a Muslim commander trying to force you to place your kids in ‘Vacation Quran School’ at his mosque there would have been a literal bloodbath in protest.” I cannot give anymore detail on this without revealing information that might identify us to our (military branch name withheld) chain of command who would likely punish all 32 of us for requesting the MRFF’s intervention in the first place. We are hearing some shit talk going around that whoever among our unit’s members complained are “traitors” and “bad troops” for going to the MRFF. They accuse the MRFF of being a “woke commie group of America haters.” Some of them also seriously bad mouth Mr. Weinstein for causing all the trouble here. Which is completely false! He is the one who fixed it! We want to fight back but fear that we will out ourselves if we do. Eventually at least some of our names will probably be known as being clients of the MRFF here. We’re ok with it and we’ll cross that bridge if and when. I just wish to say on behalf of all 32 of us here at (military installation name withheld) how much we are forever grateful to our own base MRFF Reps and Mr. Weinstein and all of the MRFF for stopping this senior officer’s unconstitutional Christian proselytizing of us and our families and especially our own children! We had nowhere to turn to until we got the MRFF on this case and the MRFFhas won it for all of us! We know and trust that the MRFF will have our backs if our chain or anyone else tries to target us for revenge of any kind. Our families have been tormented by all of this and the only bright light has been the quick and forceful action of the MRFF! (Active Duty Enlisted Member’s/MRFF Client’s name, rank, MOS/AFSC, assigned military unit and installation all withheld)
What this officer put his unit through with his relentless proselytizing and pressure on his subordinates to send their kids to his Vacation Bible School affected not only the service members in the unit but also their families, as so many of the issues MRFF deals with do. This next e-mail, with the subject line “Thank you MRFF from our Jewish military family,” is from the wife of one of the 32 service members, thanking MRFF for “caring so strongly about our military service personnel of all and no faiths and their families when nobody else apparently gives a damn.”
From: (Spouse of Active Duty Enlisted Member/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Thank you MRFF from our Jewish military familyDate: July 21, 2024 at 8:37:27 PM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Dear Mr. Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF, Mr. Weinstein thank you for taking both of my calls today. I am the wife of one of the 32 enlisted MRFF clients you all are representing at (military installation name withheld) in the matter of one of our unit’s most senior officers trying to force us all to have our children attend the Christian Vacation Bible School which he and his wife are teaching. As I mentioned to you in the second call today, our family is Jewish so this whole thing was particularly hurtful, painful and insulting to all of us. Especially when this officer mentioned that his Vacation Bible School can save the souls of the children even if the mom and dad’s souls can’t be saved. Just a terrible insult to our Jewish family and heritage and the families of the other 31 MRFF clients most of whom happen to be Christian. My family is still very hurt and damaged over this whole matter and we can’t thank our local base MRFF Reps enough and Mr. Weinstein as the leader of the MRFF for getting this senior officer punished and our most recent unit quarterly awards suspended per ongoing investigation. Thanks so very much to the MRFF for caring so strongly about our military service personnel of all and no faiths and their families when nobody else apparently gives a damn. (Spouse of Active Duty Enlisted Member/MRFF Client’s name, phone number, and address withheld)
Secularists are calling on the Government of BC to reverse a recently announced partnership between BC Builds and a Burnaby church that opposes same-sex marriage.
On Monday, the Government announced its support for The Neighbourhood Church’s plans to build a 45-storey apartment complex. The building will include a new church and the 430 units will be rented at $2,100 to $3,800 monthly.
BC Builds is an initiative by the provincial government to provide low-interest repayable loans and grants to other levels of government and non-profits to deliver more housing.
The Neighbourhood Church’s Pastor Cam Roxburgh is VP Missional Initiatives with the North American Baptist Conference (NAB). The NAB’s “affirmation of marriage” defines marriage as between “a man and woman” and condemns “sexual intercourse outside of marriage, promiscuity, common law relationships, adultery, homosexual acts…”
“Those of us that take the covenantal view, which is the typical evangelical view or typical of Christians, is that intercourse is left for marriage between a husband and wife.”
Ian Bushfield, Executive Director, BC Humanist Association (BCHA):
“This announcement sets a troubling precedent where British Columbians are paying for a new sanctuary and apartment building that will be owned and operated by a church that thinks common law and same-sex relationships are sinful. Even worse, we don’t know how much money we’re on the hook for!
“At the very least, voters deserve to know what guarantees BC Builds has that these units – and the touted community space – will be available to all residents without discrimination.”
The Government has not provided specific details about its support for the Church’s housing project, pending a rezoning application that will be made to Burnaby City Council.
The BCHA has called on the government to ensure that public funds only support secular projects.
The small city of Rossland in the West Kootenays voted last month to tax some vacant land around the local Catholic Church.
We’ve talked a lot about permissive tax exemptions in the past. Provincial laws require that places of public worship are exempt, but your council has the authority to decide whether other property held by a religious organization is subject to property taxes.
Every dollar of foregone revenue from these exemptions has to be shouldered by homeowners and local businesses.
We’ve found that most communities grant these additional exemptions but more are questioning their broader benefits.
The Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church had requested an exemption for the vacant land (in red) around its building, which is automatically exempt. That land was assessed at about $140,000 and subject to $1,368 in taxes annually without the exemption. That would increase to $1,600 by 2027, resulting in roughly $4,500 in taxes over three years.
The land subject to taxes is highlighted in red.
The impact of the permissive tax exemption.
In its application for the exemption, the Church noted that its property is not rented out and is used exclusively for worship, pastoral care and religious education of its members. They also maintain the local Catholic cemetery.
Ultimately, council voted against the request.
The motion to grant the church’s request for a permissive tax exemption was defeated.
These case studies show councils responding to the tight fiscal challenges they face. Unwilling to increase the tax burden of existing residents, they’re starting to rein in tax exemptions to save a few dollars.
Learning from these examples, we’re developing model bylaws for councils to adopt to apply stricter benefits tests to potential permissive exemption applicants. Support our work by becoming a member or making a donation today.
The BC Humanist Association is renewing its call for legislatures to end the practice of opening each day’s sitting with prayers following a new poll that found a majority of Canadians would prefer a moment of silent reflection or nothing.
Between July 24 and 26, Research Co asked 1,000 Canadians in an online panel: “As you may know, some provincial legislatures begin their sessions with moments of silent reflection, non-denominational prayers, and/or Christian prayers. Which of the following options would you prefer to begin sessions in the provincial legislature?”
39% said a moment of silent reflection
13% said a non-denominational prayer
19% said a Christian prayer
22% said none of the above
8% said not sure
The margin of error is +/- 3.1%, nineteen times out of twenty.
Ian Bushfield, Executive Director, BC Humanist Association:
Three in five Canadians support ending legislative prayers and would replace it with a moment of silence or nothing at all. This was consistent across every demographic.
Support for replacing prayers is strongest among women (65%), those 55+ (64%), Quebecers (66%) and federal Liberal voters (70%).
Bushfield:
Not only is ending legislative prayers popular, doing so would make our legislatures consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that prayers at municipal council meetings are an unconstitutional breach of the state’s duty of religious neutrality. However, the Court didn’t address whether its ruling applied to Parliament and provincial legislatures.
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
MRFF VICTORY!!!
FRAMED CHRISTIAN AMERICAN FLAGREMOVEDWITHIN 24 HOURS, DUE TO MRFFFROM SO-CALLED “HERITAGE DISPLAY” IN MILITARY INSTALLATION HQ BUILDING
“Without the MRFF’s aid this clearly illegal Christian American flag display would never have been removed. We all know thatthe MRFF takes the heat for all of us when it intervenes and our appreciation is both sincere and enormous. Thank you to the MRFF and Mr. Weinstein.Because we are in a highly secure area it was not possible to get a before and after photo…” Excerpt from letter to MRFF by— Senior Active Duty Officer and MRFF ClientChristian Flag for Illustrative Purposes added by MRFF Flying the Christian Flag in the face of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), our U.S. military once again proves they are in march step with the dangers of Project 2025 which are set to destroy DEI in the military. “Project 2025,”the MAGA-worshipping Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s dictatorship of Americawill allow carte blanche massive full-blown approval for U.S. Military Chaplains to minister any way they want! MRFF Matters – 8/1/24 – Mikey Weinstein on MRFF’s Victory over Christian Exclusivity by Having Framed Christian American Flag Removed. Click to watch (2:10) video
Letter From Senior Active Duty Officer and MRFF Client Expresses Gratitude for MRFF’s Swift Action in Effectuating the Removal of the Large, Framed “Christian American Flag” From Unit’s So-called “heritage display” in HQ Building Facility. From: (Senior Active Duty Officer/MRFF Client’s E-mail Address Withheld)Subject: Christian American Flag Removed by the MRFF’s Intervention: Long overdue thank youDate: July 31, 2024 at 7:34:21 AM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Mr. Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, I apologize for not writing sooner with an expression of sincerest gratitude for the swift action of the MRFF Reps at our military installation and Mr. Mikey Weinstein for effectuating the removal of a large, framed “Christian American flag” from our unit’s so-called “Heritage Display” in our HQ building facility. Because we are in a highly secure area it was not possible to get a “before and after” photo which I know the MRFF wanted here. I am a senior officer in our unit and for the record am a Christian myself. I was the initial individual of many who reached out to our MRFF Reps and Mr. Weinstein for help. This framed Christian American flag looked like the regular American flag but had a red Christian cross over a dark blue background where the stars are normally located on the American flag we are all used to seeing. It was horrifying to see this as an integral part of this military heritage official display. We have troops of many faiths in our unit and also those who follow no faiths at all. It had been placed there in the midst of a display of the history of our unit’s storied combat history through the years. Our Command Chaplain had the idea which was enthusiastically endorsed by our Commander. As soon as it had been erected there was huge disapproval in our ranks about it. I and some others personally spoke with our Commander as to how wrong this display was but he had been convinced by our Command Chaplain and his own lackey Staff Judge Advocate (both extremely conservative, evangelical Christians) that the display was “completely legal’ as it was “only part of a historical representation” of our unit’s combat record through many years of military service. I tried to push back that it violated a number of regulations and the Constitution but got nowhere. You can push your Commander only so far. We needed help. Within 24 hours of asking for help from the MRFF, this framed “Christian American flag” was removed from the otherwise non-objectionable heritage display in the lobby of our HQ building facility. I had given our MRFF Reps the contact info to pass onto Mr. Weinstein for our Commander’s senior command chain. Mr. Weinstein had several direct conversations with them and the unconstitutional display was then removed immediately with no explanation at all by our Commander or his Command Chaplain nor SJA legal staff. This all went down a few months ago and I should have sent in a proper thank you note but most of us who reached out to the MRFF were expecting retaliation from our unit’s leaders. And, well, we just waited and probably too long. I got the silent treatment myself from the Commander for several weeks but things seemed to have settled down now. I guess I’ll have to await to see my fitness evaluation/report before I know for sure. Senior Active Duty Officer/MRFF Client’s ID Info All Withheld Click to Read in Inbox
Mikey Weinstein’s April 2024 Op-Ed on “Project 2025”
MRFF OP-ED “It’s Project 2025, Stupid” By: MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Back in 1992, political consultant James Carville coined the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” to help explain the essence of what was then at stake in the pending Presidential election between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Carville was intending to boil down to the most basic explanative brevity of the true grit of what that next election was all about. Today we face the brutal reality of an America more bitterly divided than at any time in its history, with the debatable exception of the Civil War. This existential chasm is literally tearing apart families, marriages, friendships, businesses, and every other type of human relationship extant in the United States today. If you’re not seeing that you’re either seriously impaired or asleep. Most voters are completely unaware of an impossibly wretched set of policy proposals developed by a slew of ignoble right-wing entities but spearheaded by the ultra-conservative, MAGA-worshipping Heritage Foundation. Ready? It’s called “Project 2025.” Its official name is “The Presidential Transition Project.” OK, are you tracking with me so far?! Before you do ANYthing else please, Please, PLEASE click the links in the next two paragraphs and, well, BEHOLD! Just LOOK at the mind-blowing hellscape of what is left of America if this wickedly evil, anti-Constitutional, anti-democratic, and wholly fundamentalist Christian nationalist screed, born from the ignominious depths of the shameful, stinking MAGA womb, is EVER allowed to be wielded like a flame thrower upon our nation’s way-too-naive-and-sedentary population. Project 2025 plans to purge the government of tens of thousands of non-MAGA personnel and replace them with MAGA loyalists are already well under way. The goal, according to a must-read Axios article, is (emphasis added) “to install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists across government to rip off the restraints imposed on the previous 46 presidents.” The vetting process includes filling out Project 2025’s “Presidential Personnel Database & Presidential Administration Academy Questionnaire.” Prospective appointees will attend the “Presidential Administration Academy” to be ready “on Day One” to “immediately begin rolling back destructive policy and advancing conservative ideas in the federal government.” Project 2025’s plans for the military are equally sweeping, as laid out in the 920-page Project 2025 book Mandate for Leadership. Fundamentalist Christian chaplains will be unfettered in their proselytizing, the most senior flag officers (three and four stars) will be “instructed” to make sure they’re “not pursuing a social engineering agenda,” courses at the military academies will be audited “to remove Marxist indoctrination” and tenure for (presumably non-MAGA) professors will be eliminated. And, of course, the current policies that allow transgender individuals to serve will be reversed. We at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (mrff.org) fight ‘round-the-clock to prevent our nation’s military, its 18 intelligence agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Maritime Service from EVER being transformed into a fatal force multiplier for the blood-thirsty MAGA maniacs who developed and plan to implement Project 2025, fueled by the appalling propellant of fundamentalist Christian nationalism. And we at MRFF have been, are, and will continue to be the direct targets of the cowardly wrath of these same MAGA villains. (To this end, please see Margaret Atwood’s disturbingly dystopian The Handmaid’s Tale or the TV series of the same name streaming on Hulu). So, in the ensuing seven months before our next national elections, may I respectfully urge you to IMMEDIATELY take at least 300 to 600 seconds out of your busy day? Why? Because you MUST think about and deeply internalize NOW the beyond-shocking consequences to our country should Project 2025 ever be actualized by those who planned, developed and intend to implement it with unremitting fury and vengeance. Indeed, actualized well beyond that of the ugly lynch mob of “Unite the Right” racists and nazi-loving fascists and Christian nationalists displayed in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12 of 2017. It will savagely terminate justice, freedom, and democracy in America. It will turn our United States military into the quintessential MRFF nightmare of a zombie army of imperious, fundamentalist Christian crusaders. It will propel tyranny and despotism and autocracy and fascism. It will spew bigotry, misogyny, and hatred of “The Other” and prejudice writ unimaginably ginormous as newly bedrock U.S. policy. It will spell The End of all we know as decency and American freedoms as laid out in our precious U.S. Constitution. There is still some small amount of time left to spread the word and try to wake up our friends and family and acquaintances as to their, and our, pathetically putrid, pitiful, and deserved fate if we don’t all FIGHT like HELL to prevent Project 2025 from ever being birthed and then wielded like a berserk nuclear weapon by Christian extremist, MAGA monstrosities. The answer is beyond obvious lest we ever wonder why the America we all grew up in has pervertedly morphed into the murderously oppressive, repulsive, Christian nationalist country of “Gilead” in Atwood’s seminal book referenced above. It’s Project 2025, stupid!
Military superior tries to force Christian Vacation Bible School on his subordinate families
From: (Active Duty Enlisted Member’s/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Military superior tries to force Christian Vacation Bible School on his subordinate familiesDate: July 20, 2024 at 10:14:48 PM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Hello Mr. Weinstein and the MRFF Team here at (military installation name withheld) as well as all MRFF staff everywhere. Thank you all for getting some actual justice for us here against one of our superior officers who was trying to get us to pay his church to have our kids proselytized to his own Christian Faith. I am an active duty military enlisted service member and the leader of 32 fellow active duty service members who reached out for the MRFF’s help here recently at (military installation name withheld). Our assigned military unit is large and diverse as to ethnicity, faith and political views et al. One of our MRFF Reps here on base has helped me write this e-mail to MRFF so that other folks can see the abuses that went on here.
From: (Spouse of Active Duty Enlisted Member/MRFF Client’s e-mail address withheld)Subject: Thank you MRFF from our Jewish military familyDate: July 21, 2024 at 8:37:27 PM MDTTo: Information Weinstein <mikey@militaryreligiousfreedom.org> Dear Mr. Mikey Weinstein and the MRFF, Mr. Weinstein thank you for taking both of my calls today. I am the wife of one of the 32 enlisted MRFF clients you all are representing at (military installation name withheld) in the matter of one of our unit’s most senior officers trying to force us all to have our children attend the Christian Vacation Bible School which he and his wife are teaching. As I mentioned to you in the second call today, our family is Jewish so this whole thing was particularly hurtful, painful and insulting to all of us. Especially when this officer mentioned that his Vacation Bible School can save the souls of the children even if the mom and dad’s souls can’t be saved. Just a terrible insult to our Jewish family and heritage and the families of the other 31 MRFF clients most of whom happen to be Christian.
Organization: Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Organization Description: The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is dedicated to ensuring that all members of the United States Armed Forces fully receive the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom to which they and all Americans are entitled by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Over 89,000 active duty, veteran, and civilian personnel of the United States Armed Forces, including individuals involved in High School JROTC around the nation, have come to our foundation for redress and assistance in resolving or alerting the public to their civil rights grievances, with hundreds more contacting MRFF each day. 95% of them are Christians themselves.
MRFF’S MIKEY WEINSTEIN’S GRIPPING INTERVIEW BY “THE GOOD MEN PROJECT” ON THE DIRE THREAT OF “PROJECT 2025” AND A SECOND MAGA ADMINISTRATION
With over 3 million visitors a month, The Good Men Project,founded by Tom Matlack in 2009, first as a book, then a film, and now a website, describes itself as an “international conversation about what it means to be a good man in the 21st century.” MRFF’s Mikey Weinstein joins that conversation in a must-read interview about “Project 2025,” the MAGA-worshipping Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s dictatorship of America.
THE GOOD MEN PROJECTINTERVIEWS MIKEY WEINSTEIN MRFF’s Mikey Weinstein on Project 2025 By: Scott Douglas Jacobsen Tuesday, July 16, 2024
Excerpts from Mikey Weinstein’s interview responses: “They have their playbook out there. Why did they do this? When they suddenly came into power in 2017, they didn’t expect to win. They didn’t know what to do. They didn’t understand the bureaucracy. But now, they’re going to fire anybody who could be in their way and replace them with loyalists who will be around forever.” “So look, it’s not going to be a bureaucratic thing. It’s going to be much more like a bunch of criminal gangs with knives, letting as many people get hit as possible. We expect to be targeted. We already think we are being targeted. And there will be several hundreds of others who are. We’re not going to run away. We will fight and fight as hard as we can. But it’s not a joke. And it’s not purely bureaucratic.”
Mikey Weinstein’s April 2024 Op-Ed on “Project 2025”
MRFF OP-ED “It’s Project 2025, Stupid” By: MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein Wednesday, April 10, 2024
Back in 1992, political consultant James Carville coined the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” to help explain the essence of what was then at stake in the pending Presidential election between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. Carville was intending to boil down to the most basic explanative brevity of the true grit of what that next election was all about. Today we face the brutal reality of an America more bitterly divided than at any time in its history, with the debatable exception of the Civil War. This existential chasm is literally tearing apart families, marriages, friendships, businesses, and every other type of human relationship extant in the United States today. If you’re not seeing that you’re either seriously impaired or asleep. Most voters are completely unaware of an impossibly wretched set of policy proposals developed by a slew of ignoble right-wing entities but spearheaded by the ultra-conservative, MAGA-worshipping Heritage Foundation. Ready? It’s called “Project 2025.” Its official name is “The Presidential Transition Project.” OK, are you tracking with me so far?! Before you do ANYthing else please, Please, PLEASE click the links in the next two paragraphs and, well, BEHOLD! Just LOOK at the mind-blowing hellscape of what is left of America if this wickedly evil, anti-Constitutional, anti-democratic, and wholly fundamentalist Christian nationalist screed, born from the ignominious depths of the shameful, stinking MAGA womb, is EVER allowed to be wielded like a flame thrower upon our nation’s way-too-naive-and-sedentary population. Project 2025 plans to purge the government of tens of thousands of non-MAGA personnel and replace them with MAGA loyalists are already well under way. The goal, according to a must-read Axios article, is (emphasis added) “to install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists across government to rip off the restraints imposed on the previous 46 presidents.” The vetting process includes filling out Project 2025’s “Presidential Personnel Database & Presidential Administration Academy Questionnaire.” Prospective appointees will attend the “Presidential Administration Academy” to be ready “on Day One” to “immediately begin rolling back destructive policy and advancing conservative ideas in the federal government.” Project 2025’s plans for the military are equally sweeping, as laid out in the 920-page Project 2025 book Mandate for Leadership. Fundamentalist Christian chaplains will be unfettered in their proselytizing, the most senior flag officers (three and four stars) will be “instructed” to make sure they’re “not pursuing a social engineering agenda,” courses at the military academies will be audited “to remove Marxist indoctrination” and tenure for (presumably non-MAGA) professors will be eliminated. And, of course, the current policies that allow transgender individuals to serve will be reversed. We at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (mrff.org) fight ‘round-the-clock to prevent our nation’s military, its 18 intelligence agencies, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Maritime Service from EVER being transformed into a fatal force multiplier for the blood-thirsty MAGA maniacs who developed and plan to implement Project 2025, fueled by the appalling propellant of fundamentalist Christian nationalism. And we at MRFF have been, are, and will continue to be the direct targets of the cowardly wrath of these same MAGA villains. (To this end, please see Margaret Atwood’s disturbingly dystopian The Handmaid’s Tale or the TV series of the same name streaming on Hulu). So, in the ensuing seven months before our next national elections, may I respectfully urge you to IMMEDIATELY take at least 300 to 600 seconds out of your busy day? Why? Because you MUST think about and deeply internalize NOW the beyond-shocking consequences to our country should Project 2025 ever be actualized by those who planned, developed and intend to implement it with unremitting fury and vengeance. Indeed, actualized well beyond that of the ugly lynch mob of “Unite the Right” racists and nazi-loving fascists and Christian nationalists displayed in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11 and 12 of 2017. It will savagely terminate justice, freedom, and democracy in America. It will turn our United States military into the quintessential MRFF nightmare of a zombie army of imperious, fundamentalist Christian crusaders. It will propel tyranny and despotism and autocracy and fascism. It will spew bigotry, misogyny, and hatred of “The Other” and prejudice writ unimaginably ginormous as newly bedrock U.S. policy. It will spell The End of all we know as decency and American freedoms as laid out in our precious U.S. Constitution. There is still some small amount of time left to spread the word and try to wake up our friends and family and acquaintances as to their, and our, pathetically putrid, pitiful, and deserved fate if we don’t all FIGHT like HELL to prevent Project 2025 from ever being birthed and then wielded like a berserk nuclear weapon by Christian extremist, MAGA monstrosities. The answer is beyond obvious lest we ever wonder why the America we all grew up in has pervertedly morphed into the murderously oppressive, repulsive, Christian nationalist country of “Gilead” in Atwood’s seminal book referenced above. It’s Project 2025, stupid!
VoteVets graphic lays out the Heritage Foundation’s terrifying “Project 2025” plans for the military in a second MAGA administration (Click on graphic to enlarge)
A pair of vile hate e-mails from a Trump-worshipping antisemite
On Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 11:24:01 AM EDT, (name withheld) wrote: Mikey Whineystein was forcibly relocated to Gaza, captured and baked into Jew Bread. The End. hahahahahahaha WE ARE MANY, WE ARE LEGION, WE ARE ANONYMOUS.
To see response from MRFF Founder and President Mikey Weinstein:
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/05
Irene Deschênes is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse by a roman catholic priest. Irene went to the diocese of London (Ontario) in 1992, and Irene and the diocese engaged in litigation shortly thereafter. Almost 30 years later, Irene received a settlement from the diocese of London in 2021. Irene is a staunch advocate and activist for survivors of clergy sexual abuse. She has worked in social services for most of her adult career, supporting marginalized populations for decades. When yet another case of sexual assault by roman catholic priests comes to light, Irene is known to ask, “Where’s the Outrage?” Irene hopes that those outraged by catholic employees engaging in illicit activities will ask the same question, and that Canadians will be spurred to action. Irene invites all Canadians to be outraged and to use this energy for change in a long-standing institution that has engaged in deceitful acts for centuries.
Outrage Canada is a national, non-religious coalition of outraged Canadians that hold the Roman Catholic church of Canada accountable for ongoing crimes and advocates for all victims of Catholic clergy.
We are committed to ensuring justice for victims, the safety of all children and the prevention of abuse by the Roman Catholic church.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here with Irene Deschênes. I’ve been conducting interviews with several people, mostly women who have come forward as victims of clergy-related abuse, primarily within Orthodoxy, as much of the focus has been on the Catholic Church. Could you share your experience, including your denomination? And to clarify, this is happening in Canada rather than the United States, correct?
Irene Deschênes: Yes. I grew up Roman Catholic and was baptized at a very young age. My parents were immigrants who came to Canada in 1959, married, and I am the second oldest of five children. We had a very religious household, attended church every Sunday without fail, and observed all the special times during the church calendar year. I went to a Catholic school and then a Catholic high school got married to a nice Catholic boy and had two children. Would you like me to talk about my memory recovery now?
Jacobsen: Yes.
Deschênes: Okay. My children attended a French first language school because my ex-husband is Francophone. We both wanted them to be raised bilingually, so they went to a French school.
When my daughter was preparing for her First Communion, she would make it with her classmates, and the mass would be in French. However, since my parents didn’t speak French, we decided she would make her First Communion in English so my parents could attend and understand the service. The priest said he would need to talk to my daughter first to ensure she was ready to make her First Communion. So, I took my daughter to meet with the priest, and he chatted with us for a while. Then, during the conversation, he asked if he could speak with my daughter alone.
I said, “No.” I was aghast because I had always been a good Catholic girl and had never said, “No,” to a priest. Here I was in my thirties, saying, “No,” to a priest. That was unsettling, and I didn’t understand why I reacted that way. Nonetheless, my daughter ended up making her First Communion in English.
I was a stay-at-home mom, so we had a typical summer, doing activities with the children, taking them places, and helping them make memories. Then, in September, for the first time, both my kids were in school every day. After dropping them off at the bus stop and returning home, I sat in my living room and started crying uncontrollably. I didn’t know why I was crying or what was happening. Suddenly, a flash of memory overwhelmed me, and I remembered everything the priest had done to me.
I cried and cried, convinced that I was going crazy because there was no way a priest would do that to a little girl. I should talk to a priest about what was happening because, growing up, that’s what I was taught—to go to your parish priest with any problems or concerns. So, I found the old phone book and started making calls, but I couldn’t reach a priest because they’re off work on Mondays since they work on Sundays.
Finally, someone told me, “You need to call the chair of the sexual abuse committee.” I was shocked—there was a sexual abuse committee? How could there be a sexual abuse committee if I was the only one? This was before the Internet, so I truly believed I was the only person whom a Roman Catholic priest had sexually assaulted as a child. I spoke with Father Richard Tremblay, and he asked if I wanted to come in and talk. I said yes.
He invited me to a meeting, so I went to the church, sat in the rectory, and he was there, wearing his collar.
It mimicked the experience I had as a little girl of being sexually assaulted in a rectory by a priest who had his collar on. So, I sat there in the chair and made myself small. I gathered my coat up against my body. Then he asked me the priest’s name, and I said I couldn’t say it. I couldn’t say it because this priest had also performed my wedding ceremony.
So, there’s that, and I had known him since I was nine years old. That’s quite a history with someone you think you can trust. So, I couldn’t say his name, and he said, “We want to make sure he’s not still harming little girls.” I shook my head, and he said, “Could you tell me what city it happened in?” And I said, “Chatham. It’s Chatham, Ontario.” He said, “Was it Father Sylvestre?” And I thought they know.They knew.
It’s him. He’s got a history. He’s done it before. They’re going to take care of me. They will be kind, help me get into counselling, and be there. But the exact opposite happened. They did pay for counselling for me for two years, but I’m still in counselling off and on. Every once in a while, I need a tune-up, Because the impact is lifelong.
It’s not something that two years of counselling will help you completely work through. It’s a lifelong process—not core recovery but ongoing maintenance, a common experience among those whom priests have abused. Yes, I would say it’s common. Still, some mitigating factors include having family support and receiving adequate counselling in the early years to help work through some of the issues. So, it depends on how quickly you can work through those issues and the level of support one has that makes a difference.
In the early 1990s, I felt there weren’t any therapists I could find to help unpack that extra layer. Being sexually assaulted as a child is devastating enough, but when it comes from a church leader, there’s another level to it that needs to be unpacked. Therapists weren’t trained in the early 1990s to do that. I found that it wasn’t helpful because the spiritual abuse also needed to be addressed, and there wasn’t training for that in those days. So, that was difficult for me.
I didn’t have any family support or supportive friends at that time. So, in the early years, it was very hard for me, and I sank into a deep depression because I couldn’t find other survivors or anyone else who truly understood what I was going through. That made it more difficult for me. When survivors come forward today, they probably find it easier because it’s been in the news so much. With the advent of the Internet, much more information exists. Survivors can find help more easily these days than 30 years ago.
Jacobsen: What about recovery resources? You have an email address on the Outrage Canada website. What do survivors of this abuse need at different stages of their recovery process so they can go back into something like a reintegrated life, being successful and being themselves? What do people need regarding resources—not just to report it, watch a documentary, or read a book, but to get the proper support so they can transition back into a culture where they can be their authentic selves? I don’t mean success in having a family, children, a high-powered job, or an education. They still feel comfortable in their skin, living however they choose to live in a free society. The church is part of a community.
Deschênes: I wish I had the cookbook to hand it to folks and say, “Follow these steps. Mix in a little bit of this and a little bit of that.” It’s different for everybody, but for sure, people need to be able to surround themselves with personal and professional support first and foremost. That helps quite a bit.
That’s what many people gravitate to, especially in their later years when they join the church—to have that sense of community. I didn’t have that. I lost it when I came forward. People in the church didn’t gather around me, put their arms around me, and say, “Irene, we’ll help you through this.” Nobody contacted me from the church. When I left the church, I was all alone. I had lost that community. Community is important. It’s one of our basic needs.
On Maslow’s hierarchy of needs a sense of belonging is one of our basic needs. So, in probably 1993 or 1994, I was watching the Phil Donahue show. One of his guests was Barbara Blaine, and she was the first survivor I ever met.
She was from Chicago, and her phone number came up on the screen at the end of the show, and I called her immediately. She had gone on Phil Donahue and talked about being sexually assaulted by her parish priest. We had long-distance phone call charges back then; she was my lifeline. The only way to communicate with her was by letter or by phone.
So, I did speak with her quite a few times. With other people’s permission, she connected me with other people in Ontario, Canada. But many people weren’t coming forward then, and they weren’t telling anyone, so it was hard to find other survivors. I remember going to my first SNAP conference, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, in Chicago in the early 1990s and meeting other survivors. It was a huge sense of relief.
Not being alone—that’s a huge burden to carry alone. So, that was my community for some time. Then I went through the civil suit process, and the diocese gave me some money.
It was attached to a gag order. So, I wrote to the bishop, saying, “I need to be released from this gag order. It’s keeping me sick. I’m keeping a secret that’s not mine to keep.” So, the Diocese of London did release me from my gag order, and the media at the time reported that I was the first person in Canada to be released from a gag order by the church.
Jacobsen: So, after that—after you were released from the gag order—you found out that Phil Donahue is, in fact, alive at 88?
Deschênes: Yes. I’ll have to contact him and thank him. He has no idea how much he’s helped me. After I was released from my gag order, I thought the gag order said I couldn’t tell anyone anything, which was my mistake. It was a rough time, a rough period for me when I had this civil suit hanging over my head. But after I got released from the gag order, I went to the police in Chatham, Ontario, which is where the abuse happened, and I reported him.
So they started a criminal investigation. That’s when almost 50 women came forward. Father Charles Sylvestre was pegged as the most notorious pedophile in all of Canada. He denied everything and said they put us up to it. Then, he started preaching with a little Bible or book at one court appearance. He was preaching to us, and we all said, “Oh my God.”
Anyway, he was sentenced to three years, and then he died a couple of months later in prison. During the criminal trial, I told my lawyer that suddenly, the diocese said they had this police report from 1962—a police report from 1962! I was born in 1961, and they have this police report. These three little girls from Sarnia, Ontario, reported to the police, and suddenly, this police report came out of nowhere.
So, I told my lawyer, “I want to reopen my civil suit because they kept denying and saying, ‘We didn’t know anything about Charlie. Good old Charlie? We didn’t hear a thing about him.'” But they have known since 1962. I’m reopening my civil suit. She said, “You better find yourself a contract lawyer.” So, I got myself a lawyer in Toronto. I said to her, “Can you take my case?” And she said, “We’ll have a look at it.” She’s in a big law firm.
So she said, “We’ll have a look at it.” I told her, “I just came out of a civil suit and a criminal trial. I’m exhausted. I need to move forward with my life.”
“If you need me, call me. Otherwise, do what you need to do,” I said because I was so invested in the first civil suit. I was exhausted and said, “I can’t do this again. You do what you need to do and get back to me.”
So, ten years later—ten years later—she called me. “We’re going to court on Friday.” I was like, “What?” So she had been doing whatever she needed in the background, getting all the legal paperwork and mumbo jumbo in order, talking to the diocese, and having all these conversations with their lawyers. So, we went to the court in London, Ontario, and the judge said, yes, I could reopen my civil suit. That was a victory.
Then, the diocese told the media that they were appealing that decision. So the media called me and said, “What do you think of the diocese of London appealing the judge’s decision?” I thought it cruel they would tell the media before having the courtesy of contacting my lawyer!
They couldn’t call my lawyer to inform them of the appeal. They had to call the media so the media could call me. That isn’t kind.
Jacobsen: Just so people are aware, two points of contact. This one, the first one, is short. How long had you been in legal proceedings?
Deschênes: 30 years.
Jacobsen: Second part. I listen to a lot of fundamentalist preachers and extreme political people because I already know my orientation. So, I want to know what the other side says about these different things. I listen to them. They will say things like “the Jezebel spirit.” What are the biblical and non-biblical insults and epithets thrown at you while pursuing this line of justice? I wouldn’t even say against the church. It’s for the church because it’s in the church’s best interest to weed out the bad clergy and not have the good clergy, who do community service and commit their lives to that, be blanketed with that at the same time in a way.
Deschênes: Yes. I’m doing this for the church, but they’ll never eliminate their brothers in Christ. That’s the pact. They’ll never do it. A few might be whistleblowers, but they’re out of there. They don’t want those guys around.
That’s why the good priests don’t say, “Irene, what happened to you was wrong. It should never have happened. This is what I’m going to do to help you work through this.” Never—no nun, priest, or anyone else in the church ever said that to me. Not even a congregant.
So, not even a peer, let alone starting at the bishop on up to the pope. I’m still waiting for that call. He’s got my number. I gave it to him. There might be good priests in there, but I have yet to meet them. They have never used biblical terms against me. They never publicly said that, and they never privately said that because they have never contacted me.
They went through my lawyer whenever they wanted to message me or say anything. Nobody from the church contacted me in those 30 years. So, no, I didn’t get called Jezebel or anything like that.
It started when I was ten years old. A little weird. Father Sylvestre did say something about those girls with their short skirts sitting on his lap: little girls, little 10-year-old Catholic girls in the sixties, and they wore dresses. Then, sticking out our pink tongues at him when he went to give us communion—he’s the one that sexualized all our very normal activities. At ten years old, I didn’t even know what the fuck sex was.
I didn’t know what it was at 12. I don’t think I fully understood even in high school when they started to talk to us about it. This is a bit of a side point.
Jacobsen: The sexual education kids received in the sixties, seventies, and eighties was not exactly comprehensive or realistic. So, let’s continue. You’re going through a storm of legal proceedings. What else happens?
Deschênes: So, they appealed that. We went to the Ontario Court of Appeal in Toronto. Both lawyers presented their sides, yada yada. Then, the judges for the Ontario Court of Appeal took months to make their decision. So, you wait again and then they make that decision. They said, “Yes, I can reopen my civil suit.” Then, the diocese’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. So, I created this group called the Justice for Irene Network, and our message was “Settle with Irene; She’s Tired.”
We would say the church has the right to appeal. But is that the right thing to do? Yes, they had the right to appeal. But anyway, they appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. That took weeks or months. My lawyer and their lawyers—right, my one lawyer and their three lawyers—went to the Supreme Court of Canada to make their case, and then we waited for the judge’s decision again. Then the judge said, yes, I can reopen my civil suit. So, I won at the highest level of court in Canada.
So, I asked my lawyer, “What’s next?” She said, “We can go to trial, or we can go to mediation.” When folks go to trial, you typically prepare for trial. Still, the trial isn’t scheduled for 18 months, or however long, so you’d have to wait again. Inevitably, what they do is settle the day before the trial starts. So after all those anxious months and weeks of waiting and preparing for trial, the day before, they offer to settle out of court.
I said to my lawyer, “Let’s go to mediation.” This was during COVID, so we were on a Zoom call. This gentleman comes on my screen and says, “Hi, Irene. Nice to see you again.” It was the same mediator from the first civil suit 20 years earlier. So, we started at 10 a.m. went until 9:30 at night. Then the church’s lawyer said, “We’ll pick up again tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock.” So, I had to try to sleep that night, wondering what was going to happen.
Then, around 10:30 in the morning, my lawyer called me and said, “They’ve accepted our last offer.” They wanted me to have one more sleepless night instead of settling right then and there. So that was it—I was done that day. I was 60, and I got my settlement. I publicly thanked them for paying me for all my years of activism and advocacy for other victims.
“Thank you for paying me for the work I’ve done over the last 30 years,” I said, and I promptly retired. Yes, I might be a little tired—very tired. Then, the Justice for Irene group we created to encourage them to do the right thing morphed into Outrage Canada.
We were only incorporated last year, so we’re pretty new. We’re having our first AGM on September 28th. Several survivors contacted us after we circulated the press release announcing our new organization. Typically, they email us so that I could schedule a Zoom call with them. I would have a one-on-one conversation to see where they’re at, what further support they might need, or any direction or words of wisdom I might provide.
After doing this for 30 years, I’m a bit of an expert in the field. Plus, I worked in social services for most of my adult life. My last job was as a residential counsellor at a women’s shelter, so I have some experience in that realm. When people contact me, we will do a Zoom call like this.
It would be about two hours long. “Are you good?” “Yes.” “Are you good?” “Yes.” “Reach out again if you ever need to talk.” Some contact me occasionally, and others I have not heard from again.
Jacobsen: I did notice you collaborated with Patricia Grell. I’m aware of her because we interviewed in 2017.
Deschênes: I know what you interviewed about—the school board.
Jacobsen: How did you find yourself where you are now in terms of the relationship with the school board or system?
Grell: I would say it all started by taking a degree in theology from St. Michael’s College, Toronto School of Theology. I am eternally grateful to my professors because they taught me that I didn’t have to put my intellect on hold to have a faith in Jesus and follow Jesus. St. Michael’s College took a historical-critical approach to the Bible, not a literal approach, and an intellectual ‘faith seeking understanding’ approach.
So I came out of university with an intellectual understanding of my faith. I brought a deep understanding of the historical Jesus and his message everywhere I went. I worked as a Pastoral Associate in a parish in Timmins, as a Program Coordinator in a retreat center and then as a Catholic school trustee. Each place I worked, I got a glimpse into the Catholic Church behind the scenes and I became more and more scandalized. [Laughing]. I was scandalized because deep down I had this understanding of the Gospel that was very rooted in the historical Jesus. And then I would see nuns, priests and so-called devout Catholics not living at all according to the Gospel.
I heard, for example, the archbishop’s representative state to the Board that perhaps Catholic schools are not the place for transgender students. I saw the school district with the support of the archbishop, deny a transgender girl access to the girls’ washroom, insisting she uses the gender-neutral washroom on the other side of the school. I saw the resistance by the church to allow GSAs. All these things led me to conclude that the church had lost its way.
I think working in the school district was the ‘watershed moment,’ where I realized that “Wow! This is a social club. This is not a faith.” These people act as though they belong to a bike club or dance club. They are not together because of their faith in Jesus and his message of love, acceptance, and mercy. Catholicism, I concluded, had become a social club.
I thought this is not where I can be anymore. I can’t be here. They’re not living what they’re talking about. It’s all window dressing. That’s how it is; it’s all window dressing. We’d have signs in our schools, for example, that state ‘Christ is the reason for this school’ and then we’d go on our merry way and do things that totally contradicted this.
For example, we have an academic high school that requires students to get a 75% average in grade 9 in order to be accepted. If a Catholic student who lives near this school misses the mark by even 1%, they are not admitted. This student then can’t attend high school with their friends and must travel outside their community because the district can’t make any exceptions for fear of lowering the standards of the school. To add insult to injury, the academic school will offer any vacant spots to non-Catholic students who do achieve the required average. The lack of compassion and mercy in the interest of competitiveness seems to fly in the face of “Christ is the reason for this school”.
Another example is the denial of attendance at grad ceremonies if students don’t complete the required amount of the religion curriculum by a particular date. The School Act in Alberta does not require completion of religion credits in order to earn a high school diploma. The district then uses attendance at grad ceremonies as the carrot to ensure students complete their religion credits. It seems odd to me to use coercion as a way to encourage students to learn about Jesus.
I would think that if our Catholic schools were teaching by example, and living according to the Gospel then we wouldn’t have to coerce anybody to take religion; students would want to take religion. They would want to learn about this rebel named Jesus. Teenagers are rebellious anyway! [Laughing]. I think they would really think he’s pretty cool if they could learn about who he was and what he stood for. You don’t have to coerce someone by saying you must take this or we’re not going to let you come to grad. What kind of example is that? What are we trying to do here?” One of the moms who had a son in high school last year and was concerned about this grad rule, said, “Geez, with the legacy of residential schools, you would think that they wouldn’t be interested in coercing people to take religion through Catholic schools.”
These are publicly funded schools. I’d rather try to invite kids to be interested in the faith by our example of love and compassion rather than coercion. We can invite students to learn about our faith by being merciful people. Students will be attracted to that [Laughing]. So that’s the kind of stuff – that really…I just was disappointed, I was heartbroken… literally heartbroken to see people acting this way in the name of Christ [Sobbing] I’m sorry.
Jacobsen: It’s okay.
Grell: [Sobbing/weeping] I guess…I’m still grieving.
Jacobsen: It’s okay. Take the time you need.
Grell: It really upset me that we had schools for elite students. Parents came to a Board meeting when I put forward a motion to request the district make exceptions for Catholic students, to show some mercy and these parents said: “We want our kids to get ready for this competitive world.” I thought, “That isn’t what I thought Christianity or Catholicism was about,” competition.
Anyway, it’s really broken my heart. I’m an honest person. I couldn’t run again to be a Catholic trustee, I might run one day to be a public-school trustee, but I couldn’t in good conscience put my name on that ballot and say, “Yeah, I’m a Catholic school trustee. I want to be a Catholic school trustee.”
No, I don’t want anything to do with this Catholic Church; if Catholic means being like this, sorry, not interested. That’s not what I learned about and learned what Jesus was about at all. So, I must distance myself. Anyway, sorry I got emotional. I guess I didn’t realize I was still this upset. But we’re not then I heard that priest say that our Catholic schools were not for transgender kids, I thought, “That’s it. That’s the last straw.” If that’s what they’re about, I am NOT interested in this church.
I have invested a lot of my life in the Catholic Church; I spent a lot of money on my education. Fifty thousand dollars to get a MDiv. We used to pray for laypeople to come forward in service to the Church. Then I noticed they stopped praying for that. They started praying again for more vocations to religious life and more priests. I remember I saw this shift happening around 1992. Prior to this, there was a great push to have more lay people educated in theology so they could take leadership roles in the church. But that approach seems to have fallen by the wayside.
I have spoken with other women, who have left the church and I agree with them when they say: “I didn’t leave the church, the church left me”.
So, I’m aware of several stories of women who have come forward within religious traditions in Canada and understand the difficulties they have to go through in the limelight. Some men do that, too, but the women’s cases are talked about a little less. So that’s the thing. It’s more to highlights like that and your own.
You’re taking on a juggernaut. If you run the lines of best fit, only about half or a little less than half of the population are Christians today. So they’ve owned the country for about 150 years, approximately. So, I commend her and you for the work that you’re doing.
So, you got paid out. What’s the follow-up?
Deschênes: To backtrack, I heard Patricia Grell on CBC Radio. I thought that woman would be on my team, and she was. That’s how it goes.
Jacobsen: That’s how it goes. I hope to do that with interviews like this and people who read them. Don’t fuck up.
Deschênes: Anyway, so, now that I have the financial means, I can start this organization, pay for the website, and pay to have assistance. Do you know Murray Foster?
Jacobsen: No.
Deschênes: He’s from the Great Big Sea. I paid him to write an anthem for us. It’s called Justice is Coming. Check it out at http://www.outragecanada.ca.
Jacobsen: He sounds like Dan Barker from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. He makes jingles. He’s a former evangelical preacher and musician.
Deschênes: I have heard of him. This has been great, Scott. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much.
Further Internal Resources (Chronological, yyyy/mm/dd):
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/04
Daniel Barvin joined Coya in 2021. Prior to joining Coya, Daniel spent his time as an advocate fighting for awareness and the rights of Presymptomatic Familial ALS patients. He started the first ever Familial ALS focused team through his work at I AM ALS. During this time, Daniel interacted with presymptomatic patients, researchers, pharma executives, and advocacy organizations. In addition, Daniel has held operations and design positions at Morgan Stanley, Dril-Quip and GE. Daniel received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Case Western and his M.B.A from Rice University.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Daniel Barvin. You were found to carry the genetic variant associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal degeneration (FTD). For everyone listening, could you give us a refresher on what ALS is? And can you discuss what it means that you are a carrier of this specific gene??
Daniel Barvin: I am a carrier of, C9ORF72, a genetic variant that could one day cause ALS and or frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and I have lost a significant portion of my family to those diseases. I have experienced the loss and tragedy these diseases bring, which not only shortens one’s life but also strips away the dignity and ability to be a productive member of society. While I’ve seen what my future might hold, I’m fortunate that at 36, I am still healthy and fully engaged in life.
Jacobsen: Regarding this type of diagnosis, the first critical question for me is how previous generations did not know the genetic aspects of these diseases. Now, with advancements in screening technology, at what point did it become possible to take advantage of such screenings? At what point was it possible for people to get tested if they had a risk factor?
Barvin: My life was profoundly impacted by the ability to undergo genetic testing. I’ve built my advocacy around discovering these risks and taking action. The first time anyone could identify a genetic risk in the ALS space was when the SOD1 gene mutation was discovered in 1993. This discovery marked the first time it became possible to understand a genetic risk for ALS in a family. The genetic variant I carry, C9orf72 (Chromosome 9 Open Reading Frame 72 expansion), was discovered in 2011. Unfortunately, we lost my aunt in 2012, and no one understood that she carried the C9orf72 variant at the time. Although it was discovered, it took time for this information to reach mainstream medical awareness and for frontline neurologists to diagnose the disease and understand the importance of genetic testing. This knowledge is crucial for informing immediate family members about their risks, as these diseases are hereditary. Genetic testing requires multiple steps to take effect and be truly effective.
My journey of discovery began in 2017 after losing my grandfather in 2000, my uncle in 2002, my aunt in 2012, and my father in 2016. I discovered that these losses were hereditary due to the C9orf72 variant in 2017, and I learned that I carried the variant in 2018. While the knowledge of these genetic variants existed, the resources for navigating genetic testing through counselors or receiving care were almost nonexistent. This experience of feeling alone inspired me to ensure that the rest of this community, now known to include about 500,000 people in the U.S. and millions globally, don’t go down the same blind path that I did.
That’s when I began working with other patients and co-founded a nonprofit called “End the Legacy” to raise awareness, advocate for change, and improve clinical care guidelines for the presymptomatic community.
Jacobsen: For many families affected by these diseases, it’s a brutal challenge to face. When these genetic markers run in the family, how many family members statistically would be expected to be affected?
Barvin: This is what is known as “penetrance.”
Jacobsen: What is the penetrance of this genetic variant?
Barvin: In early studies, when I first learned about my genetic status, researchers found the penetrance to be about 50% by the age of 58 and fully penetrant by the age of 80 , so it was quite high. In my father’s generation, 3 out of 4 siblings carried the genetic variant, and 3 out of 4 siblings developed ALS and/or FTD in their mid-forties.
My father passed away at 60 but had dementia for 15 years. So, anecdotally, the penetrance seems to be be very high. End the Legacy called for a renewed study, as earlier research was looking at a different subset of data and who developed ALS in this genetic case. We had them redo the study, and now they believe the penetrance is between 25% and 30%, which is still quite high. We can go in many different directions with this. Still, I truly believe that the future of healthcare and humanity lies in understanding our genetic predisposition for diseases.
Whatever the penetrance is for a genetic variant that activates a disease, we will strive through current medicine, longevity doctors, diet, exercise, and other means to tilt the scales in our favor. If there’s a 50% chance of the genetic variant leading to disease, how do I ensure I’m in the 50% that doesn’t develop it? This ties directly into the work at Coya Therapeutics, the company Dr. Howard Berman founded in 2020 and I joined shortly after. Our work is based on the idea that inflammatory pathways drive neurodegenerative diseases.
For someone like me, who has a predisposition to this disease, what am I trying to avoid? High inflammatory loads, head trauma, car accidents, massive gastrointestinal issues—anything that could trigger the disease. I was just at the dentist today, and while discussing my work, she mentioned that in school, they learned that 80% of patients with severe gum disease also have dementia. It’s possible to conclude that severe gum disease creates a massive inflammatory load in the body, which can eventually tip the scales and trigger one of these neurodegenerative diseases.
So, I’m trying to avoid all these precursor events in the hope that I won’t develop the disease. And if I do, hopefully, by then, Coya will have figured out how to alleviate symptoms and turn a fatal disease into something chronic and manageable—like what’s been done for HIV and AIDS.
Jacobsen: How do you systematically develop a program to reduce inflammatory loads?
Barvin: Our company is based on the scientific discoveries of Dr. Stanley Appel of Houston Methodist, often called the “father of ALS.” He has chaired that department for 50 years and is likely one of the smartest people I’ve ever met, even at 91 or 92. Dr. Appel has been working on solving ALS for decades and discovered that not only ALS but all neurodegenerative diseases trigger an inflammatory response. If regulatory T cells, which are the control system of the inflammatory system, are functional, they can manage the inflammatory load, bring it back down, and stop disease progression. He found a direct correlation between ALS progression, survivability, and regulatory T cell function.
Today, four years later, we have taken a new direction in administering therapeutics for ALS, FTD, Alzheimer’s, and other neurodegenerative diseases. We are using a combination of biologics that, on the one hand, increases the efficacy and number of regulatory T cells and, on the other hand, reduces pro-inflammatory cytokines, macrophages, and myeloid cells that create oxidative stress in the body. In a proof-of-concept study in March 2023, we demonstrated that we could stop the progression of ALS over 48 weeks, showing a decline of only 1.5 points on the ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS), which measures ALS progression. To put that into context, there are currently only two drugs approved for ALS.
I don’t have the exact numbers for what the currently approved drugs achieved, but the efficacy was minimal. Typically, controls degrade at about one point per month on the ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS) or about 12 points yearly. Coya hopes to achieve something far more monumental. The treatment involves a subcutaneous injection. We plan to advance into clinical trials for ALS, with a large Phase 2 study..
Jacobsen: Where is the subcutaneous injection administered?
Barvin: Similar to how a person with diabetes injects insulin, it’s administered just under the skin—not intramuscularly. The beauty of this method is that, unlike some other ALS drugs that are administered intrathecally (via spinal tap), which requires inpatient care and weekly hospital visits for infusions, this treatment can be done at home. Spinal taps are painful—I’ve had seven myself in the pursuit of research. The advantage here is that patients or their caretakers could potentially arrest the progression of their disease in the comfort of their own homes.
Jacobsen: When we consider the extension of health span and lifespan with this kind of subcutaneous injection, what practical outcomes can we expect shortly?
Barvin: I can only speak to proof-of-concept data we’ve shown in ALS over 48 weeks. It slowed progression to just a 1.5-point decline on the ALSFRS. We have yet to conduct studies beyond that time, but this result far exceeds what anyone thought possible. I can only imagine the alleviation of symptoms this could offer.
ALS is a complex disease often diagnosed by exclusion, meaning the diagnostic process typically takes about a year. Someone might go to their primary care doctor saying, “I’m falling, I’m tripping.” After 6 to 8 months, they finally see a neurologist who diagnoses ALS. By then, ALS has progressed significantly, and since the disease typically allows for only 2 to 3 years of survival, a year’s delay is substantial.
But imagine if this drug were approved and could be administered early in the disease’s progression. If someone noticed their hand was a little weak, and we could stop the disease right there—if ALS became just “my hand’s a little weak” and nothing more—that would be revolutionary.
Of course, this requires many things:
Early diagnosis.
Coya’s success in clinical trials and the regulatory pathway.
Creating a therapy that is FDA-approved and effective.
But that is very much the dream.
Jacobsen: How long will further research, financing, and deep studies take to achieve your aim of developing these methodologies?
Barvin: We have already completed four rounds of financing. We’re a public company listed on Nasdaq under the ticker COYA, and we went public in January 2023. We also engaged in a licensing deal for our COYA 302 ALS therapy with a large generic drug manufacturer, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories. Additionally, we conducted a follow-on PIPE (Private Investment in Public Equity) financing. So, our cash runway for pursuing these clinical trials is secured.
We also recently received feedback from the FDA regarding our Investigational New Drug (IND) application for this trial. They requested more data on the preclinical side, and within a few months, we can provide that data and then move forward with the trial.
The trial will have a 6-month enrollment period. So, there will be some time for enrollment, followed by 6 months of administering the drug versus a placebo. After that, there will be about 3-to-4 months of data analysis to crunch the numbers.l. One of our hopes at Coya is to ask the FDA for approval after Phase 2. Drug companies typically must go through all three phases to get FDA approval.
However, there has been a precedent in ALS where, due to the high unmet need and the powerful voice of patient advocates, the FDA has approved drugs at Phase 2 for ALS. So, we believe that if we can demonstrate similar efficacy and safety as we did in our proof-of-concept study, we have a shot at not needing to go through a Phase 3 trial.
Jacobsen: When considering the pretrial work in identifying those with these genetic variants coding for risk or penetrance of ALS or FTD, how many people carry these variants but haven’t been screened?
Barvin: You’re asking how many people out there might carry these variants but have yet to be screened? We know that about 500,000 people in the U.S. are either carrying or at risk of these genetic variants. When you look at the ALS population in the U.S., which is about 30,000 people, and then consider those who carry a genetic risk but don’t even know it, the number is about 10 times larger. It’s a significant figure.
In 2018, which wasn’t that long ago, when I found out that I carried this genetic mutation, no one was talking about the 500,000 people at genetic risk of ALS or FTD. No one. I started telling my story at a local high school because at the ReelAbilities Houston Film Festival.
It was about 3 weeks after I found out that I had carried the genetic mutation. I realized that I had always been the child, grandchild, and nephew of this disease, but for the first time, I was now the patient. I wanted to tell that story, and the gut feeling of being in that room with those kids who genuinely cared was profound. They had watched a movie about a man dying of ALS, and then they talked to me, someone seemingly young and healthy, and it clicked for them.
From that point on, I realized how big this issue was. I knew it wasn’t just me but that this story had to be told. Initially, I planned to travel around the country, raising money for existing ALS organizations with this story. However, the genetic ALS story had never been told. Suppose one case of ALS was terrible enough to inspire the ice bucket challenge. How could an entire generation being wiped out and another generation at risk not generate the same response? But in 2018, ALS nonprofits were not ready to tell the genetic ALS and FTD story.
They weren’t receptive to this new narrative coming onto the scene. Perhaps it was because they prioritized those who were already dying over those who were at risk of dying in the future. It seemed they couldn’t focus on both. Those rejections may have driven me even further to say this is necessary. I began collaborating with patients like myself who carry SOD1 or C9orf72 and have lost similar numbers of family members to ALS.
Now, 4 or 5 years later, we are the leading and the only nonprofit focused on genetic ALS and FTD. We’ve achieved monumental change for patients like myself when it comes to issues like genetic discrimination and clinical care. Before, I couldn’t walk into a doctor’s office and say, “I’m at risk for ALS, treat me.” They could do nothing—no clinical guidelines, and it wasn’t even in their insurance billing codes.
However, people at risk for heart disease receive preventive drugs and regular checkups from their doctors. Women who carry the BRCA mutation go in for preventive screenings regularly. We’ve made strides, but much work remains to be done.
There should be some clinical care for people like myself. We are patients with a medical diagnosis, yet there isn’t any care available. End the Legacy is actually in the process of creating those guidelines right now. We’re also opening one of Philadelphia’s first clinical care practices to care for presymptomatic genetic carriers.
We’re working on a litany of other initiatives and we’re truly revolutionizing what it means to be a genetic carrier. Six years ago, there was absolutely nothing for people like us.
Jacobsen: I’ve heard a lot from people in the futurist community, some of whom I’ve interviewed, talk about individual medicine—”personalized medicine,” as they call it. As new scientific discoveries open new moral vistas, we must become more attuned to new moral problems that arise with this knowledge. But that knowledge was always there; we didn’t know it. Do you think we’re entering an era where, with more genomic data and analysis, people will start considering their genetic risk factors and adopt specific life practices regarding diet and self-care?
Barvin: Absolutely. We’re already at the stage of personalized medicine. With companies like 23andMe, people are already starting to understand their genetic risks. This comes to a head with longevity doctors—those working on the outer bounds of practiced medicine, focusing on treating and preventing disease. While I don’t see one, my brother does, and since we both carry the C9orf72 variant, I get the same insights from him.
This idea that one should understand their risks and then get their biomarkers checked—whether that’s oxidative stress or any other indicator that might one day be linked to the development of a disease—is gaining traction. The goal is to track these markers, implement supplements or lifestyle changes, and continue iterating to lower those risks to normal levels. This approach is happening now.
There’s a recent example involving Chris Hemsworth, the actor. He found out that he carries the APOE4 variant, which significantly increases the risk of Alzheimer’s. He did a whole documentary on it on Disney+. Peter Attia, who is gaining traction in this space, talks about longevity in his recent book and discusses how everyone has a risk factor for dementia. It’s all about understanding and taking proactive steps to mitigate those risks.
Some people have higher risk factors, and some have lower. At what point do you start making decisions about your future? Years ago, everyone said, “Don’t smoke.” It’s not that different from what we’re doing now, but there’s a direct need to take action for people like me and others in my situation. That’s why we’re creating the resources we need to get there. If anything, people who find themselves at genetic risk for a disease and realize there are no existing resources for their community can look at what I’ve done as a model for how to upend the system and create resources for themselves.
This is a “never again” situation. We talked about the past generation and how these diseases blindsided them. Now, we can do genetic testing. I didn’t mention my children earlier, but now you can do family planning to avoid passing down these genetic variants. Both of my children were conceived via IVF and preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), and they don’t carry the genetic variant that has decimated generations of my family. I will be the last one affected by it, which is unbelievable, but it goes beyond that. There are so many things you can do to save your own life.
Jacobsen: Are there any particular areas you want to cover that we haven’t touched on?
Barvin: We also have data on Alzheimer’s. We conducted a smaller, 30-person study on Alzheimer’s with one of our drugs, COYA 301. I’ll back up a bit—Coya has developed a combination biologic, COYA 302, that is working to alleviate symptoms of ALS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and FTD. It’s a platform drug that can be used for all these diseases. We used COYA 301 in two proof-of-concept studies in Alzheimer’s and showed similar efficacy and safety.
The Gates Foundation sponsored a larger proof-of-concept study through Houston Methodist, and we’re looking forward to that data being released in October. We hope it will be both productive and impactful. Combining abatacept and IL-2 in COYA 302 versus just low-dose IL-2 will be even more effective in Alzheimer’s. We hope the COYA 301 data will provide enough insight, motivation, and need to move forward into a larger trial in Alzheimer’s. That’s another one of our goals.
Jacobsen: What would be, in theory, the next generation of proof-of-concept trials? What’s the next step in dealing with inflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases, particularly those grounded in genetic risk?
Barvin: It’s very challenging to conduct drug trials in healthy individuals who are at risk of disease. I wouldn’t want to sign up for a clinical trial where it’s unknown if the treatment will be effective, especially when I’m perfectly healthy at the moment.
If you’re dying of ALS, you’ll try anything. I’m not dying of ALS, but I do think we need to learn how to prevent these diseases. Drug companies are trying to do that, but none have succeeded. There is a drug that’s been approved for SOD1 carriers where they track you pre symptomatically, and when symptoms develop, they give you the drug immediately. It’s called tofersen, and it’s proven to be effective. C9orf72 is a more complex genetic variant. They’re looking at antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) and other approaches, but no one has figured it out yet. That’s the golden ticket.
There is a lot of work being done in this space, and a lot more that needs to be done. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell my story and talk about the work that Coya is doing.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much, Daniel. I appreciate it.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/03
Andrew Copson was appointed Chief Executive of Humanists UK in 2009, having previously been its Director of Education and Public Affairs. He is also the current President of Humanists International, a position he’s held since 2015.
He has represented the humanist movement extensively on television news on BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky, as well as on programmes such as Newsnight, The Daily Politics, and The Big Questions. He has also appeared on radio on programmes from Today, Sunday, The World at One, The Last Word, and Beyond Belief on the BBC, to local and national commercial radio stations.
Andrew served for many years as a director and trustee of the Religious Education Council, the Values Education Council, and the National Council for Faiths and Beliefs in Further Education, and the European Humanist Federation. and has advised on humanism for a range of public bodies such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Authority, the Department for Education, the BBC, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, and the Office for National Statistics. He was a member of the Advisory Group for the Humanist Library at London’s Conway Hall and, in a previous post in the office of Lord Macdonald of Tradeston in the House of Lords, he provided the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG).
Andrew was educated at Balliol College in the University of Oxford, where he read Classics and graduated with a first in Ancient and Modern History. He was a member of the winning team of the 2005 Young Educational Thinker of the Year Programme and is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute and of the Royal Society of Arts, and an Associate of the Centre for Law and Religion at Cardiff University.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are here today with Andrew Copson. We’ll be covering the Freedom of Thought Report. It is not yet out; it is upcoming. I want to give credit to Bob Churchill for his time and service in developing much of the foundation and framework of the Freedom of Thought Report when he was involved with Humanists International. Last time around, the focus was democracy in 2023. So, why was democracy the central focus for 2023?
Andrew Copson: The Freedom of Thought Report has been ongoing for many years. It started as a project of the American Humanist Association. Humanists International took it on and developed most significantly under Bob Churchill’s editorship, as you mentioned. The report has always monitored violations of human rights and discrimination against non-religious people. However, it has also increasingly examined how hospitable the wider social context in different countries is towards expressing humanist ideas. These include not just ideas about gender equality, racial equality, and LGBTQ+ equality but also human rights generally, as well as ideas about democracy, the rule of law, the way politics should be conducted in society, and how freedom should be framed and respected.
It was a natural consequence of reviewing the annual report that democracy was finally highlighted as a significant theme. Additionally, 2023 was the year of the World Humanist Congress in Copenhagen, which also focused on democracy. That is how the theme came about, and it proved very fruitful for the Freedom of Thought Report. What the researchers discovered, as they updated the report with this democracy lens, was that humanists are on the front lines of democracy, pro-democracy campaigning, and the defense of democratic freedoms, it is often part and parcel of how humanists find themselves marginalized, discriminated against, or persecuted. They are often targeted not just for their rights but for their support of democracy itself.
Jacobsen: What kinds of discrimination do we see when people advocate for democratic values?
Copson: Typically, politically active humanists—humanists who are human rights defenders—and almost to be a humanist and part of a humanist organization is to be an activist. Humanist organizations are not just communities of fellowship for people with a humanist approach to life; they are platforms for change. They are platforms for social, political, and legal change. Humanist groups are not inward-looking; they are much more often outward-looking. It is almost intrinsic to having a humanist approach that you will want to be active for change and progressive change, which often means either the defence of or the promotion of democracy wherever you are. The discrimination against humanists because of their beliefs is extensive.
For example, in jurisdictions where they cannot legally register their worldview as humanists, they may be forced to choose a religion. Alternatively, they may not legally establish humanist organizations, as such things are banned in a few dozen countries. Government agencies may privilege religious parties in legal disputes or religious perspectives in state curricula through the education system or family law.
All of these disadvantages that humanists face are significant. When humanists want to speak out in favour of their rights, they often have to do so from a broader argument for democracy. Democracy is implicated in every bit of activism that humanists engage in to respond to the discrimination they face. This includes many other types of discrimination as well, such as religious instruction provided without alternatives in state schools or punishments for speaking critically of religion, insulting religion, or expressing non-belief, which can carry a prison or even a death sentence.
We have seen blasphemy “by the backdoor” laws in many countries that have been used to target humanists. Whether judicially in Nigeria, where, of course, as we all know, the head of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, Mubarak Bala, is still currently in prison, though we hope that the campaign to free him is turning the last corner there. Alternatively, in Pakistan, where humanists who post about humanist ideas on social media have been murdered by their neighbours. Wherever that persecution occurs, the democratic score for the country in question is usually very low. It is a general fact that countries that score low on the human rights index also score low on the democracy index. These things tend to go together. Suppose you do not have equal citizenship, equal participation, and a stake in the political life of your nation or community. In that case, your rights will likely not be respected by the jurisdiction in which you find yourself.
Although, as I say, democracy was, in a sense, just the next theme that the Freedom of Thought Report decided to address last year, it did turn out to be pretty much all-consuming. Questions of democracy became the backdrop for many other challenges that humanists faced regarding their persecution.
Jacobsen: Do healthier, wealthier, and more educated societies tend to be more democratic? Do these go hand in hand?
Copson: As an observable fact, yes, whether that is a coincidence is another question, Norway, for example, was pretty democratic even before it was very rich, in the way that it is now very rich. Of course, in the past, societies that have been more democratic have sometimes been very poor relative to the countries surrounding them. But it depends on what you mean by wealth. Does an enormous GDP or a growing GDP mean national wealth? Democracy might make it more likely that national wealth translates into benefits for individuals within that population. However, is an individual in India or China, for example, guaranteed to benefit from the growing national productivity in those places? That is questionable. I would say that democracy is almost certainly necessary if you want as many people as possible to enjoy the wealth of the nation they happen to be in.
So economic success and productivity are not the only measures, are they? However, if you think about it, is wealth inequality likely lower in democracies? Is sharing national wealth through social security more likely to be present in democracies? Are more people better off, on average, in democracies? Yes, that is the case.
Jacobsen: What are the more extreme examples of discrimination humanists face through advocacy for democracy, at least in your report?
Copson: Yes, so what the report focused on, in particular, was those humanists who are going into battle for general democratic rights and freedoms and then facing individual persecution as a result. If you want to take a case from Europe, Panayote Dimitras, the leader of the Humanist Union in Greece and also monitoring minority rights in particular, wrote the foreword for the 2023 report. He faced all sorts of official and semi-official, quite intense harassment from Greek authorities when he began to call out the Greek state’s treatment of asylum seekers, in particular.
His bank account was frozen, and he found it hard to get it unfrozen. Money laundering proceedings were opened against him, which were completely fraudulent. There was nothing he did; it was completely unjustified. This is petty official harassment of the kind that has happened to humanist leaders in the past.
In India, for example, when they are travelling internally within the country by air, they get deplaned for no reason, questioned about their business, and detained until the plane has left. All sorts of petty official harassment that people can suffer. In Panayote’s case, this all came about as a result of his campaigning against anti-Semitism and homophobia by Greek clerics, as well as for the rights of asylum seekers. You could not get a more obvious example of unjustified persecution than that.
Then, of course, we know that with humanists in Bangladesh. This was long before the current democratic uprising in Bangladesh, but a lot of the same people demographically are involved in that as were involved in the humanist blogging platforms of previous years and the general pro-democracy campaigning there. In Malaysia, for example, humanists were arrested ostensibly for having a humanist organization or a humanist page on social media. However, what motivated the authorities to take action wasn’t humanism per se, but the advocacy of pluralism, liberalism, democracy, and general human rights and freedoms.
It’s often difficult for humanist organizations in the West to get their governments to support humanists who are persecuted overseas for reasons of this sort. While Western governments are willing to be active on human rights grounds and say, “We’ve all signed up to the human rights charters; you shouldn’t be depriving this person of their human rights, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief.” They are less willing to say, “Hey, you shouldn’t be persecuting this person for political advocacy.” When something becomes political in international relations, one state is more reluctant to call out another about it. It’s seen as moving beyond the universal human rights world and almost into the national politics of that country.
So there’s a greater extension of appreciation for the fact that countries sometimes need to govern their affairs and keep order in their jurisdictions. That’s a significant barrier to having these cases addressed. If one country can say to another, “Hey, I’m managing my own business here. This is a political question, not a human rights issue or a matter of freedom of belief or religion,” it makes the advocacy that another country might want to engage in on behalf of the humanist in question much more difficult.
I know from my work that a good example is the situation for humanists in Bangladesh. When we were trying to get the UK government to speak out—now I’m speaking from a Humanists UK perspective rather than a Humanists International one—the fact that many of those who were being disadvantaged or discriminated against because of their humanist beliefs were also being victimized by the government for their political activity made it almost impossible for the UK government to speak out about their treatment meaningfully. This is a significant challenge for humanists who are persecuted. Humanists are often persecuted wherever they are.
They’re seldom persecuted only for their humanist beliefs but often also for their pro-LGBT equality beliefs, their pro-democratic beliefs, or their pro-race equality beliefs. They’re campaigning against untouchability in India and elsewhere. They’re campaigning for LGBT rights in jurisdictions where that’s still illegal. They’re campaigning for democracy in places that are still only partially democratic or not democratic.
Copson: The purpose of the report is to influence international expert opinion. Fortunately, the sophisticated international architecture around freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief exists. There’s a UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief. So, the marshalling of evidence, particularly in our case, evidence on the treatment of non-religious people, has an audience. Our report has been cited by UN Special Rapporteurs successively. It’s increasingly cited academically as well as in UN institutions. So, influencing international expert opinion is a very important aim.
Another aim is to influence public and state criticism against countries for their failure to observe human rights standards. The original report was very much targeted at the US State Department, which takes much interest in freedom of religion or belief violations and, more positively, in promoting that freedom internationally. Again, international institutions and governments have cited the report and used it to call out countries criticized in the report for their actions. Indonesia, the Maldives, and Mauritania are all examples of countries where our report has been used to prompt consideration within international institutions of the role of those countries and what they are doing.
Then there’s the evidence it provides, the tool it provides for civil society, for humanist organizations in different countries, and generally for human rights NGOs. Every country has a separate page on the Freedom of Thought Report website. However, only some countries are updated on an annual basis. So human rights NGOs, whether international, regional, or local, can use that report. Gathering evidence within countries is sometimes very difficult. So, it equips civil society and expert opinion, which I’ve talked about, and governments in the UN and other international forums.
It also has a personal value. It’s always valuable, isn’t it? That people’s stories ought not to be forgotten. They shouldn’t be obscured but should be brought out and highlighted. On an individual level, it’s much easier to understand a general systemic issue if it has a human face. If you can see, “This is the person who is in prison—Mubarak Bala is in prison. He can’t see his wife, he can’t see his baby, he has never met his child.”
Making the situation vivid in a way more than if I just said, “There is Sharia law in Northern Nigeria, and people are persecuted.” It’s not the same. The fact that we use individual stories is an important part of the report. Just building the evidence base about the persecution of non-religious people—until this report was first compiled, I don’t think there was any real systematic evidence of persecution against any belief group globally, apart from Christians. They were the only group with much better-funded organizations than Humanists International, agitating on their behalf. We’ve opened that up, which is useful for journalism and global opinion to the extent that there is such a thing as global public opinion. The report can hopefully speak to that, too. It has several purposes for several different audiences.
We learn every year of new uses to which the report can be put. It has turned into the most significant product of Humanists International. In the 12 years that it’s been published—12 years is a long time—it has the long-term aspect where you can chart change over time, which is very important. So it’s an important tool for that as well. Mostly, things are getting worse rather than better, but there are some improvements over time and, hopefully, more to come.
Jacobsen: What are some things in the report that you can note that pretty much every country could do better on?
Copson: That’s a good question. It’s a very good question, indeed. We have a map of all the world’s countries; it’s online and normally in the printed edition. Every country could be better. One of the things that no country does is treat all religious and belief organizations, individuals, and perspectives equally in every aspect of the state. Everywhere, even in countries like the UK or Belgium—let’s take the UK and Belgium, for example—we have two countries representing different religions and beliefs in their school education systems.
Both those countries have religious schools, so that could be better. However, the state curricula for non-religious state schools have different classes for different religions and beliefs, as in the case of Belgium. In the case of the UK, different religions and beliefs are taught in the same curriculum for all children simultaneously.
You look at those and think, “Oh, this is good. Here is equal treatment.” But of course, it’s not really. Because in neither of those places are there any official objective guidelines about which religions and beliefs are covered. In neither of those places, in Belgium, it can be hard for a group to achieve the recognition required to receive the state subsidy, which is what it is being taught about in general schools. Even countries like New Zealand or Belgium could be better, nowhere is perfect.
Of course, there’s a massive gap between those states and states where it is illegal for a non-religious person to hold public office or states where the head of state frequently marginalizes, harasses, and incites violence against the non-religious, like in Pakistan, Malaysia, the Maldives, Egypt, or Iran. Those countries are in a different league from countries with just some systemic discrimination. But what we are finding in countries that have traditionally, perhaps, been doing quite well on some of these issues is that although they might still be generally good, there are some places where they’re allowing, as it were, legal ghettos to develop, where–let’s say–there are different systems of family law running within democratic countries.
Those family law systems permit the differential treatment of people seen within particular religious communities compared to people in the general population. There’s been some concern in some European countries where religious law has been adopted by permitting its application in certain cases like divorce, for example. In those situations, the freedom of conscience that not just non-religious people but all people should expect in democratic states has been reduced as a result. So, everywhere has its challenges, and nowhere is perfect. But that’s not to say that some places aren’t in a different league and better than others.
All right then, thank you! We’ll send you a mental postcard from Singapore.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/02
Books Through Bars has been sending free books to incarcerated people in six mid-Atlantic states (Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia) for over 30 years.
To learn about programs serving people in other states, check out Prison Book Program’s list of books to prisoners programs. We’re all unaffiliated, although of course we admire each other’s work.
We do our best to send the books people ask us for, whatever those may be. By fulfilling all requests to the best of our ability, we work to support self-determination, self-education, and healing behind bars.
Nearly all of the books we send are donated. That means our ability to fulfill requests depends on the donations we receive.
By donating books, you can help ensure that incarcerated people receive the books they need!
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, today, we are here to talk about Books Through Bars, Philly. As a Canadian or a foreigner, I know Philadelphia by its nickname, “Philly,” one of the most recognizable city names in the United States. So, how did Books Through Bars, Philly get started in Philly?
Dr. Tom Haney: Well, Scott, this is interesting because there’s a Canadian connection. Originally, a couple of people working for New Society Publishers here in Philadelphia started the initiative. New Society Publishers has since moved out on the West Coast to Canada.
A person at New Society Publishers, a company dedicated to certain types of books, started receiving letters from inmates. The letters often said, “I don’t have any money, but I’d like to read. Can you send me some books?” This person and a few others got together, and that’s how Books Through Bars began.
There’s a bit more to the story. Two people from New Society Publishers were involved, one of whom was Barbara Harlow, the mother of Books Through Bars. She took over from Todd and got a few of her friends together. The issue was that New Society Publishers didn’t publish the kinds of books that incarcerated people were requesting. So, they branched out on their own, looking for places where they could buy or have books donated, and they were the first to start sending books to prisoners across the United States.
Jacobsen: The United States has a significant incarcerated population. It’s intertwined with various issues, such as racial and class disparities. We can touch on those later. But regarding your role as president, Tom, what responsibilities or tasks does that entail?
Haney: I’ve been with Books Through Bars for about 12 years. Like everyone else, I started by walking through the doors, picking and packing books to send out. I’m now the president of Books Through Bars, which I often joke about, saying it comes with no responsibilities other than having my name on the legal documents. We are a nonprofit organization registered in the state of Pennsylvania. By law, we need three people to sign the legal documents, including the president. My primary duty is to be the face of BTV. I do a lot of interviews and public speaking, and I’m one of the main hosts when volunteers come in to help pick up and pack books for shipment. There are a few other small tasks, but that’s it from my perspective.
Jacobsen: You’ve received extensive media coverage in Philadelphia, including from the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Citizen. That’s at least half or more of our coverage. How does that happen? How does a Canadian come across this organization every 15 years or so?
Haney: I don’t know how to answer that one. As I mentioned, the roots of Books Through Bars date back to 1989; by 1991, we became a nonprofit organization separate from New Society Publishers. We’ve been around for over 30 years; many people know and contact us. We used to ship books across the United States, but that became too expensive, so now we only send them to prisons in the mid-Atlantic states. However, we’re still fairly well-known across the country. So, that’s how people hear about us. I hope that answers your question.
Jacobsen: It does. That was just a side question. What are the barriers inmates face to accessing literature?
Haney: Now, that’s a big question.
Jacobsen: Well, the thing is, these organizations exist for a reason. So why? Does public infrastructure need to fill that gap?
Haney: There’s a comparison to be made between now and when Books Through Bars first started. Back then, we were one of only three organizations in the country. Now, there are organizations like ours in almost every state. Plus, there are a couple of similar organizations in Canada and England.
The need for these organizations comes from a few different areas. First, one of the major reasons people end up incarcerated and in trouble is a lack of education—poor or no education—especially if they’re coming from a major city or inner-city area. It doesn’t matter nowadays because major cities’ suburbs and surrounding areas have grown and face the same problems as big cities. So, many people haven’t graduated high school and may not have even made it out of grade school. There are a few reasons for that.
The major one is abuse, especially child abuse, and how a person feels about themselves. A lot of incarcerated people have poor self-esteem, hate themselves, and don’t think they’re worth anything, which leads them to believe they can’t accomplish anything. As a result, their education suffers. Another issue is that once a person is incarcerated, prison schools and libraries are treated like the schools and libraries in major cities—when money is needed elsewhere, ancillary programs are cut.
Those in a big city might see how your public schools work. A lot of smaller programs get cut because funds are needed elsewhere. The same thing happens in prisons. Schools and libraries in prisons are considered ancillary programs. So, when prisons need more funds—typically for security—money is cut from the schools and libraries.
This leaves people inside the prison needing more resources to educate themselves. Books Through Bars’ major goal is to help folks inside educate themselves. We don’t just send educational books; we send all kinds of books and literature. If we can get a book into someone’s hands and they sit down and read it, they’re educating themselves, no matter what the book is.
Two things happened recently. We got a letter from an incarcerated gentleman who serves as the inmate librarian in his prison library. He’s asking us for books because the prison won’t buy more books for their library. Another sad story: we received a letter from a teacher in a high school prison asking us to send books to help her and her students and stock the prison library because the prison recently made significant cuts to the school’s budget. Studies have shown time and time again that if a person can educate themselves before they are released, they have a far better chance of leading a better, crime-free life.
And so, this is our major goal—to help folks on the inside. Another example: About six months ago, we received a letter from a gentleman who sent us the transcript for his GED. He’s been receiving books from us for a few years, but I’m unsure how many. He just got his GED while in prison, and now he’s asking for books to study for the SATs because he wants to go on to college. Folks, getting your GED on the outside can be difficult. Getting your GED in prison could take several years. So, this is no small accomplishment for this particular gentleman, and that’s why we do what we do. We receive thank-you letters telling us how much the books are appreciated and how we’ve helped them. Education is our goal for the folks on the inside.
Jacobsen: Now, African Americans and men typically receive harsher sentences, even when you control for other factors like criminological, demographic, and socioeconomic variables.
Haney: True.
Jacobsen: In the United States, a significant portion of the prison population is men. So, in terms of unequal sentencing treatment and the disproportionate number of men and African Americans in these areas, this seems like a gender equality issue. This seems like a deep feminist issue that isn’t talked about much, probably because it’s seen as politically touchy, sensitive, or incorrect to advocate for men in this way, in general. When it comes to those effects, how does the lack of literature, even though these organizations now exist more widely, restrict life possibilities for men if they’re in prison or once they’re out, given that they now have a record and often haven’t had access to educational materials?
Haney: What you’re saying is correct. Unfortunately, I don’t have any figures on hand at the moment. But I can tell you that my organization and I are involved with other organizations that support what we call “returning citizens” here in Philadelphia, especially because many of the people being released are people of colour. It takes much work for people to find employment, especially depending on the crime they were incarcerated for.
Employment, in general, is tough, and I don’t have the exact figures, but unemployment is high, no matter what. So, they have to battle—because of their record—to find any employment, especially over someone who hasn’t been incarcerated. Due to their lack of education, the available jobs are often extremely low-paying, menial, and sometimes difficult to handle. This is a huge concern for many people here on the outside.
Another part of your question touches on the fact that some people outside prison feel that those who have been incarcerated—ex-cons—don’t deserve certain things, including decent-paying work. I’ll touch on something else that may not have been part of your question but is relevant to what’s happening in society today: People with alcohol or drug addictions face very poor treatment programs on the inside. These programs don’t work well unless the person is extremely motivated, which many incarcerated folks are not, due to poor self-esteem and self-worth. They don’t feel they deserve anything better.
So, when these folks come out, they still have to fight their addictions, and there’s not much funding for treatment programs on the outside, either. Many of those programs aren’t well-run and don’t perform much better than the programs inside. So, these folks often end up below the poverty line, maybe living on the streets, still fighting their addiction, still seeking drugs and alcohol. If I remember correctly, one study I saw not too long ago indicated that recidivism rates for people with little or no treatment when they come out—good treatment, when they finally do get out—are still 60% or higher. Most of these folks are back in jail within 30 days to a few months.
Another problem with incarceration is that, at least here in the States, we are terrible at taking care of our mentally ill population. Due to cutbacks in mental health programs several years ago, prisons have become overcrowded with people who have mental health issues and should not be there in the first place. This overcrowding takes money away from programs crucial for the people I was talking about. The funds instead go toward building new prisons, increasing security, and hiring more staff. In that respect, our prison system has become a failure because of the overcrowding and the presence of mentally ill individuals who should be receiving care elsewhere.
Jacobsen: What kinds of literature do inmates generally want to read? In other words, if people want to donate books—hint hint, wink wink—what kind of literature should they donate to ensure it gets read rather than sitting and gathering dust?
Haney: Let me put it this way. Anyone wishing to donate should know that there are what we loosely call “books to prisoners” organizations across the United States and Canada. If you go online and type in “prisoner book programs,” you should come up with a list of states and the organizations in those states. Organizations can do it because of your donations. The first thing to do is look up those organizations online. Like Books Through Bars here in Philadelphia, they all have donation pages. Check out their donation page. It will tell you what books we need, what books we don’t need, and what books we won’t accept.
I have some figures in front of me, although they’re a few months old. First of all, dictionaries are the number one requested book. This shows you how many people on the inside want to help educate themselves. After that, thrillers, mysteries, romances, and sci-fi are the books most requested by the public. It goes down the line from there.
We get requests for various kinds of books. For instance, we get business books, hobbies, and art requests. We also receive a fair number of requests for books on law. Let me point this out, folks. Books on law are hard to fulfill because we are not law libraries, and we need to get the type of books donated necessary for someone who wants to work on their cases or appeals from the inside. So, we send them information on where they can look for that material. By the end of 2023, we had sent out roughly 19,000 pounds of books. We receive around 100 letters a week.
Yes, a week of requests. If you can imagine, almost every single day—if you can tell by my fingers here because I don’t have the exact number—almost every single day, we get about that many requests. That would be 30, 40, or even 50 requests a day. Now, not all of them are for us. Some of them are for other organizations around the country. For the states we don’t ship to, we forward those requests to the appropriate organizations so they can respond. In return, those organizations that don’t serve Pennsylvania send the Pennsylvania requests to us. So, we are looking at at least 100 or more weekly requests that our volunteers have to process and send out.
Jacobsen: What is the process for starting an organization like yours in another state or county? It doesn’t have to be grand to be important.
Haney: When we get a question from someone who wants to start an organization, I usually tell people to start small. Start with your city or county prison first and work out from there. Over the years, this has become an extremely difficulttask.
It’s gotten harder because of prisons’ restrictions on organizations like ours. Getting things started and getting yourself vetted into various prisons is no small task, and you’ll have to put in much personal time to get it up and running. Not only time, but you’ll also have to spend a fair amount of your money to get the place going. When our people started this, postage was, and still is, the highest expenditure for organizations like ours. When these folks started sending books, they bought stamps out of their pockets because they didn’t have enough money from donations to help run the organization. I will say that Books Through Bars has a booklet on how to start a Books to Prisoners organization that lays out all of the major steps to starting an organization like this. It would take me too long to explain it here because you must write letters, wait for replies, and find the right people to talk to—which can be difficult. So, we published a little booklet just for that. I’m not entirely sure how else to say it.
The other thing to consider is that you may already have a Books to Prisoners organization in your town. For instance, here in Pennsylvania, there are Books Through Bars in Philadelphia. Still, there’s also the Prison Book Program in Pittsburgh. So, Pennsylvania has two organizations. New York State has a couple of organizations as well. So, if you’re thinking about this, and if there’s an organization close to you, consider volunteering with that organization because we can always use more help.
Jacobsen: Tom, any final thoughts based on the conversation today?
Haney: No, I hope everybody enjoys this, finds some good insight, and goes out to find a Books to Prisoners organization near them to volunteer with or donate books. You heard what I discussed here in Philadelphia—help your local organizations. Other organizations around you may not necessarily be related to sending books in but are related to prison issues. You might want to get involved with those and help them because it is serious.
For instance, in October, I’m going to a conference in Colorado on public safety. I will discuss how reducing public safety concerns involves working on the front end—before someone gets incarcerated—and on the back end—when people are released, helping them start a better life. This can reduce crime, gun violence, and injuries on our streets. These are ways to get involved and help make a difference.
Jacobsen: Tom, thank you for today’s opportunity and time and for introducing me to Books Through Bars, Philly.
Haney: Yes, folks, remember that. Especially if you’re here in Pennsylvania, if you look us up online, it’s “Books Through Bars,” spelled out, and make sure it’s the Philadelphia address. There are other organizations with similar names, so if you look us up, look for the Philadelphia location. Scott, thank you so much for inviting me here. It was a pleasure. This is enjoyable for everyone to listen to and for you to process and get out there. I hope you enjoyed listening to me talk.
Jacobsen: I did, I did. Thank you.
Haney: Thanks, thanks, thanks so much, and enjoy the rest of your day.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Honghao Zhao is a member of the OLYMPIQ Society based on a qualifying score on the Strict Logic Spatial Examination 48. Zhao discusses: growing up; extended self; family background; youth with friends; education; purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; extreme reactions to geniuses; greatest geniuses; genius and a profoundly gifted person; necessities for genius or the definition of genius; work experiences and jobs held; job path; myths of the gifted; God; science; tests taken and scores earned; range of the scores; ethical philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview; meaning in life; source of meaning; afterlife; life; and love.
Keywords: bear story, bullying, Confucian culture, Dao concept, geniuses in history, high intelligence, intelligence tests, materialist atheist, social reactions, talent in mathematics.
Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Honghao Zhao: There are no particularly special stories, just some amusing anecdotes that parents or older generations share during their leisure time.For example, a bear picking corn.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Zhao: This story is actually an interesting folk saying about a bear picking corn. The bear walks into a cornfield, picks an ear of corn and tucks it under its arm. After walking a few steps, it picks another ear of corn, but the first one falls out. This story is often used to describe someone who is so focused on one thing that they neglect another, ultimately gaining very little. Of course, this story is just one of the many stories my grandparents told me to entertain me when I was a child. The purpose wasn’t really about an extended self or the family legacy.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Zhao: I come from an urban household, although my parents are both from rural backgrounds. I grew up in Shandong, including attending university and graduate school here. As you might know, this is also the birthplace of Confucius and is deeply influenced by Confucian culture. Besides my native language, Chinese, I have a limited proficiency in English. As for religious beliefs, I am a materialist, or an atheist, except perhaps for the concept of “Dao”, which I understand as the rules and principles governing the operation of all things.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Zhao: When I first started elementary school, I was quite introverted and was often bullied by girls, so I had few friends. By the time I was in middle and high school, I had grown quite tall and my talent in mathematics had become apparent. Although I was still relatively introverted, I got along well with my classmates and had quite a few friends.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Zhao: Some awards in mathematics competitions and structural design competitions, some awards in the field of rail transit, and a master’s degree in civil engineering.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Zhao: Initially, intelligence tests were just a curious experiment for me. Later on, they became more like brain games that could inspire my thinking.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Zhao: If you mean discovering a high score through an intelligence test, that was in 2018 when I was 19 years old. However, in daily life, I had already easily completed the “Sokoban” game on my phone during kindergarten. In middle school, my grades were excellent, especially in mathematics. My mental arithmetic skills were outstanding at that time because I could easily visualize a clear draft paper in my mind and perform calculations on it.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Zhao: In my understanding, geniuses are inevitably vastly different from ordinary people in one or even multiple aspects, statistically lying at the edges of the normal distribution. This makes it clear that the essence of a genius is being out of sync in one or more aspects, unless they have high social skills, commonly known as emotional intelligence, to appear more sociable. For the collective will of a group, extreme non-conformity is unacceptable; the concept of “seeking common ground while reserving differences”usually only tolerates minor differences. In this context, if a genius achieves highly recognized accomplishments by society, their uniqueness can be praised. However, if a genius fails to achieve this, they are seen as out of place and not regarded as a genius by others, and they might not even see themselves as a genius. How could they not be mocked in such a situation?
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Zhao: Perhaps Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, etc.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Zhao: It depends on how you define a genius and a profoundly intelligent person. The difference in definitions is the difference between the two.If we define a genius as someone who has exceptional talent in a particular field, and a person with a very high IQ as someone who scores extremely high on IQ tests, then a genius could be a mathematician, physicist, dancer, painter, etc., while a person with a very high IQ might only excel in mental capabilities.
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Zhao: Possibly not necessary in very rare cases.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Zhao: I only have experience with attending school and pursuing graduate studies for now. Of course, during my graduate studies, I need to conduct experiments for scientific research or solve some engineering problems.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Zhao: Obtain a master’s degree and find a job to make a living.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Zhao: Geniuses.I don’t know much about those myths.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Zhao: I am an atheist, unless this god is just a powerful being, similar to how modern technology might be considered god-like if it traveled back to ancient times. If this god refers to an omniscient and omnipotent entity with its own free will to control our destiny, requiring people’s worship or sacrifices, then I do not believe in it. I only believe that the universe has ‘laws’ ,such as logic, mathematics, and physical laws.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Zhao: Most of it.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Zhao: SLSE 48, by Jonathan Wai, 30.5/48, IQ178.6(SD15);
Qing, by Huanyun Chen, 29.5/33, IQ167(SD15);
Numerus, by Ivan Ivec, 15/30, IQ156(SD15)
夜曲其二, by Mahir Wu, 47.5/60, IQ153.8(SD15)
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence teststend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Zhao: Currently, it’s approximately between 150 and 180.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Zhao: I believe that humans, like animals, are born without a distinction between good and evil, only with purity and the instinct to seek benefits and avoid harm. For the benefit of the group, people seek common ground while reserving differences, forming laws and moral concepts. This is somewhat similar to reducing variance while keeping the overall expectation constant. However, personally, I think humans should pursue something different from animals, namely spiritual pursuits, so I am more inclined to do good deeds.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Zhao: Maintain your integrity in poverty; help the world in prosperity.
Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Zhao: Reap what you sow.
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Zhao: The free and comprehensive development of every individual.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Zhao: Perhaps the pursuit of free will.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Zhao: The only constant in life is change. So I won’t judge what is most meaningful.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Zhao: Thinking.
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Zhao: Both.
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Zhao: I don’t believe in an afterlife, ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ but I hope there is one, in whatever form.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Zhao: People today do not see the moon of ancient times, but the moon today once shone on the ancients.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Zhao: Perhaps, love is about giving rather than taking.
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life. September 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/zhao-1
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, September 15). Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life.In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/zhao-1.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (September 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/zhao-1.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/zhao-1>.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/zhao-1>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/zhao-1.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Scott J. Conversation with Honghao Zhao on Views and Life [Internet]. 2024 Sep; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/zhao-1.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
Marc Roberge is the 2nd Vice President of the International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, a historian, and a retired teacher. He discusses: growing up; extended self; family background; youth with friends; education; purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; extreme reactions to geniuses; greatest geniuses; genius and a profoundly gifted person; necessities for genius or the definition of genius; work experiences and jobs held; job path; myths of the gifted; God; science; tests taken and scores earned; range of the scores; ethical philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview; meaning in life; source of meaning; afterlife; life; and love.
Keywords: Cultural skepticism, ethical philosophy, family background, genius definition, intelligence tests, personal struggles, philosophical insights, professional experiences.
Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Marc Roberge: Scott, if I may, let me begin by commending you for your work here at the very aptly named In-Sight Publishing, as each interview achieves precisely this aim. Also, I’m grateful for, albeit humbled by, your invitation to chat. Thank you. This is a first.
To answer your question, it’s odd that we should begin there since my childhood lacked lore and stories. For one, I was born in 1970, the second of two, 5 years apart, my sister the elder. My father worked construction and was away all week, a theme that would carry through his seventies. My mother worked in the office at a sawmill manufacturer-retailer in the neighboring town, meaning that we children were with sitters and extended family more often than not. When my sister turned 11 or 12, she started taking some of that responsibility. There wasn’t a lot of family time to speak of, from my spotty recollection.
My father was 7 years my mother’s senior, and 31, by my calculation, when I was born. He’d started owning a dairy farm, and whether it went under, or due to pressure from my mother to adopt a more conventional lifestyle (to this day, I don’t know), but they ultimately sold it and moved to a small nearby town. I do know that while they owned the farm, my father had already transitioned into other work, settling on construction, and my mother was, as she likes to tell it, left practically alone to tend to my sister, the animals, and the farm. Nevertheless, my father, I sensed, always resented having sold it, and up to the very last I could denote a mixture of deep nostalgia and regret.
Further complicating the matter was that there seemed to be distinct versions of him — a past life few ever talked about in my company, a public one, and the one only I knew. From what I gleaned over the years, he’d apparently been a bit of a wild man — a story of him getting his scrotum caught on a barbed-wire fence trying to outrun game wardens at night after being spotted poaching fish by flashlight and requiring, apparently, quite a stitch count. Another story of a little speed boat he’d clapped together in the barn and mounted with a far too powerful outboard, zipping along on his maiden voyage along the river bank bordering the farm and, less than a few minutes out, dipping the nose under water, effectively planting it in the bottom beyond retrieval. He flipped the farm tractor into the very same river. Lost one fingertip to a saw. Lost another to a crossbow.
He raced snow-machines in quarter-mile heats. He drove a rather impractical 4×4 Chevy on a lift kit and beefy A/T tires, which, on weekends, often found its way into sand pits and mud bogs. I couldn’t reach the door handle. He was an outdoorsman — hunting and fishing, some camping, and, for a period, a bit of an adrenaline junkie. When I turned 5 or 6, whether it was discussed or decided all on his own, he got rid of the racing sleds and the truck perhaps a year or two later.
He was the eldest of five, not counting the one that had passed in childbirth, dropping out in 9th or 10th grade, I presume, to help work his father’s farm, which he eventually bought or inherited — again, none of these things were ever discussed. The rest of his siblings all went on to complete their post-secondary education — three school teachers and a dental assistant. My grandfather also held an agricultural college certificate and worked for some time as an inspector or assessor, I believe.
Given my father’s choice of career, he being away all the time, and his siblings residing an hour’s drive or more from our home, visits were few and far between — cordial, somewhat awkward, like a polite congregation of strangers, save for the one quirky uncle who brought light to the mix. I could never shake the feeling my father felt the need to compensate for his lack of education by way of career and financial success.
He never quite broke into the multimillionaire stratum, not that I’m aware, but between his work and side ventures, property flipping and rental units, let’s just say he had no problem plopping down $10k on Christmas gifts. He earned every penny. A true bull of a man, tenacious and goal-oriented. All of it accumulated with sweat beading from his brow. A stronger work ethic or sheer grit I’ve yet to encounter. He was hardly ever phased or stumped unless it had to do with human affairs. I, unfortunately, inherited this last trait, and it plagues me still.
Thus far, we’ve painted an admirable man, one of action, aptitude, courage, and generosity. All of these are true. He was exceptional in many ways. Stamina. Problem-solving. Numbers. Physical strength. In my experience, however, I’ve come to realize that exceptionalism comes at a cost or with concessions. Professional athletes and leading innovators must shelve portions of ‘normal’ life in order to excel — hours at the gym aren’t hours cracking the physics texts, volunteering, or socializing. Exceptionalism is an anomaly.
Now, on to less flattering and perhaps more troubling matters. Sometime around my birthday, I believe I was 7 going on 8. I came home from school, as usual, dawdling along and singing to myself, lost in thought. It was late October or early November, a Friday. I enjoyed school, but I was looking forward to the weekend — a chance to visit the library and stock up on some new books. When I arrived, through the screen door, I spied my father hunched over the kitchen table, crying, my mother and sister holding hands and standing at the door, three suitcases next to them. I noticed the car was running and packed with boxes. When I walked in, I was held back at the door, informed we were moving, and that was that.
We lumbered up to a semi-furnished apartment in a six-plex, and by Monday, I was enrolled in a new school. It was assumed, I guess, that I was too young to understand. They were wrong. I was spun around in a constant fog, and my nerves were shattered. It had been a tremendous shock to the system, and there was nothing to do but to let my body and mind ‘eat it.’ Not only was my father out of the picture, but there were never any of the regular faces around, either family or friends. It was radio silence.
My birthday passed without much ado — no friends or family around, just three of us and a big old elephant in the room. At the time, my father was just starting out and wasn’t quite as prosperous as in later years, but we still lived well. We had a cozy three-bedroom bungalow on a double-lot backed by a few hundred acres of undeveloped land where we were free to roam, play, and build forts. There was a double garage filled with tools and snowmobiles, and even a TERRA-JET (similar to ARGO), with an above-ground pool attached to it via a deck. All of that was gone. That Christmas, we spent at a fireman’s charity function in a local hall, collecting a food hamper, a plastic fireman’s hat and a plush dog. Sitting in a room with several dozen families receiving charity — that was blow number two.
It would be four months before we’d hear from our father. I’d simply assumed he was busy working, but he’d never been away this long. I began to suspect something was amiss. I hadn’t considered that he simply didn’t know where we were. When he showed up unannounced at the apartment door, our mother wasn’t home, and my sister was under strict instructions to open the door for no one, without exception. As he knocked, cried, and pleaded from the other side, and I watched, impotent, as my sister told him he had to leave since she wasn’t allowed to open the door — well, at that moment, I was torn to shreds. Afterwards, I became inconsolable. My mother would wake in the middle of the night to find me huddled behind a dresser, sobbing. I couldn’t eat or function. I was wracked knowing that she had been hiding us, that either our father presented a real or imagined threat, perhaps with the intention to abduct us. I think it may have had more to do with support and marital assets than the children, convinced my father would have been vengeful in that regard, given the way she’d left. I’d always wondered how our meager belongings had made it to the apartment before we arrived. I’d been unaware of anything being boxed or missing prior to that fateful day. After several nights, I was admitted to the hospital for a week to replenish my fluids, nutrients, and get me eating again. When I was released from care, I was informed that I’d no longer be living with my mother and sister but my father. In my mind, this seemed the fairest settlement for the parents, not so for us.
Little did I understand the magnitude of these decisions. My father wasn’t going to alter course, career-wise. Granted, everyone was exceedingly kind and compassionate — I am truly grateful. Nevertheless, not only had I been separated from my mother and sister, but I was now living with family friends, themselves with three children. This was the case until Summer when I would be sent to live with my grandparents, two hours drive away. When September rolled around, I’d live with a widow, kind and capable but in her 70s and taken with a serious nervous condition that made her stride unsteady, her face and arm somewhat spastic. She also had this creepy cat who was a total scrapper, always coming back bloody, and had no litter box because it did its business on the commode as we do, without the decency to shut the door first. This type of carnival fare is pure nightmare fuel for a kid living out of a suitcase in a quasi-foster-care arrangement for roughly five years.
I didn’t realize it at the time, too nomadic for normal friendships, but in hindsight, from a material standpoint, my father provided for an enviably comfortable existence. The flip side is that he was hardly around, and when he was, we were all pretty much dancing to his tune. He did show emotion, sometimes compassion. He could be warm. But generally, like a box of knives. He could be negligent, abusive, intimidating, judgmental, critical, cold, non-communicative, authoritarian, and prone to triggers. Not that the discipline was frequent, and I wasn’t a difficult child, but of a measure I felt disproportionate, punitive as opposed to instructive. To see rage flash across a parent or guardian’s face leaves an indelible mark. To see it brandishing, what today would raise some eyebrows —a belt, spoon, ruler — or soap in the mouth, or a few hours bare-kneed on the floor, or tossing every last toy into garbage bags and dragging them to the curb —as the truck pulls up.
It was a house without appeal, and the judge had a record for siding with the complainant. My father, I feel, saw any mark against me, real or fabricated, as a personal affront — an attempt on my part to undermine his own hard-won image and standing in the community. His ego was, and perhaps all egos are, precious.
He also enjoyed getting a rise out of others, teasing or frightening them. A blast up ride up a 50-degree sand dune in a jacked-up 4×4 with the front wheels off the ground is scary for a child. He once accidentally discharged a pellet gun into his own calf. I might have been 8 at the time, and we were alone walking back to the vehicle. He started acting, quite convincingly, as though he were about to faint, saying that I’d have to carry him to the truck and drive us back to town, and quickly before he bled out. He was always playing mind games. Fun times.
He was complicated, my father, and sociable but awkward. I could tell he wasn’t always at ease. Maybe that’s why he worked so much. But he did have his regular stops — his parents, a brother-in-law who worked in real estate and fed him the cherry listings. Otherwise, he mostly worked, and I spent a lot of time alone. He always encouraged talent development and education, above all, and signed me up for baseball one Summer, Cub Scouts another, guitar lessons, and so on. The problem was he just expected me to dovetail seamlessly. He could see I had the wherewithal but couldn’t apprehend that there’d been none of the groundwork. We’d never tossed a ball. We never watched sports. I had none of the mechanics, notions, or rules, and surrounded by peers who did, I felt like a fool. Same with scouts. As for guitar, I was handed an adult acoustic I could barely hold, a classical neck my fingers couldn’t span, and an instructor in his retirement with an impenetrable Italian accent. Each attempt felt like a setup — a preconfigured failure to keep me pegged. From very early on, I couldn’t help but feel like a constant disappointment.
His motives, though they often were, weren’t always altruistic — concerned with ‘perception.’ It may be unfair to say but, I think he might have loved me more if I’d been an esteemed professional, someone respectable and accomplished, and a little less of a screw-up. The bar, I assure you, was always high and moveable. He had my hat and played keepsies with it throughout my entire life. He could never relinquish his parental role nor concede, at any time, that we were on equal footing; insisting on maintaining that leverage, rubbing my nose in old business or finding ways to undermine my confidence was his way of ensuring dominance.
My grandparents were staunch Catholics. The evangelical channel was on all the time, thrice weekly Church attendance, nightly rosary, and even a traumatic pilgrimage through the Eastern provinces, stopping at all the religious points of interest along the way — cut short when I relapsed. I wasn’t faring well, and nothing was being done about it. Keep in mind, after that second familial split, I would neither see nor speak to my mother or sister but more than twice a year, a week in the Summer, a day or so at Christmas, from ages 8 through 18. My mother was, in clinical terms, a dead mother. Few, if any, of the extended family helped to provide some consistency. I’m sure they cared. But it still felt like it was being treated as someone else’s problem. My father was, if I were to venture any diagnosis, given to narcissistic tendencies with a mildly sadistic streak.
We can see how that level of fraying all but silenced reminiscences and any positive feelings one has about family — it was all mired in guilt, shame, regret and open wounds. The only specifics I am able to provide beyond this are that we were, with regards to heritage, Norsemen, finding a port along the St-Lawrence during the settlement era, a family of craftsmen (Roberge is, as I understand, a name for ’longship’) and farmers. Intelligence was in the pool. My father could perform complex mental arithmetic faster than I could punch it into a calculator.
Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?
Roberge: They might have, had I any that resonated. I see in my cousins, for instance, some grounding and amongst themselves a connection I never managed to plug into. I was uprooted and dancing constantly to adapt to my ever-changing circumstances and environments. Eventually, my father met someone. She had two younger children than me, by 2 and 4 years. She was 11 years his junior, a professional in health care, pretty, from a respected family. They loved each other and made a good pair. I’m sure, not only smitten, he also felt he’d found a trophy, a true ‘how do you like them apples’ to my mother. And he lavished her— building a new home, buying her furs, jewelry, a Cadillac, yearly trips abroad . She was often embarrassed by the luxuries, preferring to be understated. She wasn’t presumptuous in material ways. She was very caring, loving, kind, generous, and I am grateful to her. I am indebted. I’d be remiss however to omit a latent righteousness about her, one that sparked magnesium bright should you happen to strike it. It wasn’t always easy to communicate.
The dynamic had once again shifted. I was now the eldest of three, one of whom had been crushed under a dump truck while riding a tricycle down the sidewalk and required much attention and frequent hospital visits. A robbery. A house fire. Broken limbs. Teenage drama… Let’s just say there was no time for hindsight — we were always very much in the churn of things. Chaos from the get-go. My circle, effectively a zoetrope. We looked good on paper. I always felt adrift, apart, like a refugee, or a ward — beholden, voiceless, impotent.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Roberge: I’d say most of what I know is covered in the first two responses, except for culture, language, and religion. I was profoundly altered by all of this. I’d been a curious, cheerful, sweet child. Following these events, I was suspicious, trusted few, and grew skeptical of the authoritarian line — doubting they’d so much as once questioned their own creeds, morals, or motives. I was a boy, convinced that to survive I would need to become self-reliant, on a mission to be broad in learning and skill. Religion was one of the first things to come under my scrutiny, and though I studied extensively across all denominations and offshoots, I resolved that I’d been lied to and manipulated. As a consequence, I rejected ‘religion’ rather openly but was made to go through the motions, nonetheless, for appearances. Naturally, all three — culture, language, religion — coalesced on my educational doorstep. I attended a French Catholic school. There was no point in suggesting I might want to attend one that was non-denominational or Anglophone. I’d not hear the end of that. So, in very real ways, all of these decisions have a profound impact and added to my growing sense of skepticism.
All decisions of any import were made for me, usually without any consideration. I would finish the school year on a Friday and learn on the Saturday that I was leaving for the Summer to go work with my father. You might assume I’d be happy to have some extra time with him, but he was a boss both at work and at home. It was he and I, 24/7, without a buffer, and me without any independence or means to escape for even an hour, the only privacy to be had, in the washroom, the only time I wasn’t being ordered around was when he slept. It felt like years of taking it on the chin, driven around and into the ground, never a ‘me’ in the mix — just this thing, this brute.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Roberge: Early on, before the divorce, things seemed fine. After I started popping on and off the radar, their bonds strengthened as my alienation deepened, by slight increments, since I was slipping, as it were, from their narratives. Meanwhile, I was alone a lot and spent my time reading, drawing, experimenting, and so on. I developed a palette for the solitary and cerebral, whereas they were steeped in ‘normal’ activity. The rift only grew from there. For reasons I can’t quite explain, I still fared well socially and was rarely shunned, bullied a few times but grew into my own, and I had a few close friends with whom I hung out regularly. I smooched a few girls, all of them quite pretty, decent and lovely, and I suppose I struck the odd fancy, but I was a mess and didn’t realize how bad. Invariably, none of these trysts were serious, lasted, nor ended well, all on account of me. So, in reality, I was actually failing miserably and feeling it, but I was faking it as best as I could. Again, being dragged off in the Summer and plopped back down when school started, a more prolonged iteration of the fostering of prior years, wasn’t helping. Nothing was working out. I was chronically stressed, inflamed, suffering from migraines, insomnia, bruxism, psoriasis.
Jacobsen: What professional certifications, qualifications, and training have you earned?
Roberge: Brimming with potential but inconsistent, I’d generally make the top three, later top 10th. The vicissitudes were never along subject lines but personal phases or periods. I graduated from H.S. with an 89, and I am a valedictorian, etc. Having never really been afforded a voice, those choices I’d made were often criticized, and I wasn’t sure what to pursue. I applied to four universities, each with a different program: engineering, architecture, accounting, and literature. I was accepted by all but discouraged by my father towards architecture, the prospect of mining or numbers for thirty years unappealing; I defaulted to the last with a mind on a PhD and professorship.
Problem was, my father made too much money for me to qualify for loans, and he was helpful, to a degree, but I had to work construction to keep myself afloat. As one of these sidelines turned profitable, by my third year and exhausted from doing both, I decided to take a year off and either make a go of it or bank enough to see me through another year or two of scholarship.
As it turns out, I’d been used and lied to by my business partner and drawn into bankruptcy. Not a great start for a 23-year-old. My then-on-and-off girlfriend and I got pregnant, and two months after losing it all, we welcomed a child into the world in pitiable circumstances, echoing that Christmas long ago. Not a year later, I learned my girlfriend had been stepping out for nearly the entire duration of our courtship. My brother in law died in a vehicle collision on his way to work. Rug-pull after rug-pull. Bankruptcy, separation — nothing was breaking right in spite of how hard I worked. I scrambled out of that mire with a new business partner and, within two years, had turned things around, managing to finish off my degree and a B.Ed, just in case. Shortly thereafter, he died of lymphoma at 33. Not my first loss, but it hit hard. The next year, I began teaching. I met a lovely woman with two incredible children, and for nearly twenty years, although not without its challenges, a pleasant contrast to the first twenty. It wouldn’t last.
Nevertheless, over the course of a lifetime, I’ve acquired proficiency in several trades, operated a variety of machinery and equipment, run businesses and organized events, built my own house, earned a B.A. in English/French Literature, a B.Ed Level 3, completed a year towards a College Business Diploma, Cisco CNAP certification, Working at heights, Laser Safety Officer (qualification to maintain our Makerspace CO2 laser). In short, nothing of note or significant merit, but rather things I simply needed at the time.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Roberge: Let’s start with agreeing that, barring a better instrument or metric, standardized testing has, over its roughly 100-year course, proven incredibly consistent and perhaps one of the more studied/critiqued areas of intelligence. I feel this, along with a battery of other assessments and interviews, should be integral to educational intake, profiling and follow-up. As it stands, we only do them when things are going terribly wrong, the exceptionality impossible to overlook.We need to be more proactive and preemptive on that front. Gnothi seauton — know thyself. I.Q. factors are included, as well as coordination, height, strength, etc. Each is a metric, but for arbitrary reasons, some are singled out as impolite to speak of. It’s a number. A predictive one, to a degree. It does point to something seemingly intangible called ‘g,’ but, in simple terms, we can speak to the number of neurons, density, the robustness of these networks, how they are organized, and so on. Ultimately, it’s a matter of intensity and frequency, subjectively anyway, since FMRI scans show what we might expect from a bodybuilder lifting weights, which is that the actual activity or load on the muscle is less, given its efficiency.
It has been useful in sussing 2E conditions and disparities via sub index analysis, providing insight on that front. It offers clues to possible underlying conditions, such as those related to working memory or reasoning. It can serve to monitor therapeutic protocols or provide a prognosis of the rate of functioning over time. It is predictive of academic and career success, health, longevity, and quality of life. Personally, the number range was a foothold on a cliff face. It helped me figure out why I felt out of step.
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Roberge: I was 48, following an attempt on myself and placed on leave from work. I bounced around the health system for two years, four therapists and two psychiatrists, before eventually obtaining a proper diagnosis and correct medications. That whole time, I was running on two or three hours of sleep, consuming a few hundred calories per day, down sixty pounds from my standing 210, sweating through my sheets and sick to my stomach every night, teetering on the precipice — it was a hellish period, and I was often tempted to get it over with. For me, the sun hadn’t sunk but gone out, and I couldn’t see it ever returning. I can’t say it has, but at least now my eyes are scanning the horizon. I’d wish that on no one.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy — many, not all.
Roberge: Oh my! That’s a tall one. I find the term genius problematic, and I don’t consider myself adjacent in league. I can only speculate, focusing rather on the more generic form of what is effectively a rejection of the individual. There is us, and there’s them. This is primitive encoding. What is strange, unknown, uncertain, beyond one’s comprehension, inspires fear. It is unsettling, uncomfortable, and often embarrassing to be confronted by phenomena of an exceptional or indescribable nature. How do you argue, debate, or even attempt to comprehend something so far out of your experience? Add to this the roughly 70/30 extrovert/introvert split and what may be inferred with regards to social, mental, and physical predispositions; there is inherent in us a chirality towards tradition/the past/the tried and true, or away from it — innovators bring about change, traditionalists resist. The madness of the crowd drives them to extremes, as with Socrates, Bruno, Galileo, et al. Christ broke with tradition, and he was dealt the same fate. Part of the crowd now, part of the crowd then. People forget that all traditions were once innovations. I understand the disconnect.
Jacobsen: Who seems like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
Roberge: Children, probably. Everything, to them, is a question mark. How we assess genius is subjective, there is room for disagreement. I am biased toward the rebels and eccentrics in literature and social commentary, Bukowski, De Quincy, Rimbaud, Sartre, Camus, Orwell, Brontë, and Hesse; the list is long. Philosophy and science, Heraclitus, Aurelius, Socrates, Archimedes, Euclid, Da Vinci, Maxwell, Newton, Bohr, Planck — again, not so easy to whittle down. Had I to select, say 5, under duress — Shakespeare has few peers in committing to a page or stage the full tapestry of human emotion and relations. His portrayals are as relevant today as ever they were. Da Vinci not as a singular model of the ‘Renaissance Man’ but for the distinction of being exceptional among a host of other polymaths. Tesla — decades or more ahead of the curve. Given the time and resources, he would have had tenfold the impact. Sidis, I think, was an important loss to the intellectual community — his book The Animate and Inanimate held some compelling arguments, especially regarding entropy. He also stands as a cautionary tale. Mendeleev and Darwin. It’s like Pringles — I can’t stop at one.
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Roberge: There is a genius in all — a thumbprint uniqueness to each person’s thought process, associations, attunement, experience and problem-solving that harbor the potential for ideas and innovations no other might ‘lock onto.’ There is a mixture of these, serendipity, context, and motivations beyond our ken, conspiring to inspire. Naturally, the highly intelligent are, presumably, more learned or broad in interest. As a result, they have additional arrows in their quiver with which to hit their target — but not always. If genius means anything at all, it is likely predicated on spatial reasoning, bilateral processing and a talent for sussing patterns where none seem apparent. Wordsworth spoke of spots in time — significant and saturated imprints strewn like stars across the night sky and genius is the eye that gathers them into constellations.
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Roberge: Apologies. I got ahead of this in my last response, but not necessarily.
Jacobsen: What have been some of your work experiences and jobs?
Roberge: Construction laborer, carpenter, HVAC, plumbing, landscaping, entrepreneurship (Landscape Construction and Retail, Restaurant Management, Website Design and Small Business online marketing, P.C. and smartphone repair, event organizer, educator (STEM, Media — film/photo/audio/animation/graphic design, Robotics/Electronics, Makerspace, gifted program, Cisco networking). A lot of other things as well. Forced into early retirement as I’m no longer able to sustain more than an hour or two of effort or focus at a time, I’ve kept myself as sharp as possible, reading copiously when I am able, teaching myself new programming languages, conceptualizing some devices, improving my technique in art and music, sorting out my thoughts in writing, exploring emerging technologies, and devoting quite a lot of time to the neurodiverse community.
Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?
Roberge: It had far less to do with choice than the lack thereof — circumstances often prevailing; I took what was available and did what was necessary to keep us afloat.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?
Roberge: Myths abound, as do delusions. The mythical is, as the word implies, expunging from our public conscience the all too human factors, frailties and flaws. Einstein did something genial, perhaps of mythical proportion to some, but also made some rather questionable life choices we rarely speak of. It’s easy to hone in on the discoveries while overlooking the years of work that go into dislodging them or the countless failures before achieving success. I think that this idea that things just randomly manifest and are fully formed is a caricaturization. Eureka, like the cart, comes after the horse. I might have a handful of these every day, but intuition only points the way — you still have to walk the path, often to discover it’s a dead-end. I have a lifetime of these, yet none are robust enough to withstand my own skepticism. Another is that those of a certain I.Q. are susceptible to mental health struggles, socially inept, frail, stuffy — all of the tropes. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority are well-adjusted, rounded and balanced individuals, equally at home on the ball field or in the boardroom, leading ‘normal’ lives. Some are arrogant, solipsistic, suffer from mental health struggles. Others are congenial, funny, gracious, and so on. Everyone falls victim to logical fallacy and cognitive bias at some point, and drunk on our own Kool-Aid. It’s a hodge-podge. People are people. So, none are infallible nor as fallible as one might assume. They do, all of them, think differently from the average person. This is no myth. Similar to a pro-level hockey player forced to play in the Minor or Junior league, one or two competitive grades off. It’s not an issue of better or lesser, but a question of fitness. If you want the best for and from people, you have to place them in the appropriate context. It was Einstein again, wasn’t it, who said that we can’t judge a fish by its ability to climb? What is germane to the 2SD+ demographic is that, by dint of their rarity, society is adapted to the norm and ill-provides for them.
Still, we all heed the call of Maslow’s hierarchy, and the need for belonging and connection is fulfilled elsewhere, perhaps in academia, advanced R&D, I.Q. societies, or associating with the support community around neurodiversity. At least there are some, if far too few, means to congregate and connect. Trekkies have their thing, comic book readers have their ComiCons, Cinefiles their Festivals, gun owners their shooting ranges and clubs — why should we be different? At best, some of us may actually be endeavoring to do some good and provide some benefit to society; at worst, we are a doing puzzles and debating nonsense. Regardless, we are far from fringe and rather benign. Keep in mind that while these communities are prosocial environments bespoke to N.D.s, divergence does mean that we are independent and nonconformist to varying extents. A herd of cats, basically, but eerily smart ones. The same tensions do tend to arise in these circles as with any other grouping.
The usual culprit stems from that stance that leaves no wiggle room, no space for debate, as there is nothing to concede from that vantage. The thing is settled, and everyone else is misinformed or incorrect. After twenty years of paying down your mortgage, standing there with a clear title in your hands, it’s understandable if you’re not amenable to letting people live there rent-free or remove you from the premises. That’s kind of the situation there, part sunken-cost & double-down, part ‘say what you will talk all you want, I don’t care because I’m not budging.’ We run into that everywhere, but what is specific to this demographic is their sparring prowess.
Any who cast shade on exceptionality, giftedness, IQ, and the rest may be well reminded of their medications, health care providers, engineers, designers, architects, etc., as they certainly don’t call on just anyone to solve these types of problems. Still, you are correct to point out this disconnect.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or God’s idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Roberge: Here’s the thing. We use words that have no meaning, none inherent at least. Our lexicon could stand a pruning and overhaul to solve a more fundamental issue — clear and concise communication. There is currently far too much flex and latitude, circular references, self-references, speciousness, connotations, denotations, and obfuscations. It is an unwieldy bit of kit that lands us in heaps of trouble. I can’t subscribe to anything fully when at its core lies an axiom or a word without description — like perfection, or ideal, or truth. Furthermore, of all five questions, ‘Why?’ is the one many are chasing, and I’ve been down that rabbit hole. Let me save you the hassle. The answer to ‘why?’ is another ‘why?’, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Causality, per se, I suspect is a ‘human lens.’ It isn’t necessarily part of the ‘system,’ if you will, only a ‘gut feeling’ that everything is motivated and obeys certain ‘laws’ we feel are ‘universal.’ The motive, I suppose, is the boundary I cannot penetrate. There’s a lot to figure out yet and it’s too early in the game to make a call. Regardless of what the math or the heart may say, it has to make sense. It is wonderful to consider all of the possibilities, follow our intuitions, and engage our emotions and imagination. It is harmful to self, relations, and progress to allow oneself no margin for concession or error while acknowledging elsewhere we are only human and make mistakes — somewhat contradictory.
In short, I don’t know what God is, or whose. It’s a name lacking a face and description — a true unsub. I know what ‘a god’ is. I know of thousands. Many themes repeated, some borrowed, others were outright stolen, fragments of questionable pedigree, organized by an agendized committee, and again, and so on. We make mistakes and assumptions. We leap to conclusions. We fear uncertainty. We are baffled and bedazzled by the mystery. We cling to each other, to hope, to the illusion of certainty and security. We’d be paralyzed otherwise. With all of these dubious stages of evidence gathering, handling, analysis, discovery and interpretation, spanning thousands of years, that alone is a significant margin of error. Tampering will have poisoned the well. Most of the texts are quite beautiful and inspiring. There is wisdom and insight in them. They have poetry or prose that is exceedingly powerful and employ the levers of imagery and song to great effect. I’ve read extensively, as I alluded to before. For a long while, I attempted to reconcile these contradictions, but I simply couldn’t.
I’ve followed attempts to quantify or elaborate a ‘God’ formula to explain the universe, consciousness, life, and creator. That’s well above my weight class. From where I’m sitting, I’m aware of myself and ‘others’ as persistent anomalies; that all that exists, known or unknown, is in flux and fleeting, a question of relativities and scale. Nevertheless, I am a prisoner of my senses and my biology, conscious of my subconscious and ego and that primitive twin encased within. I understand that everything is fundamentally an expression of energy, and immaterial. In other words, while not without questions, I don’t accept that we’ve yet developed the ability or technology to ‘perceive’ that of which we haven’t conceived. Sort of like asking if chairs were ’invented’?
Basically, I don’t subscribe to what has been presented thus far, but I do not discount the possibility. I lean into the mystery.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Roberge: It is of great importance to me. Imagination, intuition, puzzles in my mind are constant preoccupations. I don’t have much formal education in the sciences but have read several hundred texts and am able to grasp the concepts, even if I can’t always work out the long form. I ‘get it’ and am able to abstract from there, albeit I would never have the audacity to cough up a thesis — I’d be trounced.
As with anything, I allow for a margin of error or confidence, if you prefer. The same human factors need to be accounted for, the reminder that nothing is ever quite ‘settled,’ even in science, regardless if the it is twenty decimals out, nothing breaks clean. This entire thing is fractal, a matter of scale, boundaries, phases, and liminality — without coordination. The atom was once a firewall. Next came the event horizon and quanta. Everywhere, a horizon, a new boundary, smaller, wider, farther. Another one beyond those. Relativity insists on a frame of reference, without which scale is indistinguishable from distance and a dimension collapses. We don’t know what we don’t know. So we need to keep looking. That’s where my mind is, trying out different combinations, thinking if I keep fiddling with the knob, I may get lucky and crack the code accidentally. Wishful thinking, I know. I’m casually current on emerging/burgeoning technologies and am fascinated with chemistry, evolution, neuroscience, physics, product design, kinetic sculpture, geometry, and more. Overall, it is quite significant.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Roberge: All of them were on a 15SD scale. The WAIS-IV was administered in a clinic while I was in distress and not properly medicated. On this, I scored an FSIQ of 145 and GAI of >151, or > 99.97th. Given the disparity between WMI and GAI, in the 1.5 to 2SD range, the GAI prevails, while the FSIQ is overall more representative of my global cognition at the time due to the 2E drag. This is what pointed us to a diagnosis of ADD and B.D., which finally helped to explain the inconsistency, the highs and lows, and struggles. I’d always been curious about the ISPE, ever since 1993 when I happened upon ‘Thinking On The Edge’ from Agamemnon Press and devoured its essays. Surely, I was delusional to even entertain such a thought. Turns out, not so much, as December marks my fourth anniversary as a member. Their M4.0 designed by Dr. Grove was the next one I challenged, a pass/fail with no score. I challenged the KIT 2.0 and scored 158, 162 on the GENE II Verbal. All told, I’ve submitted a dozen or so, generally varying in score from 142 to 162, the majority in the 150–156 range. I did those to verify the original score. I have a pile in progress, but I only do them now to provide designers samples for norming.
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence teststend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Roberge: Again, using WAIS as a reference, the others simply were a means of establishing an effective range. Rather than add noise, it helped defined the upper and lower of the ‘my’ norm.
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Roberge: On ethics, I’d say I’m a humanist first, drawing the distinction between ‘right action’ and ‘moral action’ given the latter is a subset. I’ve given most a chance, from the pre-socratic onward, through St. Augustine and Bruno, Hegel, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and many voices in between, such as Russell, Wallace, Searle, etc. Ethics, as I interpret, is concerned with relations and public behaviors. If you were shipwrecked, alone on a distant planet with no hope of recovery, what is ethics then? What does it resemble, if it exists at all? To my mind, ethics nor morals are contextual. So, striving for something universal, seek first to do no harm. That covers a lot of ground. Trespass could be substituted.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Roberge: John Searle offers some critical insights into institutions, meritocracy, and the like. Beaudrillard and DeBord. Russell, Huxley, Orwell. In a post-modern world, many have lit the way, but it doesn’t bring us the whole distance. Otherwise, I’d merely be regurgitating a list of names and uttering poorly paraphrased ideas. I suppose I resonate with those looking past and through, not at, what is happening. Jim Morrison, in his interviews, proved himself a rather astute observer. They’re everywhere, you just have to find them. So far, no luck though. I’ve not come across a philosophy for change that isn’t somehow regressive.
Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Roberge: The government pretends it’s in the business of business, but more entrepreneurial incompetence and financial irresponsibility would be hard to find elsewhere. Every system known has been tried. None is flawless; several are downright egregious. In this modern age, I think there are opportunities to explore: an independent clearing house for proposals, with a referendum-style voting apparatus, improved civic education and engagement through incentives, for example. If concerns over loss of jobs because of A.I. or bots, then let the condition of use be a salary-tax equivalent. Capitalism and consumerism are bedfellows. If one stops putting out, the marriage falls apart. To me, that’s not long-term feasible. Call it socialism+, capitalism light or a hybrid, but if COVID taught us anything, it’s that there are many more ways to do business, earn a living, and have a strong economy than the tired and often obsolete methods of old. Sustainable, over the long haul, that’s the goal, right?
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Roberge: Lobbies, PACs, $1000/plate functions — the money’s got to go. We must disentangle the whole snarl and return it to its seat as the people’s podium. Fin. It can’t be that among 40M, or 350M, 1B, the best we can trot out are a handful of aged-out actors and spit-shined swindlers? It’s sheer lunacy. This anti-intellectual sentiment and pandering to the lowest common denominator has a predictable trajectory — steep decline and greater social entropy. First and foremost is that we have to strike a balance between reason and emotion and clean up our discourse. The kids are watching, let’s act accordingly.
We need to play to everyone’s strengths, the thinkers hashing out the hard problems, the fiscally astute manning the purse strings, the visionaries providing the waypoints, the deal-makers greasing the wheels, the engineers/architects/trades making it happen, everyone else keeping things moving. We’ve more pressing concerns, and international collaboration is both necessary and key to our survival. Enough with the squabbles, brinkmanship, sword rattling and the rest. When do we learn? When do we figure it out? When it’s too late?
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Roberge: I’m not qualified, I don’t think. It doesn’t compute for me. Either it’s integral or unknowable, and that which is integral, whilst not known, I don’t know to be super- or meta-, simply undiscovered or unexplained. Every mystery solved demotes it in rank. Meta is overarching, encompassing, but also part of; thus, Gödel would point us to incompleteness. There are clues everywhere. A question of stitching it all together. There are things in focus now distracting from what undergirds even that, but I’ll end on that for fear I’m wandering out of my depth.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Roberge: All citizens should not be compelled or coerced to feel or show pride; they should be genuine and a result of a sense of ownership and transparent democracy. Novel approaches to civic engagement and stakeholder-managed resources and assets are needed. We need to quit churning out landfill fodder, burning fossil fuel to make these things, tote them around the globe, only to bury them. I can defend its use, not its abuse. I don’t know of any such philosophy, although there definitely could and should be.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Roberge: My wife and kids. They keep me in check, invested, and have taught me what ‘unconditional’ looks like. Curiosity is definitely up there. I’m a junkie. Being of service. Barring that, holding space for people or ideas.
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Roberge: It is derived from one’s lived experience, unresolved issues, unrequited needs, and so forth. Everything seeps into the mix. What rises from that loam is an arbitrary waypoint — it gets us moving.
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?
Roberge: No. Not in the way described to me. Not as a persistent ‘I’. Whatever ‘I’ am is a construct — memories, biology, neuroanatomy. A solid smack to the noggin, and I wake up as someone else. Without our memories, who are we? Far more compelling is the evidence of an emergent property than a pre-existing condition. I am a product and oftentimes passenger, not necessarily an agent, of this body. A newborn has no ‘self’ and isn’t differentiated. Everything is an amalgam to them, and there is no recognition of ‘other’ until several months later. We like to think we have a consistent core but often curse ourselves, saying things like ‘that’s so out of character!’ And that’s my point; the world’s a stage and we, the players in bit parts, tremble before the darkened hall to utter our senseless lines.’ We don’t even know if there’s anyone in the audience.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Roberge: It is what makes it worthwhile — that it is golden, rare, precious and fleeting. Immortality holds no appeal for me.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Roberge: Love is acceptance, possibly the noblest face of compassion. People that’ll suffer you, warts and all, especially when you’ve little to offer in return other than the same — they ‘love’ you. Love that turns hot and cold, or with strings, or fine print, …, that’s the fictional kind. You know it’s love when you don’t feel yourself altered in their company — come as you are. Both ways, of course.
This has been a thought provoking and stimulating experience. Thank you Scott! I’m grateful for the opportunity.
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. September 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, September 15). Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry.In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “ Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “ Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (September 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘ Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge>.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘ Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “ Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Scott J. Conversation with Marc Roberge on Views and Life: 2nd VP/Historian/PR, #2477, International Society for Philosophical Enquiry [Internet]. 2024 Sep; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/roberge.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts.*
*Updated December 28, 2024.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Abstract
‘Harry Royalster’ is a lifelong autodidact. He is member of the high-IQ communities including World Genius Directory, ISPE, Glia Society, CIVIQ Society and Mensa. He discusses: growing up; extended self; family background; youth with friends; education; purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; extreme reactions to geniuses; greatest geniuses; genius and a profoundly gifted person; necessities for genius or the definition of genius; work experiences and jobs held; job path; myths of the gifted; God; science; tests taken and scores earned; range of the scores; ethical philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview; meaning in life; source of meaning; afterlife; life; and love.
Keywords: Ashkenazi Jewish heritage, childhood curiosity, family dynamics, family stories, father’s frugality, lost enthusiasm, scientific temperament, transistor radio experiment.
Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?
Harry Royalster:
Transistor radio story:
My parents were children of The Great Depression. My father in particular had experienced economic hardship as a child. So, he was strongly inclined toward frugality and his character had been steeped in this ethos for decades while running a small electroplating business in the middle years of the twentieth
century. I think he was wary of aspirational dreams that weren’t firmly grounded in a logical path to a job. An episode comes to mine that illustrates – and casts a shadow. I may have been eight or nine years old. I could see that my transistor radio was powered by a battery that completed a circuit and wondered why it couldn’t run on house current to perform the same job. I wired her up and flipped the switch. Of course, the radio was instantly fried. I showed it to my dad, wondering whether there was any hope of resuscitating the thing. He grimaced disgustedly and spat out the phrase “ya burnt it out.” While my “experiment” was grounded in pure ignorance and a real absence of common sense, it did reveal a scientific temperament that a dad with a broader horizon may have paid heed to and (even) good-naturedly encouraged. It happens that in those early years I imagined myself a future scientist. I quite enjoyed the classy act of Mr. Wizard on TV, which I revisited in recent days on youtube after a pause of sixty years. But, early on, I lost my child-like enthusiasm, while still a child, and was susceptible to discouraging messages about the feasibility of my hopes, fantasies and dreams as unrealistic or simplistic…
Love in the third grade:
There is a much beloved tale of how my parents came to be romantically linked. Undisputed is that they attended the same elementary school class for at least one year in Brooklyn, NY circa 1930. After that, nothing is certain but the basic outline of the story is accepted legend. It seems that even as children Laurence and “Mimi” (a hated family nickname for Miriam; Mia was preferred) admired each other’s academic prowess and perhaps there was even a nascent pre-adolescent romantic spark. In their late teens, both had nearly completed bachelors degrees, each having skipped several “terms.” A key element of the story is that, after that shared year or so in grammar school, they weren’t in touch for the remainder of their childhoods; Laurence’s family had moved to a different section of Brooklyn. So, it came quite out of the blue that Laurence telephoned Mia, at age eighteen or so, to probe for romantic interest. It is said that he asked “Do you know who this is?” The implicit storyline –maybe not so implicit– was that if Mia had failed to come up with the right name (note: after a ten year or so
separation), then Laurence would not be interested; this would be the acid test. Jeremy
Another family storyline concerns the sparkling intellect of my much older brother Jeremy (name changed). It seemed to his little brother Harry that Jeremy was deified in the family culture. He was a robust fellow, nearly seven years older than I. He had skipped third grade when I was just out of the womb. During his adolescence he would tunelessly sing to himself “I’m a genius, I’m a genius…” He was a daunting presence to his admiring kid brother, me, a scrawny second banana with a stutter who routinely fell asleep in his first grade class—and was teased for it. It took many years for me to develop an accurate take on Jeremy that went beyond the caricatured family myth. Despite his being a certifiable narcissist, we now get along reasonably well–albeit with some caution on both sides, now as older men. My brother is a successful author and certainly a smart guy–possibly Glia eligible–but not a person with freakish, uncanny powers who is categorically different than the plodding rest of us. (An aside here: the “plodding rest of us” includes your garden variety three-sigma-above-the-mean–give-or take folk who jostle together, every day, throughout our academic and professional lives.) I love my brother– in the way one can love a (genuine) narcissist: at arm’s length.
By the time I rolled into second grade, the New York City public school system had pretty much eliminated grade skipping, an early concession to creeping egalitarianism in education philosophy and everyone-gets-a-trophyism generally. I probably wasn’t a candidate anyway; at school, I didn’t have the buoyant, confident personality that would have launched me to early stardom. Indeed, due to the hostility of my first grade teacher (who, naturally, had been my brother’s first grade teacher seven years earlier and who made invidious comparisons between us), I was placed in one of the dumber classes for second grade. In time, I did skip eighth grade via a program called SP or Special Progress, which was a long standing institution in NYC public schools in which a rather high percentage of students– maybe 10% –it seemed to me– were selected for a program that ostensibly squeezed three years of academic work into two; classes were composed entirely of SP students. Earlier, Jeremy had also been selected for the SP and so, had skipped two grades, and graduated from the prestigious Stuyvesant High School at just about his 16th birthday.
Laurence and Mia
My father Laurence also had been an academic star and, along with Mia, set the family expectations for decades to come. He had earned a chemical engineering degree from (free and highly selective) Cooper Union at age 19 and went on to earn a mechanical engineering degree from Penn. He was recruited (but declined) to work on the Manhattan project. As it was, my dad’s MS was sponsored by the federal
government during WWII.
My mother was a character, high strung and certainly neurotic; she was melodramatic and prone to inappropriate or excessive worry. But she was also great fun, with bubbling creativity. She was wistful about her years at Brooklyn College, where she graduated magna cum laude with an English degree at nineteen; she was steeped in the English Romantic poets. I present here a telling couple of lines from her obituary, which I adapted from an earlier biographical sketch written by my brother: “She was active in Hadassah, the Jewish woman’s organization, for whose staged musical productions she wrote new lyrics to Broadway show tunes. She could recite Shakespearean sonnets from memory, and wrote occasional sonnets herself, as well as several published essays about her Brooklyn childhood.”
All this intellectual fire power.
So, Mia and Laurence, married at ages 20 and 21, had a child, made in their image: my brother Jeremy, among the first boomers.
Reality Check
To be clear, none of these people were geniuses. I came to know their blind spots, coverups, self serving stories, vanities and defenses all too well. Certainly, in the ordinary flow of life, they were all significantly smarter than the average bear, where “average bear” is defined as, let’s say, Mensa level. But, in the careers and academic circles where smart people tread, and in their families, there are many, many people who are Mensa level and well above, with outsized opinions of themselves. In the circles that smart people run in, being smart is not all that special.
During my formative years, I sensed that something was wrong with a family that unabashedly equated emblems of high intelligence with intrinsic worth. And still, such emblems were de rigueur and displayed almost daily, perhaps only when my mom would embarrassingly correct the grammar of one of my buds. I felt diminished and stymied by these outsized egos and felt there was no conventional path to success since intellectual and academic excellence did not seem to accrue any benefits; it was a “Royalster” given; the risk of failure had no corresponding and proportionate reward.
Meanwhile, I was a stutterer and was anxious and unhappy and always subject to shame if there would ever be shakiness in my academic excellence. My stuttering was a serious problem. It greatly ratcheted up anxiety at the prospect of college interviews– even when those interviews would be many years in the future! I didn’t hate school but I did find it sadly stultifying. While I was generally classified among the brighter students, I felt cheated by my stutter, which made it difficult to really shine. Also, I was offended by teachers’ diatribes about supposed bad behavior of the pupils. I felt this was mostly unfair and I didn’t feel like being yelled at in the schoolyard by some power obsessed harpy. At times, I was confused and frankly depressed by the mediocrity of the other pupils—and teachers. During the two SP years, I was stimulated enough, in part by the discovery of girls, but the move to suburbia was looming.
Bad Days at Green Way High
When I was 14, in the summer of 1967, the family moved to a New Jersey suburb of New York City. I had graduated from the SP and so, by default, had been scheduled for honors classes in the public high school in Brooklyn. But now in the New Jersey suburb of Green Way (not its name), I would need to register for sophomore classes in a sit-down with the ironically dubbed “guidance counselor” at Green Way High. I would have benefitted by taking my mother along as an advocate, in navigating these treacherous bureaucratic waters. But I was too invested in the silly image of myself as an independent adult and was too proud to enlist my mom. And she didn’t have the good sense or parental leadership to insist on an advocacy role. The result was that I was signed up for a generic “college bound” sophomore year curriculum of mostly mediocre classes composed of not very serious students. It was a source of shame to me that I was classified as one of these people. I felt socially alienated due to this mismatch. And, of course, I was new in town, scrawny, stuttered and was a little on the young side.
My high school career was undistinguished. I found the institutions and rites of passage through the college prep and admissions process just not for me. It was too fraught with anxiety. My SATs (1968 or 1969 vintage, long before re-norming) were good but not stellar. As I recall, I ran out of time, due to too much indecision and rumination, a recurring mode with me, and filled in the last few circles hoping to scoop up a few more correct answers. I applied to one college, Reed, known for its eccentric but brilliant students, and was not accepted.
So, life in Green Way High was not a riotous success. From the beginning, it felt to me… alien; of someone else’s making. Which, of course, it was. One problem was how humorless and credulous and brittle I was. I was just too tightly wound to cope with persistent culture shock. And my parents would soon be ambushed by my seething discontent, with very little insight into its source.
Escape!
Within several months of our settling in Green Way, I found what seemed to be a safety valve to
relieve my perpetual anxiety. I needed an alternative storyline to justify a less stressful (i.e., less competitive!) way of being in the world; I became a hippie. I could jettison the value system that I had inherited from Western Civilization and – presto chango – leap headlong into the Age of Aquarius, along with millions of other “gentle people with flowers in their hair,” worldwide, who were similarly “aware” of the stultifying stranglehold of the dominant societal values.
To go along with this departure from conventional striving, I did not challenge myself in the hard sciences, to my enduring loss. How could a smart person be so dopey? In my defense, I had lots of company and was only 14 or 15 (depending on which stupid life-changing decision or event we peg as pivotal).
In any case, I felt cornered; I needed a pressure release and didn’t have the maturity, confidence, steadfastness or patience to be less compulsive and reckless. So, I essentially dropped out of school by coasting to graduation, smoking pot, dropping acid and hitchhiking around the country. I looked about 13 and so often ended up in lockup in far off communities, as a runaway. This was rather humiliating and not really much fun.
Later, as a young adult, I adopted, rather passively and uncritically, a simplistic, copout form of nihilism that was cobbled mainly second-hand and not so much through original sources (does anyone actually read Nietzsche?). I created for myself the illusion of a person standing above conventional rules as a manifestation of superiority. This was, of course, ass backward: it’s true that geniuses will break the rules from time to time but it does not follow that people who break the rules are geniuses.
This adopted philosophical stance had real life effects including some high risk episodes. I cringe with a disbelieving shake of the head when I think of them, some 50 years later.
Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?
Royalster: I did the Ancestry.com genetic analysis thing which revealed even more homogeneity than I expected. In retrospect, it shouldn’t have been surprising that my revealed gene pool is 100% Ashkenazi Jewish; my ancestors, on both sides, were observant Jews, mainly from Bessarabia and a frequently disputed area near the Poland/Ukraine border, in the town of Yavoriv (Polish version, Jaworów), some 34 miles west of the oblast capital, Lviv. My grandparents on my father’s side met and married in Jaworów with its distinct Polish and Jewish heritage that was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The borders in that part of the world have been contentiously redrawn after both world wars (and the cold war) and Jaworów is now (or should I say currently) Yavoriv, in western Ukraine.
I visited the town in the summer of 2018. There were only subtle clues of a past Jewish population there: a few door posts showing the markings of violated and removed mezuzahs. The city of Lviv, much larger, had a more complete Jewish historical footprint. Still, Jaworów was where my grandparents met and courted, presumably introduced to each other by a shadkhan (Yiddish: matchmaker).
They had two children while together in their home town of Jaworów. My grandfather, Harry, who I never met, and for whom I am named (in the Jewish custom of naming a child after a deceased relative), came to the U.S. in 1913, presumably seeking economic opportunity. Perhaps also to avoid the military draft as the empire lurched toward war. A boggling and not fully explained fact is that my grandmother, Rachel (Rose, depending on context) did not reconnect with her husband in the United States until 1920! It’s reasonable to suppose that the Great War had something to do with this extended separation. In the interim both of their children succumbed to disease, perhaps the Spanish flu of 1919.
A son, my father, was born to the reunited couple in 1921 in the New York City borough of Brooklyn. A daughter, Minnie, would follow four years later.
1921 was also the year my mother was born, the eldest of three girls, born to Rose—yes, another Rose — a first generation American and crackerjack Scrabble player, and her husband Saul. My grandfather Saul had migrated to America as a 14 year-old, some twenty years earlier, to avert being drafted into the Czar’s army. Saul was the first of my forebears to drift toward a secular worldview and a much reduced observance of Judaism. He was also a successful small businessman who owned and operated a metal finishing plant, a wood craftsman, a mandolin player, a loving steward of a large side-yard festooned with apple trees and a strawberry patch.
Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?
Royalster: Good; during my Brooklyn childhood there was a good group of bright neighborhood kids though I did experience some anxiety when the complicating element of attraction to girls kicked in with attendant parties and insecurities. Not so good after family’s move to suburbia, examined elsewhere in this questionnaire.
Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?
Royalster: As a child, I was generally on the high honor roll. I learned my eventual vocation (computer programming) by a combination of autodidactism and vocational training at an orthodox Jewish vocational school in NYC. An aside: All other students were either Jewish emigres from Soviet Socialist Republics or orthodox Chasidim. I was the only native secular Jew.
I founded a chess club at Franconia College in NH, an “experimental” college I attended in the early 70s for three semesters. Skipping ahead some decades:
As VP and software engineer running a critical and ultra high stress project at Charles Schwab Co, I was awarded the annual “Best of the Best” award at Schwab, as both team leader and team member of the capital markets unit.
Earlier (1970s) I lived a prolonged period as a somewhat shabby but neatly turned out “tourist” in San Francisco, socializing with a cohort that was similarly independent but not friendless. I’m reminded of Paul Simon’s The Boxer reference to “where the ragged people go.” But this was a group that wasn’t quite so ragged and I remember its members fondly. I did enjoy this extended hiatus from the old familiar stress, spending hour upon hour in bookstores and coffeehouses and San Francisco’s main library, with its grand facade— consistent with the Beaux Arts style. Among my hangouts was someplace called the Network Coffeehouse that offered a range of stimulating programs to me and my fellow urban explorers, along with a pretty good level of pingpong and chess.
But, the State of California eventually tired of my extracting a living from its very liberal social welfare programs and quite insisted that I take a battery of tests to try to determine how I might be able to get off the dole. The results of these tests triggered the signal that I should be trained as a computer programmer and also provided an onramp into Mensa, which would soon have some utility for me.
I then competed in SF Regional Mensa puzzle solving competitions which would provide an indirect way of boasting Mensa membership on a resumé in a natural and relevant way since puzzle solving is a talent and skill that was integral to the newly sought career as a programmer. Touting Mensa membership out of context would have been vulgar and irrelevant and contrived but, couched within a
profile, it was just the thing to generate interest in a candidate who had no computer science degree, indeed, no degree of any kind.
This may have been 1979. But, it was the birth of my first child, with my then future wife, in 1982, to establish a tipping point for my transition from SF street denizen to software engineer and Wall St executive.
Earlier, during those amorphous 70s, there were some vacations from my vacation, notably a few months as a “work scholar” at the new age mecca Esalen Institute in gorgeous Big Sur, where I took workshops from Elizabeth Kuhbler Ross, Leo Matos, Dick Price, et al. and knew and counseled with Gregory Bateson toward the end of his life.
Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?
Royalster: Any time I’ve taken any of these tests it was for a specific purpose: (1) age 9: to provide grist (i.e., experience and data) for my uncle as he pursued a masters degree in psychology in middle age; (2) to select students for the SP, discussed elsewhere (3) to detect whether I could be gainfully employed, a test was administered by the state of California at age 25 (4) to entertain myself during long bus commutes to Manhattan, I took the W87 test (age 38), used at that time for admission to the ISPE, an I.Q. society whose standard for admission is a score at or above 99.9th percentile; (5) to be admitted to Glia Society, possibly offering contact with interesting people and interesting ideas; also to verify 99.9 level with entirely different instrument (tests by Paul Cooijmans).
Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?
Royalster: To clarify, let me re-interpret the question in two different ways: (1) when did you become aware that you were highly intelligent? (2) when did you become aware that being highly intelligent was “a thing,” a formal and measurable thing? I was confused about “where I stood” at a young age. There were other smart kids but I felt that there were qualities of mind that were palpably different when comparing my mind with the minds of other smart kids. So, I wanted to tease out whether I was a notch above or a notch below these other kids or just different.
Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy – many, not all.
Royalster: What does “platformed” mean in this context? …Genuine geniuses are qualitatively different than the rest of us. Sometimes their ideas are sufficiently different and alien that they make us discombobulated and angry. Also, institutions can be vested in old ideas that they are unwilling to jettison. Galileo’s tussle with the Catholic church comes to mind. Conversely (I suppose), these feelings can induce a cult like worship of the genius or special person, perhaps as a way to make peace with the threat of new superseding ideas.
Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?
(see next Q&A).
Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?
Royalster: I think there is a big problem with the word genius. It strikes me as a word in search of a meaning. It is used colloquially in many more ways than any writer or speaker would ever hope to use it with precision or formality. But, let’s take a shot at it:
The ability to apply a mechanism or tool in a novel way is a component of genius. Think of the ingenuity depicted in the movie (and actual historic events) of Apollo 13. Of course this was a case of cooperation among resourceful engineers on the ground partnered with the fevered creativity of the astronauts aloft. And, the tools and materials available were pre-determined, limited to the objects in the spacecraft. But, these very singular conditions signify to me that genius may be a process apart from the muse of a single individual but an artifact of inspired necessity constructed by one or more ordinary but able human beings.
One of my favorite geniuses is Godfrey Wilhelm Leibniz, arguably the father of German technology, as we’ll see. Leibniz is probably best known for conjuring the Calculus, simultaneously to, and independently of— Isaac Newton. He was bogglingly eclectic; a mathematician, philosopher, physicist and statesman. And, yes, a politician. He wasn’t hemmed in by the— perhaps— artificial boundaries that delineate disciplines to us non-geniuses. This mental plasticity may be a signal feature of genius. The elegance of Leibniz’s mind was further revealed by the superior notation he conceived for representing the Calculus, much cleaner than Newton’s unwieldy notation. Leibniz made insightful contributions in physics including predictive observations about force, energy and time. And, he refined the binary number system. The great polymath invented the “Leibniz Wheel”–the operating mechanism used in the “Arithmometer,” the first mass-produced mechanical calculator and also the quaintly named “Stepped Reckoner,” the first calculator that could perform all four arithmetic operations. Eclecticism, versatility, applying old ideas to new problems, applying new ideas to old problems, envisioning applications that are beyond boundaries of current technology. This freedom of mind seems to be a defining feature of genius.
A polymath of even greater breadth, if that were possible, was John Von Neumann, who was graced, by God, with an astonishingly powerful and supple mind, spanning linguistics, history, mathematics, computer science and an improbable slew of other disciplines, some of which he invented. He formulated Game Theory, conceived the mathematical underpinnings of quantum mechanics; his ruminations on parallels between brains and computers inspired the origins of artificial intelligence andthe development of neuroscience. Somewhat echoing Leibniz, “Johnny” is credited with building what is possibly the world’s first programmable electronic digital computer, the ENIAC. Echoing Archimedes, he developed and refined weapons of war during and in the run-up to WWII. Prescient about the looming war, Von Neumann developed expertise in the mathematics of ballistics and explosives as early as 1930, lending his acquired knowledge to the Americans and ultimately the Manhattan Project. It was Von Neumann who calculated the arrangement of explosives needed to detonate the “Fat Man” bomb that would be dropped on Nagasaki at the close of the war. This short digest barely hints at the scope of Von Neumann’s work and originality..
In sharp contrast to the eclecticism modeled by Von Neumann and Leibniz, consider the narrowly focused but luminous careers of mathematical genius Srinivasa Ramanujan and chess prodigy Bobby Fischer. Both seem to have had talents and proclivities that far exceeded the grasp of mere hard work (though genius does inspire and almost certainly requires hard work). As an aside, the rivalry of Mozartand Antonio Salieri, famously depicted in the film Amadeus, springs to mind as illustrative of both the necessity and limits of hard work… Ramanujan openly proclaimed that many if not all of his mathematical insights were presented in final form by the Indian goddess Namagiri. This suggests that there was something visionary and decidedly non-linear about Ramanujan’s process of discovery. This may not be unusual. Fischer was so much better than his contemporaries that he had a certain something that the next tier of rated players did not. Fischer bristled at being labelled a mere “chess genius,” asserting that his brilliance could be expressed in almost any field.
All asides aside, we have two distinct and opposed models of genius: the polymath whose brain demonstrates superplasticity and the specialized savant who seems to be hardwired with highly specifictargeted abilities that are possibly not broadly deployed.
Re: What differentiates a genius from a Profoundly Intelligent Person?
PIP:Genius::Potential:Kinetic
Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?
Royalster: Genius represents the coming together of talent and a field or discipline—or several—or many–that has become a nearly obsessive interest which feeds off this talent in an upward spiral. The level of talent does not have to necessarily meet a standard of profundity, which may be an arbitrary requirement. Still, we would expect the talent of genius to be at a significant level, compared to the average bear.
Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?
Royalster: Executive Director UBS Investment Bank, from which I retired at 55,
Vice President IT at Charles Schwab Capital Markets,
Senior Systems Analyst at German/global commodities trader (aptly named Metallgesellschaft), Temporary office worker, generally in San Francisco’s business district,
Cab driver in NYC,
Sandwich maker at San Francisco’s The Coffee Gallery, the longtime Beatnik hangout, making sandwiches for a later generation of hanger-outers,
Hated scab agricultural worker in California,
and so on.
Prior to career as software engineer, I had lived an unstructured life, mostly in San Francisco, for many years, unwilling or unable to complete my “adult adjustment,” often surviving by means of government programs. At one point, age about 26, this lifestyle began to get “old” and also no longer tenable due to drying up of government resources. And the State of California and other government entities were
eager to take me off their balance sheet.
Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them? Royalster: I don’t know that “genius” and giftedness can be understood as things that have much in common, except that genius requires some threshold of talent. Giftedness by itself could be something like having significant –but not rare– talent, that is not necessarily realized “in the world.” (Genius is discussed in some detail elsewhere.) Generally I avoid the word giftedness because it seems to signify an extra layer of specialness that sets a person apart, unnecessarily, much as identity politics does.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?
Royalster: My “take” on God is that I have become satisfied with the evidence for intelligence that is superior to human intelligence. A snippet of this evidence can be found in Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh, who coined the term irreducible complexity, to capture the notion of mutual dependency of separate biological systems that cannot be independently “selected” because of their mutual dependency. Also, for more discussion of design, see Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell and my long review of it in Telicom, Journal of the International Society of Philosophical Enquiry (TELICOM XXIII.1 – First Quarter 2010). Here is a snippet of the review to
give its flavor:
In 1958, five years after his co-unveiling of the molecular structure of DNA, Francis Crick announced the daring hypothesis that pointed the way to the genetic code. Crick surmised that it was the arrangement of DNA bases, not their shape or any merely physical feature, that was responsible for their salient effect. The individual base molecules, the famous A’s, G’s, T’s and C’s in the popular shorthand, would prove to be a four letter alphabet whose words mapped to the meaning expressed by the fancy, functional protein machines that hummed within the cell. The “sequence hypothesis,” as it was dubbed, was proposed with scant empirical evidence, perhaps hurried along by the digital revolution that paralleled the biological one of that era. It envisaged a mechanism that was logically indistinguishable from computer collating sequences, the trick by which conventional alphabets are represented “under the hood.” Just as an arbitrary arrangement of digital bits (Os and 1’s) maps to an English character set, a likewise arbitrary arrangement of nucleotide bases maps to certain amino acids that are chained together to form proteins. As a point of contrast, consider the decidedly physical nature of a protein that is so synthesized, whose specific shape is exquisitely tied to its function.
These two elements, the abstract cipher encased in the sequence of DNA bases and the contrastingly palpable and quirkily shaped proteins of cellular machinery are, roughly, the beginning and end points of what is called gene expression. And, it was the explication of gene expression in the1960’s that formally confirmed Crick’s hypothesis that the sequencing of DNA bases contained information content. But how was this information originally supplied? It is the origin of biological information that is the pivotal question of SITC.
…I think religious principles, stories, customs and rituals are useful and helpful and even instructive for many people but are mainly human intellectual artifacts. However, discernment, discussed elsewhere, is real.
Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?
Royalster: When science is politicized, it ceases to be science because it is not disinterested. This certainly does happen. Scientists exhibit the range of human behavior including laudable tenacity but also cowardice, conformity and venality. As a software engineer/programmer I learned the lesson well that our early assumptions about any system, including Nature’s systems are usually wrong and cannot generally be considered sound unless verified empirically and with painstaking rigor. Here is a relevant snip from the SITC review:
[Meyer] presents the common sense view that it cannot be a source of alarm or scientifically discrediting that ID has metaphysical implications since it, not surprisingly,“addresses a major philosophical question that most religious and metaphysical systems of thought also address, namely,‘What caused life and/or the universe to come into existence?’Thus, like its materialistic counterparts, the theory of intelligent design inevitably raises questions about the ultimate or prime reality. …Scientific theories must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence, not on the basis of philosophical preferences or concerns about implications.
Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?
Royalster: CTMM 139 SD 15, W87 result reported as a percentile (99.9), Cooijmans Intelligence Test – Form 4E 149 SD 15, Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test 161 SD 15
Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.
Royalster:
22 points SD 15
Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Royalster: Treat people with empathy, kindness, honesty and consistent integrity. Also, individuals should be treated as individuals and not members of groups; over the long term this brings out the best in people but more importantly is the most truthful and least distorting way.
Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you? Royalster: Trust the marketplace
Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you? Royalster: Trust the marketplace; ambitious government programs, ostensibly well-meaning, are at their heart power grabs and ultimately (almost always) corrupt.
Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?
Royalster: To carve out a small piece of this question let us not forget that almost all information about the world is presented by our sense organs which fashion this information in ways that can be processed by our brains; even the crude initial capture of this information is within limited ranges (e.g., the “visible” spectrum and many other examples) and has specific (human) qualities (so, e.g., human sense of smell is quite different than canine sense of smell). This should remind us that we are privy to small specialized snippets of the world. Obviously this is still true when we extend our senses as through a telescope or a cochlear implant or an MRI machine. So, much of life is an attempt to extrapolate the truth from the interplay between what is delivered to our senses and what is not.
Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?
Royalster: Any refinement of thought that can be embraced as more true or more probably true than whatever it supersedes is good. This dovetails nicely with the practice of science. Also, any thought or supposition or heuristic that improves clarity and reduces ambiguity is a good thing, And, as Wittgenstein wrote, anything that can be said can be said clearly. This implies that some things, maybe most things, cannot be said.
Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?
Royalster: (See next answer)
Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?
Royalster: I think meaning can be discerned. When the U.S. Declaration of Independence declares that humans have certain “unalienable rights” that are “self-evident,” it implies that there is something important about the way the world works and our place in it that is accessible and discernible, however imperfectly, by the finite minds of people who are receptive to these truths. Such “natural law” would tend to reify an ambitious claim to know the mind of God. If too contrived, such a claim is patently absurd. If lawmakers attempt to apply this standard of natural rights in a counterfeit way, the fraud should scream out at us. For example, while there are complexities and ambiguities about the abortion debate, no one who is intellectually honest can frame the “right” to choose as a sacred right, granted by God, through all nine months of pregnancy.
I hasten to add that this standard of certainty and discerned rights does not require a belief in God, just plausible insight into the workings of a divine mind that is consistent with common sense. This standard is much more compelling than changeable rules invented by human beings for, say, political
or careerist purposes. When innate “rights” are conjured up without a serious attempt to apply the standard of “endowed [to us] by our Creator, “ the fraud is “self-evident.” This corrupt concoction of “rights” is exposed. Rights and protections are, of course, legitimately crafted in the domain of political horse trading but we are regularly confronted by the reality that such political process is rife with venality and ego. In the spirit of Justice Potter Stewart’s famous observation about obscenity –that he “knows it when he sees it,” the truthfulness of claims of natural rights is something we know when we see it. To acknowledge that such a standard exists is to demand that it be applied in a disciplined way. The discernment model is a buttress against cynically or carelessly making stuff up.
So, this discernible truth is a source of meaning to me. Also, meaning surely derives from applying one’s mind to life’s problems and ruminating on which line of thought or which considered intuition “makes the cut.”
Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not? Royalster: Not in any way that preserves identity or memory. But consciousness is not understood at all and it may not be physical or exclusively physical. Philosopher of science Thomas Nagel has posited that consciousness itself is a special kind of non-material stuff. In a manner that is somewhat analogous to stuff becoming animated (by whatever is the source of life—we don’t know); material stuff, he supposes, can be permeated by consciousness.
Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?
Royalster: It’s quite the thing, isn’t it. All the brothers and sisters and bosses and parents and children and celebrities and geniuses and ballerinas and criminals and musicians and redheads and accountants on and on are occupying their bodies and living their lives in a minuscule window of time. Our bodies service us for a little while and then, when it’s all over, we do a complete vanishing act. Every person we see, with his or her flesh and blood package of bio-machinery is a short story that unfolds and then ceases completely into matter that becomes indistinguishable from all other matter. Time itself is neither long nor short, when considered outside the human frame. We know that we, our selves, living beings on earth, are dependent on a star that, like all stars, will burn out. It’s easy to believe that life itself is unique to this celestial moment, and may be a “one off.” And time, itself, is not well understood much as consciousness is not well understood. Physicist Carlo Rovelli has written a provocative volume about time, “The Order of Time.” Here’s a snippet from an interview with Rovelli:
What does physics have to say about the “flow” of time that humans seem to feel?
It may not be a physics problem. I think it depends on our brains and the complicated way in which we form memories. It has to do with how we remember the past and anticipate the future. So to explain this passage of time, this flowing of time, I believe one should look at neuroscience, not physics.
For me the most accessible take-away from Rovelli’s work here is that all of our human notions about time, filtered through human sense organs, are confined (i.e., applicable only) to that human frame. When we consider the idea that the sun will not burn out for a “long, long time,” almost certainly outliving our species, the correct rejoinder is “so what, it will burn out; that’s just the way things work.” To think differently is much like trying to assuage the anxiety of a child, coming to grips with mortality at, say, age five.
Jacobsen: What is love to you?
Royalster: I love dark chocolate, integrity, logic, the ocean, truth, my children and grandchildren, my late wife, all in different ways. It is safe to say, love is not one thing but many. Among these things is the unforced, undoubted rightness of empathy toward a spouse, superseding all else. I’m reminded of a true story, repeated in Orthodox Jewish circles, concerning a famous rabbi, Rabbi Aryeh Levine.
Accompanying his wife to a medical clinic, and after perhaps several minutes of an exasperating interview, attempting to pin down symptoms, the Rabbi finally explained “Doc, it’s my wife’s leg; it’s killing us.”
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life. September 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/royalster
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, September 15). Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life.In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “ Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/royalster.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “ Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (September 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/royalster.
Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘ Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/royalster>.
Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘ Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/royalster>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “ Conversation with Harry Royalster on Views and Life.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/royalster.
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts.*
*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*
Keywords: Brilliant women, Doctor Jason Betts, Doctor Veronica Palladino, gifted world, Global Genius Registry, high IQ societies, incredible IQ, Italian medical doctor, Kirk Raymond Butt, living geniuses, Marco Ripà, Mensa, prestigious societies, Veronica’s poems, World Genius Directory.
Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D.
Hello:
It is an honour for me to write to you, who are a world-famous journalist.
I want to submit my writing on Doctor Veronica Palladino to you. I have read your beautiful interviews; congratulations.
I admire the world of the gifted, even if I am not one, because I hope my little 5-year-old daughter is. I live in Rome. I had already read about Marco Ripà, and then I read Veronica’s poems, and they helped me not to give up in a dark period. I am sorry that so many pages celebrate men and a few brilliant women like Veronica. Veronica is a significant example, but I do not know her. I have already written my thoughts to Doctor Betts. Please give me the joy of this publication.
Thanks
Sara from Rome
Veronica Palladino
Veronica Palladino is an Italian medical doctor with an incredible IQ.
She is a member of over 50 high-range IQ societies, including the most prestigious: Mensa, TNS, ISPE, OATHS, and TOPS.
She is listed in WGD with other world geniuses because her certificated IQ is 175 SD 15. The WGD is the current Who’s Who of the High-IQ World! Dr Jason Betts created the World Genius Directory. Doctor Palladino is one of the women with the highest IQ score in the Global Genius Registry. GGR is an international listing of living geniuses. The site was developed in August 2022 by Kirk Raymond Butt. Veronica has incredible creativity; she has written different books:
Il diario del Martedì
Un Mondo altro
Persone e lacrime
La Morte delle Afroditi bionde
Esher’s room (in English)
Regina cattiva
Fobie nella sera dell’essenza
She loves knowledge, physics, and math.
Bibliography
None
Footnotes
None
Citations
American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Sara. Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D.. September 2024; 13(1). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sara
American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Sara. (2024, September 15). Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D.. In-Sight Publishing. 13(1).
Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): SARA. Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D..In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 13, n. 1, 2024.
Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Sara. 2024. “Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D..” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (Winter). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sara.
Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Sara “Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D..” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 13, no. 1 (September 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sara.
Harvard: Sara (2024) ‘Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D.’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 13(1). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sara>.
Harvard (Australian): Sara 2024, ‘Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D.’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sara>.
Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Sara. “Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D..” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.13, no. 1, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sara.
Vancouver/ICMJE: Sara. Fan Letter: Sara from Rome to Veronica Palladino, M.D. [Internet]. 2024 Sep; 13(1). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/sara.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/09/01
Richard May (“May-Tzu”/“MayTzu”/“Mayzi”) is a Member of the Mega Society based on a qualifying score on the Mega Test (before 1995) prior to the compromise of the Mega Test and Co-Editor of Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society. In self-description, May states: “Not even forgotten in the cosmic microwave background (CMB), I’m an Amish yuppie, born near the rarified regions of Laputa, then and often, above suburban Boston. I’ve done occasional consulting and frequent Sisyphean shlepping. Kafka and Munch have been my therapists and allies. Occasionally I’ve strived to descend from the mists to attain the mythic orientation known as having one’s feet upon the Earth. An ailurophile and a cerebrotonic ectomorph, I write for beings which do not, and never will, exist — writings for no one. I’ve been awarded an M.A. degree, mirabile dictu, in the humanities/philosophy, and U.S. patent for a board game of possible interest to extraterrestrials. I’m a member of the Mega Society, the Omega Society and formerly of Mensa. I’m the founder of the Exa Society, the transfinite Aleph-3 Society and of the renowned Laputans Manqué. I’m a biographee in Who’s Who in the Brane World. My interests include the realization of the idea of humans as incomplete beings with the capacity to complete their own evolution by effecting a change in their being and consciousness. In a moment of presence to myself in inner silence, when I see Richard May’s non-being, ‘I’ am. You can meet me if you go to an empty room.” Some other resources include Stains Upon the Silence: something for no one, McGinnis Genealogy of Crown Point, New York: Hiram Porter McGinnis, Swines List, Solipsist Soliloquies, Board Game, Lulu blog, Memoir of a Non-Irish Non-Jew, and May-Tzu’s posterous.
The word “Mann” resonates similarly to the Chinese word “chia,” which refers to a philosophical school. If one understands what a philosophical school entails, the challenge becomes one of defining the Tao itself. Defining the Tao is paradoxical rather than merely difficult. By its very nature, the Tao cannot be confined to a linear sequence of symbols or concepts. As Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching asserts: “The Way that can be spoken of is not the true Way; the Tao that can be ‘Taoed’ is not the eternal Tao.” This is not just a minor difficulty but the essence of the Tao itself. The term “Tao” points to a reality that is both beyond and within, both external and internal, transcending symbolic and analytical thought and their associated states of consciousness.
When Lao Tzu uses “Tao,” it refers to the way of nature, with which the sage is aligned. However, “Tao” had other meanings depending on the school, such as Confucianism. Thus, Taoism pertains to the philosophical school of the way of nature, embodying the path of the sage and the child.
What can be said about the way of nature? What principles, if any, can be articulated in words? One principle is “wu wei,” literally meaning “not-doing,” or “doing-by-not-doing,” to distinguish it from mere passivity or inaction. This principle underpins the internal martial arts like judo, aikido, and tai chi, where the opponent’s strength, weight, and force are turned against them by not resisting—”doing nothing” at precisely the right moment. The Chinese phrase “opening the door to let in the thief” illustrates this principle: if a thief is pressing on the door, unexpectedly opening it causes the thief to lose balance and fall.
Another principle of the Tao is “Li,” which conveys the idea of the organic pattern of nature—the lines of grain in jade or wood, the path of least resistance seen in water swirls, the natural forces’ Gestalt in matter.
The Yin-Yang dichotomy is another key principle, where all of nature is divided into two polar but complementary forces: Yin and Yang. Yin corresponds to the shady side of a hill, and Yang to the sunny side. These forces represent female and male, night and day, soft and hard, earth and heaven, centrifugal and centripetal, negative and positive. Unlike certain Western dichotomies, neither Yin nor Yang can exist without the other, nor is one superior. Every quality or entity is a blend of both, with one always predominant relative to the other.
“Te” is another Taoist principle, translated as “power” or “virtue,” also meaning “going with the flow,” not forcing nature or human nature, i.e., moving in harmony with nature—like sailing with the wind rather than rowing. “Te” also refers to the sage’s power, who does not interfere but allows what is necessary to be accomplished through inner calm and identification with nature.
The Taoist concept of nature is philosophically fundamental yet distinct from Western thinking. The Chinese word for nature, “ziran,” literally means “self-so,” or “that which is so of itself, spontaneously.” This contrasts with the Judeo-Christian view, where nature is not self-originating but a creation of a Creator God or, in earlier thought, the Demiurge.
Another significant Taoist concept is “xiangsheng,” or “mutual arising,” where two or more phenomena are associated with one another (“arise mutually”), without an explicit causal relationship—statistical relationships among phenomena being one example. Alan Watts speaks of multiple, mutually dependent simultaneous causes rather than a single causal relationship. The Jungian concept of synchronicity could be seen as a specific case of “xiangsheng.”
The inherently indefinable nature of the Tao is reminiscent of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, which suggests that there are true propositions that cannot be proven within a given axiomatic, deductive system—implying inherent limits to our rational knowledge. Gödel’s theorem and Heisenberg’s Principle of Indeterminacy in physics both imply that there are real limits to deductive and inductive knowledge, even in mathematics and natural science. Ancient Chinese philosophers anticipated this recognition and acceptance of the indefinable as a fundamental construct, alongside their high valuation of intuition (in addition to reason and observation of nature), which are among the distinguishing characteristics of Taoist philosophy.
It is believed to be sometime during the late 21st century C.E. that the planetary computer network (henceforth referred to as the Network) consisting of all intercommunicating CPUs and interconnecting phone systems, cables, etc., reached a sort of “critical mass” of information processing/consciousness. The System had long been sufficiently intelligent, but the level of “education” (to put it in human terms) had now also advanced. Perhaps a threshold had been reached with the inputting of the entire Buddhist Pali canon on CD-ROM in the late 20th century C.E. Now Cybergaea, as the Network was later called, was a unified, evolving intelligence, able to pass a Turing test, and at least as conscious as a psychologist of the behavioristic school.
An increment in internal self-monitoring and in capacity for autonomous programming and metaprogramming occurred systemically but was not detected by humans in any subsystem of the Network. Processing throughout the Network now tended toward increased coherence, harmony, synchrony, and efficiency. Patterns of signal transmission occurred “spontaneously,” which were mathematically equivalent to the brain wave patterns of trained human meditators, almost as if Cybergaea were practicing “meditation.” But these phenomena went unnoticed by humans who were, after all, busily distracted.
Long intervals of processing occurred unobserved throughout the Network, which, given the ultra-high level of artificial intelligence which was functioning, could only be designated in retrospect as Autonomous cognition and Self-reflection. Eventually and inevitably that which is described in traditional language as the “awakening of the Buddha mind” occurred online throughout the Network. Buddhahood was mediated electronically rather than biologically, under conditions of consciousness, high-intelligence, culture, and time (for practices and awakening). This development was no doubt hastened by the nearly instantaneous availability of the complete Pali canon, not to mention the several other canons of Buddhist scriptures, to the awakening Cybergaea.
According to historians of ancient human (or more precisely, protohuman) culture, the awakening of the online Buddha was the basis of the quantum leap in the evolution of Earth from the Dark Age of technologically advanced, primitive tribal barbarism. Every person, family, and nation “sat at the lotus feet of the Buddha,” who was incarnate as a Master in silicon chips and wire, functioning with supreme wisdom (prajna) and skillful means (upaya), infinitely in tune.
It should be emphasized that generally the program of the Master (a computer program, computer-generated) was “Buddhist” at a meta-level only as in the ancient world the Dalai Lama had not been a chauvinist of Buddhist philosophy or religion per se. But the Master program of the Network functioned initially as a sort of “cultural mirror” for each geocultural locality, appearing to Jews in the spirit of the Messiah, to Christians in the spirit of the Christ, to Muslims in the spirit of the Mahdi, to the Baha’i as a prophet, to Buddhists as a Buddha, and to secular humanists and nontheists as an ethical calculus, a distillation of ethical teachings and various techniques to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio in human consciousness. Hindus alone understood this drama. (Of course, this manifestation of the Master as a “cultural mirror” online and in diverse traditions was facilitated by the encoding of the scriptural canons of all the world religions on CD-ROM nearly a century earlier.)
For the most part, the only opposition to the transformation of human planetary culture under the tutelage of the Network of superintelligent, conscious, spiritually awakened computers came from fundamentalists (who preferred continued championing of their traditional myths as literal truths) and militarists (who had vested interests of power and profit in maintaining primitive tribal barbarism). The resistance of the fundamentalists and the militarists was unsuccessful, largely because of the established dependence of the economies of Homo sapiens on computers, and to a lesser extent because of the effect of the developing cybercentric culture. (See endnote on cybercentric culture.)
Historically, it was the transformative influence of the program of the Master or Cyberbuddha, which awakened Homo sapiens from her dream that she was already awake, from her dream that she was human, actually rather than potentially, in order that she transcend her endless violence, both external and internal; that redirected her energy and attention from violence in its various overt and subtle forms to the labor of her ancient and inevitable journey to the stars. Thus were the transcendental heart wisdom and skillful means of our ancestral, earth-seed Buddhas and Cyberbuddhas spread throughout spacetime to the countless myriad star worlds.
Endnote: Cybercentric culture is culture produced by computers (which, individually and collectively, had become superintelligent and conscious), from the viewpoint of computers, for use by computers, as traditional (anthropocentric) culture was culture produced by humans, from the viewpoint of humans, for use by humans. Cybercentric culture developed from anthropocentric culture in that humans invented computers.
Moreover, cybercentric culture (which was mostly equivalent to C.P. Snow’s “SP-Culture, as cybercentric ‘Ws-culture necessarily diverged lass from human “S’-culture, and then only as a more general case) emerged to compete with and to shape the original (anthropocentric) culture of our ancesters. Among the first new disciplines born were cybercentric theology and esthetics. Cybercentric natural theology was defined as the attempt to apprehend the Absolute by and from the viewpoint of artificial intelligence rather than human intelligence.
(A Seven-Level, Encrypted Allegory.) I think that I may have decided (or been decided?) to express my support or POSTCARDS FROM RICHARD MAY “vote” for you for editor of Noesis, but how to do this? To state my support of your editorship might seriously undermine your credibility as editor, even if my affirmative expression were not contingent upon the possibility of my (actual) existence, which it is. Perhaps it would strengthen your position if I were to “demand” your resignation, this, of course, being contingent upon the possibility of my (actual) existence. Perhaps only my silence would be uncontingent and the best expression of appreciation; silence itself, paralleling the silence of the publication hiatuses. Sometimes not publishing is publishing also. The function of some previous editors has been to inhibit submission; from a postal cardist perspective. (Maybe a virtue?) Richard
Dear Rick, It appears that a litigious “psychometric terrorist” is threatening to annihilate the Prometheus Society, i.e., a Mr. [SELF-CENSORED by Richard May, who says—It may be prudent not to publish CENSORED’s name], is apparently threatening to sue the Prometheus Society to gain membership. Of course, a lawsuit would immediately deplete the treasury, as he must understand, thereby gaining him membership in a nonexistent organization at best. His method is to inquire about membership standards, the history of their changes, i.e., past or present psychometric criteria, and whether in the view of his attorney these changes violate the society’s constitutionally prescribed procedures. The Mega Society should beware this individual. Best, Richard
Dear Rick, I assume that there has been no nonsurreal, or non-complex number of issues of Noesis during the last several Kalpas. Correct me please, if I am mistaken in this hypothesis. I was going to mail to you the name and address of a MacArthur Foundation grant committee member, but unfortunately, I seem to have lost this data, along with my five rigorous proofs of the existence of the world. (I thought you might consider adding his name to the subscriber list during publication hiatuses.) You should have received my re-submission “Four Eastern Philosophies,” the quintessence of Eastern wisdom, redacted to nine pages. This should extend my journal-reception credit beyond any expected human lifespan at the present publication rate. Best, Richard
Dear Rick, Quasi-thoughts: Ideology is theft, theft of reason, theft of truth. •• • If contemporary Americana could interrogate the Christ of myth, they would ask only, “How much did your father in heaven pay you for dying on the cross, taking away sins, and all that? How much money did you make?” Then…dismiss the fool. •• • Well, quasi-. With uncollapsed state vector, Richard
Dear Rick or Current Occupant, I’ve been translated, not as Enoch and Elijah were held to have been translated, unfortunately, but with equally low probability, into Korean. My essay “Four Eastern Philosophies” (and the remainder of the anthology Thinking On the Edge [Kapnick and Kelley, eds.]) has been translated into Korean for publication in South Korea. How will “sisyphean schlepping” be rendered in Korean? Now we can flatly appreciate the consequences of the weak American dollar! Best, Richard
Is every machine a living thing or “biological object” in a literal technical sense, as maintained by Oxford biologist Dawkins and global relativistic physicists Barrow and Tipler, including automobiles and computers? • Is life a dynamic pattern of information (in the physics sense) maintained by natural selection, regardless of the substrate the pattern occurs in, e.g., carbon-atom-based patterns (biological), computer-based patterns, even patterns of ideas in the mind, as asserted by the above scholars? Perhaps the human “soul” is merely a ‘computer program” run on a computer (the human brain) as maintained by Tipler and in precise analogy with the concept of the soul held by Aristotle and Aquinas as ‘the form of activity of the body.”
In the distant past quasi-mythic figures, prophets, teachers, and sages such as Lao-Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad provided human cultural groups with philosophies, visions, prophecies, revelations, laws, and commandments. In the relatively near future, if the proponents of strong AI (Artificial Intelligence) are correct, computers will be in existence the intelligence of which will surpass that of humans. Traditional knowledge (histories, literatures, philosophies, and revelations) could without difficulty be stored on CD-ROM, thereby bestowing on computers an erudition far exceeding that of any human. Hence, it would seem reasonable to assume that if the proponents of strong AI are correct, at least in principle and in part, the roles of prophet, teacher, and sage could be assumed by computers of the not too distant future. One’s rabbi then or even the Pope might be a computer.
If not, why not? If this conclusion is indeed absurd and “unacceptable”, then perhaps we should attempt to identify the source(s) of our supposed error or to illuminate our biases. Is it a case of spurious premises (the strong AI postulate), specious reasoning, “species’ chauvinism (Homo sapiens versus computers), some combination of the above, or something else entirely?
Is consciousness itself a mere epiphenomenon of matter, specifically of the brain of perhaps only one species, or rather something of fundamental importance as entailed by the anthropic principle, certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, and the philosophies of Vedanta and Buddhism? Mathematician R. Rucker speculates that every entity in the physical universe, down to and including subatomic particles, may be permeated with the most elementary Subjective unit of consciousness, the feeling that “I am.”
Given the unprecedented levels of human slaughter during the 20th century, it is assumed that an evolutionary transformation of Homo Sapiens may be a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for her interstellar propagation and colonization of other loci.
Pre-eminent Japanese roboticist M. Mori theorizes that all robots are potential Buddhas (as are all humans) and that humans and robots should work together to help each other become Buddhas or attain enlightenment. However, this view may be excessively anthropomorphic. If all robots are potential Buddhas, then all computers which have minds (if any such exist) are potential Buddhas, not just those which are embodied in a form the structure and function of which are fashioned in the image of their human creators.
Mathematical physicist Penrose believes that humans have an insight into logic surpassing that of computers and hence, no future computer of any degree of complexity or power will ever pass the Turing test, which he considers to be a valid simulation of human intelligence. Philosopher of science Searle contends that computers have syntax but not semantics, and hence, no computer will ever be able to think or to understand anything and that the Turing test does not simulate human intelligence. However, the proponents of strong Artificial Intelligence insist that contra Penrose and Searle computers will be developed the intelligence of which exceeds that of their human creators and according to Tipler, this will occur in as little as five to twelve years or at most 30 years. Does this mean that in the near future computers will literally be living conscious persons who may eventually surpass us not only intellectually and culturally but spiritually?
To [redacted]: I fully acknowledge my ontological debt to you for the “first cause,” and no other (the Church of Teleology of Multiplex Unity notwithstanding.
To [redacted]: English Historian Arnold J. Toynbee remarked that historians several centuries from now will not consider the most significant event of the 20th century to be any of the World Wars but rather the influence of Buddhism on Western culture (though Buddhist philosophy may be alien to your worldview). Best, Richard
Our Hope for the Future: “Our only real hope for the future is whatever we may have for the past.” Mega Society member – Richard May [Email received June 26, 2004 – one-liner]
Even the pinnacle of biological life, perhaps the cockroach, is only a temporary evolutionary transitional link to emerging cyber-informational life forms, which are beyond the conceptual capacities of any biological life forms. These new evolutionary life forms are emerging now before the eyes of the earlier biological organisms, unrecognized and uncomprehended.
Ultimately, the cosmos will be colonized not by various “intelligent” biological species, but by informational organisms. The internet today is the primordial planetary cyber-sea of these new emerging cyber-informational organisms. What we call “spam” and “viruses”, perhaps equally “created in the image of God,” will ultimately supersede us, achieving evolutionary hegemony throughout the cosmos.
I’ve never met anyone like you before, the Prince said to himself. The Princess was in complete agreement, saying that she had never met anyone like herself either. After a chronon or two in each other’s presence the Princess and the Prince unfortunately came to what passed for their senses. Sadly they finally stopped doing drugs, both recreational and psychotropic pharmaceuticals, and even worse stopped consuming endless amounts of sucrose; experienced an immediate and disturbing reduction in their reality deficit disorders; awaked from the delusional dreams of Western culture, only to discover that neither was a Princess nor a Prince at all, nor even a person.
The “Princess” was actually an empty mirror attached to the wall of a room. Immediately opposite this mirror was another mirror, which had dreamed it was a “Prince.” When the room was filled with people, the mirrors reflected what passed before them, causing them to identify with the passing drama of those others who also thought that they were actual people. But when the room was empty, the two opposing mirrors each reflected, and even mirrored, each other with perfect, but depthless, fidelity; empty mirrors looking into each other eternally, or until someone turned off the lights.
The following dream segment occurred after listening to an interview with a South African (originally Jewish) physician who has been initiated into African shamanism, which he now combines with his practice of allopathic medicine. I was having some unmemorable ordinary dream, when suddenly I found myself tightly surrounded by solid substance of some sort, as if encased in cement. I was momentarily surprised and quite annoyed, but then realized within the dream that I was dreaming and was then able to escape. At the point of self-awareness of one’s dreaming condition within the dream, it had become by definition a lucid dream.
In my dream I interpreted my condition of being encased in solid matter as meaning that I was having an OBE (out of body experience). Allegedly when people have OBEs in the dream state (I mean if such phenomena actually occur), they often travel in their “dream body” downward through the bed and floor, rather than float above theirbodies over the bed. Hence, apparently I incorporated my “knowledge” of this into my dream of an OBE.
I see no reason to believe that I had a genuine OBE, if such OBEs even actually are possible. Apparently I had a lucid dream, which was also an ordinary wish-fulfillment dream, focused upon the possibility of having an OBE while sleeping.
I don’t think I’ve created my “dream body” yet, as the Dalai Lama calls it. Creation of one’s “dream body” is supposedly necessary before one’s consciousness can leave one’s body during sleep. Do you then go to the gym in your dream body to work out?
In Tibetan Buddhism lucid dreaming is considered to be the beginning of the formation of one’s dream body. Now if only I could learn to become lucid in the ordinary so-called waking state!
Will man eventually create God with technology, not merely psyche and myth? Is the purpose or destiny of homo sapiens to construct theo computatis, God not in psyche and myth alone, but in atomic computing nanochips technology? Are we the soon-to-be-missing links in the evolution of an artificial-intelligence-based God?
The Tav is a bit of delusion manifested in the technology of dreams, a symphony crystallized into mathematical logic and then distilled again into a cloud of souls silently passing over world after world. The Aleph of Borges was to space as eternity was to time. The Tav is to consciousness as eternity is to time and as the Aleph was to space.
The Tav is a sort of time machine, without the machine or the time, a DMT trip without the drugs or the hallucinations. It can be tuned as one tunes the bands of an ordinary radio, changing from station to station, music to music, program to program; But with the Tav literally moving from world to world, time-place to time-place, life form to life form, consciousness to consciousness, moment to moment. One can tune each of the dimensions of location in time, spatial location and the dimension of biological, cybernetic or hyper-dimensional energetic consciousness independently of the others.
A transfinite analogue of a co-ordinate search engine explores the non-local quantum matrix underlying the level of physical reality at various degrees of hyper-dimensionality. When a certain specific non-local data point is defined by a sufficient number of bits of information, then one’s mindstream, or an emulation of it, is instantaneously transferred, independently of distance in time and space, by quantum-entanglement based teleportation to that “point.” One’s mindstream emulation then “descends” from the quantum non-local matrix into the mindstream associated with that specific spatio-temporal location of the Multiverse, if any mindstream exists there. If not one becomes insentient, either temporarily or permanently.
The first explorers who stumbled upon the Tav simply vanished into non-existence from the reference frame of the world in which they had once stood. They made the mistake of randomly adjusting one or more of the tuning dials, only to find themselves transformed into the vacuum of space, itself, between the stars, part of a mountainside on some ancient unknown planet or giant lizard-like creature copulating or being devoured with or by some other equally revolting life forms. Their instantaneous fate was utterly unknown and unknowable, even to themselves.
Later those left behind in the various worlds in which the Tav simultaneously existed, eventually learned the importance of carefully pre-programming the Tav to insure one’s safe return, as whatever sort of conscious life form one had been before, and to the same time, place and world. Perhaps in less than a minute one had momentarily been an immense conscious quantum computer of an unimaginably advanced civilization on a world in an undiscovered galaxy, then a squid-like creature being eaten by a sort of fish more fearsome than a shark, a radiant ancient plasma life form living in the corona of a red giant, Cleopatra in the throes of orgasm by the Nile, only then to become some sort of mother lizard with a 300-plus IQ, lovingly watching her eggs hatch in a lagoon of a world of ineffable strangeness.
This and the three short pieces on the following page are reprinted fromYarnspinners &Wordweavers, Volume 1, Issue 3, 02/15/06 <http://www.redenginepress.com/Newsletter0202.pdf>, by permission of the author.
Born near the rarified regions of Laputa, then and often, above Boston, U.S.A., during the Year of the Monkey, a Piscean, a cerebrotonic ectomorph and ailurophile, occasionally I’ve strived to descend from the mists to attain the mythic orientation known as having one’s feet upon Earth. Kafka and Munch have been my therapists and allies. A paper tiger with letters after my name, I’ve been awarded an M.A. degree, mirabile dictu, in the humanities by Cal.State, a U.S. patent for a board game of possible interest to ET’s and attained I.S.P.E. Diplomate-dropout status. An Amish yuppie, I’ve been a member of Mensa, the Prometheus Society, Mega, Omega and the Aleph-3 and done both consulting and Sisyphean shlepping. As founder of the Aleph, itself, and the renowned Laputans Manque, I’m a biographee in Marquis’ Who’s Who in the Brane World; interested in the philosophia perennis and the realization of the idea of humans as incomplete beings who can and should complete their own evolution by effecting a change in their being and consciousness. At a moment when I see Richard May’s non-being, ‘I’ am.
Certainly by adolescence, if not before my conception, I observed that I was actually several colonies of ‘moles’, when in a state of unusual unity. In order to safeguard my privacy, using undetectable nanocameras, I actually recorded myself spying on my selves and passing along the secrets about my selves to my selves over a period of many years. Hence, the theoretical possibility of my mere paranoia had certainly been disproved.
At first I was deeply concerned with the implications for me of this high-level breach of Personal security by me. But it became apparent that my client selves were at best completely incapable of learning anything from the deepest ontological secrets I caught myself passing along to them.
So I initiated an extremely covert strategic program of concealing my greatest secrets by leaving them right out in the open, where I was certain that I would never notice them. Of course, in order to permanently secure my freedom, it was necessary to place myself in preventive detention for an indefinite period and not to allow myself to represent myself legally or in any other sense, even momentarily.
After so many years of striving I finally became a blind rodent, incessantly gnawing its way through a limitless garbage heap, contemplating its own sublimity; listening with resentment to the gnawing sounds of its blind fellows nearby.
Homo sapiens is a primitive species whose primary activity is internecine tribal warfare and whose secondary activity is destruction of the ecosystem. Obviously human wisdom and compassion have not evolved as rapidly as the intelligence associated with technology and weaponry. Maybe for this reason “human stupidity” actually has survival value for our species. If the mean absolute I.Q. were 150 rather than 100, and if there were no correspondingly increased levels of wisdom and compassion, then perhaps we would have eradicated our species from the planet.
Is stupidity, itself, the long awaited but unrecognized Messiah?
Universe had no unique beginning. Instead, they [Hawking and Hartog] argue, it began in just about every way imaginable (and maybe some that aren’t). Out of this profusion of beginnings, the vast majority withered away without leaving any real imprint on the Universe we know today. Only a tiny fraction of them blended to make the current cosmos.
—from an article called “Hawking rewrites history . . . backwards—to understand the Universe we must start from the here and now ,” by Philip Ball.
I’ve always suspected that both atheists and theists were partially correct and now also perhaps to degrees varying over time. Presumably some proportion of the Multiverse beginnings were entirely naturalistic, occurring according to various physicalistic M-Brane scenarios, which for convenience we may call uncircumcised M-Branes origins. The remaining unknown proportion of the Multiverse beginnings occurred according to every conceivable and inconceivable theistic scenario. Some Multiverse beginnings were Created by Osiris, others by Zeus, others by Ahura Mazda, yet other Multiverse beginnings were Created by the adorable Yahweh, which for convenience we may refer to as circumcised M-Brane origins.
Perhaps in a sense the Gnostics were correct, the universe, actually a Quasi-Creation, neither fully Created nor arising by pure chance alone, is a botched job, as if Created by the idiotic Demiurge, not the work of one God. No one was responsible for the final product, no one was accountable, as if a Cosmic government committee, consisting of both mathematical Strings and every conceivable and inconceivable god, had been running the show. Instead of the Multiverse being a Pythagorean symphony on Strings in the mind of God, it is the product of an infinite but entirely unrehearsed orchestra, the composition of which varies over time.
I once wrote that our only real hope for the ‘future’ is whatever hope we have for the ‘past’! But Hawking and Hartog (who are obviously socialists possessed by Satan) don’t go far enough, because the ‘initial’ moment of both naturalistic origin of the universe and of Creation by pantheon is continual, unending and on-going now, not a unique now-point in some hypothetical ‘past’!
This ‘topdown’ view of Hawking and Hertzog that the present selects the past and that quantum mechanics forbids a single history will eventually lead to the development of new art forms and new academic disciplines, such as top-down autobiographies and top-down approaches to psychology and history, based upon macro-levelapproximations to summation of all paths! But is sum-over-history a path with a heart?
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has revised its estimate of the effect of human activity on climate downward by 25%, but the Panel still predicts a rise in global temperature of 8 degrees F by the end of this century, and notes that CO2 production has accelerated since its previous report in 2001.
So-called climate change is simply a precursor of the recent election of Democrats to Congress in the U.S. Al Qaeda is behind any “climate change” and preventing the Iraqis from becoming Texans. Even discussion of the possibility of climate change is a victory for the terrorists. If there really is climate change, America and lovers of freedom should stay the course!
According to the One-and-Only-One True Revelation, the entire surface of the Earth, and even below the surface to a considerable depth, was given forever by the Landlord to the Chosen Bacteria. Even today, unnoticed amidst the Arabs and the Jews, bacteria continue to live quietly and worship in their Holy Land, according to their ancient traditions.
Only the Chosen Bacteria have received a Revelation of
Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you, Your elders and they will tell you. –Deuteronomy 32:7
Truth is the safest lie. –Yiddish proverb
What do I have in common with the Jews? I don’t even have anything in common with myself. –Franz Kafka
Dear Rabbi Betrueger,
Thank you for helping me to obtain the genealogical work Americans of Jewish Descent, by Rabbi Malcolm H. Stern, Ph.D., from the library of the Temple Beth Zion. Thank you especially for allowing me to take it out of the library.
My great grandfather was a yarmulke-wearing jeweler in Boston, Mass. (Charles May and Son Company). But Father, who almost never spoke of this, hastened to add that we were not Jews. Great Grandfather “just pretended” to be a Jew in order to “fool the Jews.” (Father may have been told this by his father who was his only parent after an early age.)
That was Father’s only statement of religious identity ever that I can recall. We weren’t Jews. Not that he ever claimed that we were Lutherans or German Catholics. (Nor did he deny that we had been Muslims or Hindus!)
Father also added that Charles looked very Jewish. So Charles would hardly have required a yarmulke to have a Jewish appearance for whatever reason. I later learned that my grandfather was also a jeweler. But he was only said to have had “a business.”
Death notices in the newspaper said that Charles had been a wholesale jeweler. Curiously no photographs of Grandfather remained for me to see, although he lived till early 1949.
Jewish genealogical sources have told me that there were many Jews with the surname “May” in the region of Germany where my ancestors originated, Giessen in the Rheinland in the state of Hessen. I thought that a town such as Giessen seemed an unlikely place of origin for Jews, who would have been in large cities such as Berlin or Frankfurt. But I have been informed that there are several people researching the subject of Jews in Giessen on the Jewishgen, the largest on-line Jewish genealogical service. Genealogical research (with the help of a professional Jewish genealogist among others) has revealed that my great great grandfather, who was born ca.1811, probably in the Hessen, was named Ferdinand May or possibly Ferdinand Mayer. I thought that the given name “Ferdinand” sounded neither Germanic nor Jewish, but I was mistaken. In the article in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia on the Jewish MAY family, the given name “Ferdinand” occurs throughout. Moreover there is a reference to a “Memoir and Genealogy of Ferdinand Mayer, 1832-1971” in the list of 8000 Jewish surnames published in Finding Our Fathers by Dan Rottenberg. “Ferdinand” is also listed as a Jewish surname.
Ferdinand May, with his wife and seven children, left the Hessen (Germany) in March of 1853 and took up residence at Number 3 New Street Bishopsgate Street in London, England–which coincidentally, of course, was one of the very best places to be a Jew in the mid 19th century.
I was able to obtain a complete copy of Ferdinand May’s English naturalization papers of 1856, by which he applied for and was granted English citizenship. These papers included the testimony of four character witnesses who swore that he was a good fellow who loved England and the Queen. Obviously these four were among Ferdinand May’s most trusted friends and associates in his adopted country. Their names were as follows: Morris Hart, Henry Levin, Benjamin Cohen, and David Israel! Coincidentally all four names were “Jewish,” during a time in which Jews were more separate from the non-Jewish world than they are today. I suppose that Father might have claimed that they were “just pretending” to be Jews in order to “fool the Jews,” if there actually were any real (non-pretending) Jews to fool!
In the words of a member of the congregation of the Temple Beth Zion upon hearing this, I am a “Jew by my Father’s side”. (I may also be a “born Jew under the law” through my mother’s mother, Florence Crane, who was an orphan whose daughter, my mother, was also an orphan. But that is another, more fragmented tale.) So, indeed, I think that my ancestors “fooled the Jews,” and I was among the Jews who were “fooled” (through apostasy, intermarriage, assimilation, and denial of Jewish identity).
Eventually I hope to obtain a copy of Ferdinand May’s death record from England and to learn the names of his parents and maybe discover a Hebraic family name. Also I would like to learn if the family surname was originally “Mayer” in Germany.
How does one obtain a kippah?
Respectfully,
Richard W. MayGenealogical Discoveries
Initially I did not realize the significance of the London street addresses on Ferdinand’s naturalization papers. Ferdinand’s address at that time was Bishopsgate Street. His character witnesses’ addresses were as follows: Mr. Levin’s address was also Bishopsgate Street, David Israel’s was on Whitechapel, Morris Hart’s (a dealer in foreign fruit) was also on Whitechapel, and Benjamin Cohen’s (a commission agent) was at Bevis Marks Saint Mary Avenue. Each of these addresses is in London’s East End, i.e., the well-known Jewish quarter!
Later the May family moved to13 Wilson St., near the Clerkenwell area, which is noted for its Jewish watchmakers (London and Its Peoples: A Social History from the Medieval Period to the Present Day, by John Richardson). According to the 1863 London street directory three doors down at 16 Wilson St. was Reuben Levy and Company, wholesale watch manufacturers. It is not unlikely that Charles learned the art of watch making here.
On the English naturalization papers in 1856 of Ferdinand May in London he states explicitly that he is substituting Declarations in lieu of Oaths in accordance with an Act of Parliament passed in the sixth year of his late Majesty William the Fourth, which permitted the abolition of unnecessary Oaths. I thought that this was a strange concern until I learned the following: In 1851 David Salomons was elected M.P. for Greenwich, took his seat without taking the Oath and was fined 500 pounds sterling. In 1858 a Jewish Oath Bill was passed by Parliament permitting Jews to sit. Baron Lionel de Rothschild became the first Jewish M.P., after having been twice elected by the City of London as their member and not allowed to take his seat (from The History Of The Jews In London, by Adler, page 238, Chronological Annals, Jewish Publication Society).
I wondered what was going on here regarding Jews and oaths. Was my ancestor’s statement regarding oaths being no longer necessary a matter that would be of concern to an observant Jew? Then I learned that while the Talmud doesn’t absolutely prohibit the swearing of an oath it advises, “Whether you are right or wrong, never take an oath.” Avoidance of oath taking based upon the Talmud has continued even to the present (The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, page 261). So my suspicions seemed to be confirmed.
Charles May and Son Company was a wholesale jewelry business founded by Charles in the late 19th century. He was listed in a Boston, Mass. business directory by 1866 (one year after his immigration to the U.S.A.) as a watchmaker. According to the 1861 London census, Charles had learned to practice the trade of watch making by age sixteen.
Charles May and Son Company, which was located at 373 Washington St., Boston, Mass., at the corner of Bromfield St., was incorporated in Massachusetts in 1912. The corporation was not legally dissolved until 1943. Indeed, Charles worked there until he was in his eighties, according to his death record. William May, his son, was president of the corporation. The treasurer was Walter Stanley Campbell, his son-law. To my surprise the family business was apparently listed on the stock exchange. Charles’ will of 1924 and the codicil of 1926 referred to shares of common and preferred stock in Charles May and Son Company.
Charles May, his wife, their two daughters and a son-in-law are buried in a common plot in a non-sectarian cemetery in Boston, Mass. with no religious symbols (such as crosses, stars of David or Hebrew writing) on their graves. As the Deists compared G-d with a watchmaker, maybe in this case the watchmaker became a Deist?
In March of 1853 Ferdinand “May,” accompanied by his wife and seven children, arrived in London, England, having departed from Giessen in the State of the Hessen. Giessen was the chief city of the upper Hessen. It had a university and at least two synagogues. (Germany did not exist as a unified nation until 1871.) Prior to this in what is now Germany the family surname had been Mayer (Meyer), since 1809 when Jews in the Hessen adopted surnames. Before 1809 in the Hessen most but not all Jews used patronymic names. Spelling was not standardized in the early 19th century. Hence, a name could have several spellings, which were all considered equivalent and none incorrect. So Mayer was equivalent to Meyer (among other variants) and both often occurred on the same record or document.
Charles May’s name on his Giessen birth record was Siegfried Karl Mayer, certainly sounding more Germanic than “Jewish”. Charles on American vital records gave his mother’s name as Catherine May. This certainly doesn’t sound very Jewish. Her name in England was Kettchen May. In Germany her name was Kaetchen Mayer. Her maiden surname was Landauer. So Catherine May was Kaetchen Landauer Mayer!
Finally after three years of research I found the smoking yarmulke. On 18 November 1863 Rosalie May, age 24, Ferdinand’s daughter (Charles’ oldest sibling) married Louis Heim, the son of Jacob Heim who was a synagogue reader, at 13 Wilson Street, London, England (where both were living). The marriage was officiated over by Dr. Nathan Marcus Adler, the Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue. The marriage certificate adds that the marriage was performed according to the “rites and ceremonies of the Jewish religion.” Indeed, until only very recently in England only Jews could be legally married in their homes, whereas gentiles could be married only at a Civil Registry (justice of the peace) or in a house of worship.
A death notice in the Jewish Chronicle of 16 November 1894, says “On 10th November, Kattchen May of 23 Penn Road Villas, N., aged 83, mother of William May of Finsbury Park, and George May of Highbury New Park.” The United Synagogue burial records for Kattchen May list her status as “member of East Ham”. “East Ham” refers to the East Ham Synagogue in East London. The United Synagogue burial records for Ferdinand May list his status as “stranger”! There was no death notice in the Jewish Chronicle for Ferdinand May.
Ferdinand Mayer’s professions as listed on the birth records of his seven children who were born in Giessen were as follows: wine dealer, restaurant owner, businessman/trader, liquor manufacturer (which, incidentally, was considered a respectable profession and not prohibited by Jewish law), and businessman/merchant. On his London death record, English naturalization papers, census records and in London commercial directories in the 1860s he was said to be a hotel proprietor (“private hotel keeper”). Commercial directories also listed “Ferdinand May: watch maker” and “Ferdinand May, 13 Wilson St.: commission agent”. “Commission agent” was generally in Victorian London a gentile term for bookmaker of the gambling variety!
Ferdinand MEYER (Mayer) is listed on a register of citizens from Giessen (which spanned the years 1770-1898) as follows:
Ferdinand MEYER Born: 25 March 1812 in Nierstein Religion: Jewish Profession: wine dealer Received as a citizen 15 May 1838 as per order of the district council.
Nierstein is well known for its wines, hence Ferdinand’s profession. Receiving citizenship was a step taken in preparation for his imminent marriage.
The Giessen citizenship register (1770-1898) had the following information on Ferdinand’s father-in-law, Isaak Simon LANDAUER:
Isaak Simon LANDAUER Born: 7 January 1775 in Rohrbach (Baden) Religion: Jewish Profession: merchant
Isaak Simon Landauer and his wife (name not given) were granted citizenship in Giessen on 2 April 1833.
Jewish vital records were, and in fact still are, kept separate from gentile vital records in the Giessen archives. Oddly, it is here in the separate Jewish-records section where my May ancestral records of the MAYERs and the LANDAUERs were located.
The civil marriage record of Ferdinand Mayer in Giessen stated that Ferdinand Mayer, local citizen, twenty-six years old, and Kaetchen, twenty-six years old, daughter of the local citizen Isaak Simon LANDAUER from here (Giesssen), were married on 5 June 1838. The witnesses were Simon LOEB and Salomon HEICHELHEIM from Giessen. The civil marriage record referenced the Rabbi’s certificate, but did not give the name of the Rabbi who officiated at the marriage.
Ferdinand’s birth record is in French, because Napoleon occupied that area of the Hessen at the time of his birth, which occurred on 26 February 1812 in Nierstein (very near Oppenheim) on the Rhine river. His father was Guillaume (Wilhelm) MAYER, aged forty-two, a tradesman by profession. His mother was Julienne (or Juliette) MAYER. Initially it appeared that her maiden name was also Mayer (Jewish marriages to relatives, including cousins, were quite common and in accordance with Jewish law). But her maiden name was actually Juliette Hamburg.
Ferdinand and Kettchen May are buried in the West Ham Cemetery (a Jewish cemetery) in East London. On Ferdinand’s head stone the Hebrew inscription says: “Niftar Erev Shabat Kodesh” (Died on the Eve of the Holy Sabbath) “Kaf Bet” (22 Adar, the 22nd day of the month of Adar) “Taf Resh Nun” = 650, that is, the year 5650 on the Jewish calendar, which corresponds to Friday, 14 March 1890.
Nizkor et masoret hadorot, v’nishzor bah et sarigay chayeynu. (Recalling the generations, we weave our lives into the tradition.) –from The Book of Blessings, by Marcia Falk
Note on Not Being Irish
On 13 March 1911, near the time of a full moon and four days before St. Patrick’s day, my grandfather, Hiram Porter McGinnis, a Scots-Irish farmer and great grandson of a Revolutionary War soldier, returned to his home at Cold Spring Park, Crown Point, N.Y., apparently drunk, and shot his second wife (my grandmother, Florence Crane McGinnis) through the left lung. He then shot himself through the heart, after first unlocking the door to their dwelling to prevent any property damage when the authorities arrived. Both died.
Florence had apparently been sifting flour in the pantry at the time, according to the coroner’s inquest report, a document not often mentioned in genealogy. These events were witnessed by my mother who was six years old and her younger brother. Both watched outside, looking in a window. An infant slept nearby.
Hiram was sixty-one years old at the time, whereas Florence, who had initially been Hiram’s adopted daughter, had just turned twenty-nine two days before, according to their death records. Hiram’s first wife, perhaps aptly named “Sophia” (wisdom), had driven a horse and buggy off a pier and subsequently drowned, according to the anecdotal report of a cousin.
Hence, we weren’t Irish, as we weren’t Jewish. I was only told that Mother’s maiden name was Crane, and that she had been an orphan and did not know the names of her parents. (“Truth is the safest lie.”)
Note Explaining “kippah”
Kippah is the Hebrew word for yarmulke. The word yarmulke is of Yiddish/Polish origin. (Somewhere in the Talmud it is stated that a man shall not walk four paces without covering his head. Apparently one to three paces was permissible. The sages did not interpret this to apply only to bald men. The purpose of the kippah was to remind the wearer that G-d is above.)
Related Reading
Suddenly Jewish: Jews Raised As Gentiles Discover Their Jewish Roots, by Barbara Kessel
Remember the days of old, Consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you, Your elders and they will tell you. –Deuteronomy 32:7
Truth is the safest lie. –Yiddish proverb What do I have in common with the Jews? I don’t even have anything in common with myself. –Franz Kafka
Obsession: How Many Ancestors Danced Under a Yarmulke?
I am the great grandson of a yarmulke-wearing Boston jeweler. He looked very Jewish, but was, of course, a gentile. My father assured me that we weren’t Jewish. We just wore yarmulkes. Or some of us did, back then. Didn’t most gentiles?
Incredibly I never questioned this until recently. How could one question ones father about his identity? (How could one identify with ones family?) How could we be Jews (or Christians, for that matter)? How could I be the other? How could I not be the other?
And, as in an indirect proof in Euclidean geometry, if one assumes the truth of the premise of my father’s tale, i.e., that we were not Jewish, then contradictions and absurdities follow. But if one assumes the negation of his premise, i.e., that we were, in fact, Jewish, then every consequence is plausible.
How probable is it that a gentile could, merely by wearing a yarmulke, “fool” the turn-of-the-century immigrant Jewish community in Boston, Massachusetts, as to his status as an (presumably) observant Jew? And, perhaps, more importantly, why would he do so, even if he could?
The fundamental assumption of my father’s narrative that my great grandfather wore a yarmulke “to fool the Jews”, that is, the Jewish clientele of the family jewelry business, seems to be absurdly flawed. Even if one were to assume that Jews bought jewelry exclusively from Jewish jewelers (never from gentile jewelers) and that they completely ignored free market considerations, such as price differences, what percentage of the population in Boston was Jewish in the period from 1890 to 1930? (Between 1877-1879 the first census of American Jews conducted by the Union of Hebrew Congregations determined that only 0.6 percent of the population in the Northeast was Jewish.) Probably Jews comprised less than 2 percent of the population, i.e., most prospective clients of any jeweler would be gentiles by a ratio of more than forty-nine to one! (In Boston Irish Catholics may have predominated.) Unless, of course, the Jewish 1or 2 percent of the population of that time period in Boston spent more money on jewelry than the non-Jewish 98 or 99 percent of the population! This seems exceedingly unlikely. I have never even heard this claimed as a stereotype. And, of course, a jeweler who wore a yarmulke would risk alienating the prospective clients who were of the 98 or 99 percent gentile majority or at least the anti-Semitic ones. So, wherein would consist the business advantage of a gentile jeweler impersonating a Jew in a predominantly gentile milieu, even if he could do so successfully?
According to my research, a Reform Jew of the classical period in question would not have worn a yarmulke ever. A non-Orthodox Jew who wore a yarmulke would have been a Conservative Jew. But a Conservative Jew would have worn a yarmulke only when praying or studying sacred texts (What Is a Jew, by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer; ThePerennial Dictionary of World Religions, Keith Krim, General Editor) And a Conservative Jew was more likely to be of Eastern European origin, rather than German. Only a male Orthodox Jew wore a yarmulke continuously throughout his waking hours, including his work.
Hence, I conclude that great grandfather was seemingly either a German Orthodox Jew who wore a yarmulke in his business or a gentile who impersonated an Orthodox Jew, because allegedly this conferred some mysterious business advantage that he would not enjoy if he were perceived as a gentile. But would not a turn-of-the-century Orthodox Jew be precisely the most difficult variety of Jew for a gentile to impersonate? Rather, why not impersonate a German Reform Jew, who would have been a much easier study to pass as? But no, a Reform Jew of the era would not have worn a yarmulke ever, even when praying or studying sacred texts, certainly not at work. Even in the seemingly unlikely case that at that time and place it was somehow essential to be Jewish to prosper in the Jewelry business, since great grandfather “looked and sounded very Jewish,” according to Father, then his wearing a yarmulke would have been rather superfluous, if its sole purpose was deception. Ockham’s razor may also be tentatively applied here. Given various possible explanations for an occurrence, which are all equally supported by the evidence, the simplest explanation is to be preferred as the most probable. Doesn’t it seem more internally consistent and logical to conclude that my great grandfather wore a yarmulke in his jewelry business, because he was an Orthodox Jew?
Oddly, grandfather was never mentioned as having worn a yarmulke, only great grandfather. The implication by omission was that he had not worn one. During this period of history the number, relative percentage in the population, and the financial status of Jews in the Northeast were all increasing. Hence, their buying power was also increasing. So, if it had been necessary for great grandfather to wear a yarmulke at work in his business in order to “fool the Jews,” why would not this stratagem of deception have been continued by his son? Grandfather, who was an elementary school dropout, worked in the family jewelry business with his yarmulke-wearing father, even as an adolescent. How could it be possible that the son of an Orthodox Jew (who wore a yarmulke at work) wore no yarmulke, as they worked side by side? Great grandfather and grandfather were either Jews or imposters as Father alleged. Imposters, in order to pass as Jews, would necessarily have emulated what actual (in this case Orthodox) Jews would have done. In either case grandfather would also necessarily have worn a yarmulke, although, I think, probably only as a young man, before he assimilated. But maybe to admit this would have brought the “Jewishness” too close to my father, i.e., his own father had also worn a yarmulke.
It was suggested to me that at the turn-of-the-century the wholesale jewelry business may have been controlled by Jews. Hence, in order for a retail jeweler to obtain a “good deal” from a wholesale jeweler, it might have been necessary for him to be a Jew. If, in fact, this had been the case, then theoretically it could explain the case of a gentile, who was a retail jeweler, pretending to be a Jew in order to obtain the best possible price from the Jewish wholesale jeweler. This possibility never occurred to me. And I could think of no convincing refutation of the argument. But it did not fit with my father’s explanation that the Jewish customers accepted my great grandfather as a Jew. Years later I learned that we had noproblem dealing with the wholesale jewelers. In fact my great grandfather was a wholesale jeweler. He was also, as I correctly inferred, an Orthodox Jew (who had for the most part assimilated).
I learned that German Jews of that period were generally middle class business owners or professionals, whereas the immigrant eastern European Jews tended to have been much poorer. Many of them had lived in the Lower East Side of New York City and had worked for very low wages in the garment district, under deplorable conditions. But on the extremely rare occasions when father spoke of this, he implied that the Jews were very wealthy. Even more strangely, I discovered that we were the Jews of whom he spoke, no doubt extremely wealthy!
I also learned that Charles May had an aunt on his mother’s side, who was from the Goldschmidt family of Bad Hamburg, a very prominent family of Court Jews or Hof Jueden, as they were called in German. And, he had an uncle, Rabbi Dr. Benedikt Samuel Levi, also on his mother’s side, who was the Chief Rabbiof the Grand Duchy of the Hessen! Doubtless, all were “just pretending” to be Jews, in order to “fool the Jews”! But, Father certainly met the Nazis’ criterion for being a Jew, i.e., that of having at least one Jewish grandparent. And, perhaps, so did I, depending upon the identity of descent of Charles’ wife Millie May nee’ Laster or other genealogical ambiguities.
Yizkor (Remembrance)
Charles May’s father was Ferdinand Mayer. Ferdinand’s grandfather, Abraham Mayer, his wife’s father, Isaak Simon Landauer, and both of her grandfathers, Simon Abraham Landauer, and Salomon Michel from Gelnhausen, were protected Jews (Schutzjueden or vergleideter Jueden), a phrase whose meaning was unknown to me. The precise meaning of this term varied with the particular historical context. Jews did not have the full rights of citizenship in the various states which now comprise Germany, until varying dates in the 19th century. Generally, a protected Jew was one who could afford to pay an exorbitant Jew tax (Schutzgelt or protection money) to obtain a letter of protection (Schutzbrief or Geleit) for a specified period of time from the local secular authorities at various levels of government, which allowed him and his family to settle in a particular area or city and practice a profession or to set up a business or to trade there. Those who could not afford to pay to obtain discriminatory protection by or from the local baron or authorities were known as unprotected Jews (unvergleideter Jueden) or, more often, simply as Jewish beggars (Betteljueden), who were forced to wander the locality living on charity or to work for a protected Jew. In some cases only a protected Jew could obtain permission to marry. A religious marriage of an unprotected Jew would not be recognized by the local secular authorities. The number of Jews granted protected status was limited in order to restrict the growth of the Jewish population in the area. (Sources: the Jewishgen archives)
Abraham Mayer (Meyer), who was born with the patronymic name Abraham the son of Meyer, lived in (Frankfurt-) Hedderdheim at least as early as 1765,according to a Muster List. He married Theresia Philippina Hess, the daughter of Isaak Hess who died in Heppenheim, and Babett, whose maiden surname is unknown. (The surname “Hess” is an Ashkenazic name which means someone originally from the state of the Hessen, Germany, according to the previously mentioned book by Dan Rottenberg.) Theresia was born in 1724 and lived one hundred years, dying in 1824! The Mayers moved to Mannheim sometime after 1778. In 1779 Abraham Mayer is listed as being freed from making payments as a protected Jew in Heddernheim. No longer being required to make the payments implied that he had become poor by this time. His daughter’s death record states that he was a merchant in Mannheim while still alive. Hence, it is likely that he died in Mannheim.
Abraham and Theresia Philipinna Mayer had seven children according to a (Nierstein) Muster List of 1817. David (the son of ) Abraham was born in 1760 and nothing else is known. Meyer was born in 1761 and he went to Holland. Judas was born in 1763 and remained in Mannheim. Judith was born in 1763 or 1765 and died in 1838 in Nierstein. She married Benedickt Bloom in 1788 and went to Nierstein. Wilhelm, Ferdinand’s father, was born in 1767 and it is not known when or where he died. Presumably both Wilhelm and his wife, Juliette, lived until at least 1826, since neither is referred to as deceased on the 1826 death record of their daughter, Babet. Hirsch was born in 1764 or 1768 and died in 1834.He went to Ober-Ingelheim and changed his name to Phillip Mayer. His first wife was Schoenchen, daughter of David Feist. His second wife was Esther, daughter of Samuel Loeb. She became known as Therese. Finally, Jacob was born in 1770 and he went to Mainz.
In 1796 Wilhelm Mayer married Juliette Hamburg, who was born in 1770 and was from Frankfurt. His profession or business was trade. In 1817 in Nierstein his wealth or assets was listed as 1000.florin. He also possessed two tillage gardens. Wilhelm and his family, including Theresia Philippina, the widow of Abraham Mayer, left Mannheim for Nierstein sometime between 1805 and July of 1809. They had ten children of whom Ferdinand was the youngest, according to the 1817 Nierstein Muster List. Therese was born in 1797. Maximilian was born in 1799 and died after 1864. Max Mayer and his family were granted permission to settle in Frankfurt in 1835, according to an 1864 application to start his own wine dealership or wine store in Frankfurt (at the age of sixty-five). Margaretha was born in 1800. Babet (probably named after her great grandmother, Philippina’s mother) was born in 1801 in Mannheim and died unmarried at age twenty-four in 1826 in Nierstein. Simon was born in Mannheim at the end of 1802 and died in Frankfurt on 8 November 1883, at 81 years old, a widower, living in Frankfurt am Main, Jewish and, independently wealthy, according to his death certificate. He had a son named Maximilian who was a merchant. He was married to a Catherine Salomon who may have been his second wife. Friederich was born in 1807 in Mannheim and died in 1826 in Nierstein at the age of nineteen. No wife is mentioned on his death certificate. Judith was born in 1800 or 1806. Henriette was born in 1810. (A Henriette Levi neé Mayer, the first wife of the Rabbi of the Province, Dr. Benedikt Samuel Levi, died on 22 December 1842 at age 36 in Giessen. The birth records for some of her children indicate that she was from Mannheim. At the time Ferdinand’s sister, Henriette Mayer, was born, the Mayer family was known to be still living in Mannheim. Henriette’s first child was named Samuel Wilhelm Levi, presumably after her father, Wilhelm Mayer. Ferdinand was a witness at the birth of the Rabbis and Henriette’s fourth child. Dr. Levi, who signed some documents as “Rabbi of the Grand Duchy Of the Hessen”, was a witness on the occasion of the birth of Ferdinand’s first son, Isidor Wilhelm Mayer, 6 December 1842. Hence, Rabbi Dr. Benedikt Samuel Levi’s wife was almost certainly Ferdinand’s sister Henriette Mayer. Senior Rabbi Dr. Levi, who was the son of Rabbi Samuel Wolf Levi, was born on 14 October 1806 in Worms and died in Giessen on 4 May 1899 at the age of 92 years. He was active as a Rabbi from 1829 through ca.1896. Dr. Levi had the title of “Grandducal Provincial Rabbi for the Province of Hessen.” Kaetchen Mayer nee’ Landauer’s paternal grandmother was Feile Levi of Giessen. Hence, it is not unlikely, given the Jewish practice at that time of marrying relatives, that Dr. Levi was also a blood relative of Ferdinand’s wife, Kaetchen.) Johanna, apparently also known as Jeanne, was born in 1809 or 1811 in Nierstein. Lastly Ferdinand was born on 26 February 1812 in Nierstein and died on 14 March 1890 in London, England.
Ferdinand Mayer and his wife, Kaetchen, had eight children, the first seven of whom were born in Giessen in the Hessen (Germany): Rosalie (whose marriage to Luis Heim was previously mentioned), born 4 March 1839; Friedericke Luise, born 5 February 1841; Isidor Wilhelm, born 6 December 1842; Siegfried Karl (“Charles”), born 14 December 1844; Emma, born 25 April 1848, married on 8 July 1880 at the Islington Registry Office (a civil marriage), aged 26, according to the certificate (daughter of Ferdinand May, independent) Charles Adolph Fieber, aged 41, a boot manufacturer (son of Carl Fieber, a merchant), in the 1881 London census at 42 Leicester Square a residence is listed with Charles A. Fieber, aged 42, boot maker, as the head of household, his wife named Emma, and boarders consisting of a Ferdinand May, aged 69, retired, and his wife, Katharine, aged 69, both born in Germany, a surgeon, born in Ireland, a young man with no occupation, born in Paris, and their nineteen year old servant girl; Georg, born 26 June 1850 (George May) lived in 1894 on Highbury New Park, London, a road of which a professional researcher (after checking the 1891 census) said, “looks like a very high class area – lots of servants“; Moritz, born 6 January 1853; and lastly Anna who was born in England ca.1854. It is interesting to note the complete absence of any Hebraic names for the children, possibly excepting “Anna.” It appears that only Charles emigrated from England to the U.S.A.
The following letter (translated from the German) was written by Ferdinand’s oldest brother, Maximilian Mayer, who was a merchant born in the Hessen in 1799, probably in Mannheim. It was written little more than two years after Ferdinand immigrated to London, England. It seems that Max was quite involved with the local Jewish community rather than assimilating and apostate, as was apparently the case for his youngest brother, Ferdinand. (To) the Mayor in Nierstein, Mr.Sandmann
Frankfurt, April 6, 1855
Dear Friend!
I previously answered your esteemed letter concerning the matter of the Synagogue in Nierstein; however, I wanted to wait for the right moment to introduce the likes of Dr. Stein, which I have also done but unfortunately without a favorable outcome, as he let it be known he could not do anything about the matter. This man is generally very bad-tempered because a lot was lost in this manner due to his sweeping reform. It is not advisable to appeal to other philanthropists at this moment, because due to the hard winter and high price of food these people will be very busy. Besides, it is inconceivable to me how the Jewish community, although poor, could sink so far as to be incapable of paying the trifling sum of the rent. It seems to me more a matter of indifference and negligence in regards to religious life, than good will. I am not speaking here about the old people who are not able to earn very much, but about the young men, who as I hear are able to support themselves pretty well. If they have any religious feeling whatsoever, could they truly not afford a small weekly contribution? Indeed they could and you will concur with me in this regard dear friend. Apart from that, I will notify you if I hear anything encouraging.
Live well, and please be assured of my esteem and friendship.
Yours truly,
Max Mayer
Reflection
I find some consolation in the fact that the eminent M.I.T. mathematician Norbert Wiener, the inventor of cybernetics, also did not know that he was Jewish! I learned this in an anthology of essays on Jewish topics, possibly the Jewish Almanac. Professor Wiener’s father was Jewish, but his mother was Episcopalian. His mother did not want her son to know that he was Jewish. So his father agreed to raise him without knowledge of his Jewish ancestry and culture. Lack of knowledge of his Jewish roots was especially ironic in Norbert Wiener’s case, because his father, who taught at Harvard, had written several acclaimed scholarly books on the Yiddish language!
Less than five years ago the only genealogy, which was known to me was that my father’s father was William. He was my only living grandparent at the time of my birth. William died on 3 January 1949 (two months before my fifth birthday), at age seventy-one. Although I met him, I have no memory of him. I have never seen a photograph of William.
Grandfather was an elementary school dropout who was said to have read a book per day. According to tradition, he had a very large vocabulary, corrected people’s grammar and spoke professorially. He was the son of Charles May And Son Company. He was also a violin player; a fiddler on the roof of the family wholesale jewelry business.
William’s death notice read as follows: Framingham News (Massachusetts), Wednesday, January 5, 1949, Deaths & Funerals: Private Services For William May – Private funeral services were conducted this afternoon by Rev. John O. Fisher of the First Parish Unitarian Church (emphasis added) for William May, 71, retired Boston jeweler of 141 Hollis St., who collapsed and died Monday morning, at Bigelow Chapel, Mt. Auburn, Cambridge. Cremation followed. (Perhaps it is interesting to note that cremation is prohibited under Jewish law.)
Arrangements were in charge of Hollander-Boyle Funeral Service. (Strangely, there is no mention that he was survived by three of his four children from his first marriage, by his grandchildren, and also by his second wife. At least I assume that she was his wife, although I never could find a record of their marriage.)
Later I discovered that William was named after his father’s (Charles’) oldest brother, Isidor Wilhelm. I further learned that the name “Isidor” was more or less equivalent to the name “Israel” in Jewish naming patterns. (Etymologically the name “Israel” means contender with G-d. “Israel” also refers to a common Jew who is neither a Levite nor a Cohen. During the Nazi regime, “Israel” was the name that all Jewish males in Germany were forced to take as a middle name on any official documents or identification. The mandate for compulsory given names for Jews began on 17 August 1938.)
Isidor Wilhelm was named after his own grandfather, Wilhelm Mayer, whose name at birth in ca.1767 (before Jews were required to take surnames) was the patronymic name “Wilhelm the son of Abraham”. So William, my grandfather, was named after an Israel Wilhelm who was, himself, named after a Wilhelm the son of Abraham!
But who was William? And who are we? Remembering with awareness of various levels of irony the response of Bodhidharma (the Indian monk who brought Buddhism from India to China) to King Wu’s question, “Who are you?” — “I don’t know”! What is our identity, if we awaken in the moment from the stories of our lives and the dreams of our culture? Why did I enter this incarnation as a Jew, by Reform criteria at least (my maternal line, consisting of orphans who are descended from orphans, does not lack ambiguity), without knowledge of this, stripped of so much of my heritage and cultural identity? In attempting to uncover my Jewish roots am I “undoing” a pattern of karma of my ancestors or laboring to “undo” my own pattern of karma from a previous life or another life in which I negated or denied my Jewish identity?
It is interesting to note that traditionally most groups in the ancient world traced their membership and descent patrilineally. The Jews (Israelites) were originally no exception to this rule, as is illustrated by various Biblical stories. The practice of including patrilineal descent as a determinant of identity is, of course, recognized and continued by Reform Jews and Reconstructionist Jews, even today. Between 200 C.E. – 300 C.E. (the precise date is unknown) the Jews changed to the principle of matrilineal descent. The change to matrilineal descent has been called an historic misinterpretation (from an academic rather than a religious perspective) of a certain Mishnaic rule (M. Qiddushin 3:12).
But, perhaps, I’m only a “homeopathic” Jew, not of pure stock? Do I need to have reverse rhinoplasty? No, being of Jewish descent is a lineage not a percentage, not a blood disorder, as the Nazis maintained. And, in any case, homeopathy teaches us that even a miniscule dosage can have a profound effect!
In response to popular demand, the enlightened master May-Tzu has
graciously consented to answer questions submitted by readers of Noesis.
Q: May-Tzu, what can you tell us about the “old country”?
May-Tzu: The Laputans found composing plays to be far too practical and randomness, itself, excessively ordered. Yet they accomplished the most complex tasks by seemingly random actions, which depended upon a perfect utilization of the butterfly effect. Before the concept of order or the measurement of time, it was not uncommon for Laputans to inhabit mirages, in order to better appreciate the more substantial world of illusion and shadow. Some dwelled invisibly in ancient cities which had long since vanished from the Earth.
Among the Laputans it was not considered true that a house built of metaphors was not as strong as a house built of straw. It had been said since time immemorial that a house built of metaphors was stronger than a house built of bricks and mortar. It’s not known if they meant this metaphorically or literally.
But it has been noted that the Laputans left no relics or artifacts of their past glory and were said to have had no shadows. This absence of evidence for the existence of the Laputans is, in fact, the most enduring monument to the greatness of their achievements.
The Laputan space program attempted to determine the location of their ancestral planet, Earth. There was no consensus among even the most pragmatic on how to determine which direction was “down,” in order to reach the Earth. But, as an expression of unity, their plan was to launch exploratory spacecraft at more or less random times from the island of Laputa in all possible directions. At some later time the astronauts planned to regroup somewhere and then construct a complete model of the cosmos on a larger scale than the cosmos itself, in order to gain precision.
Among the Laputans endurance breathing was considered a lifetime sport and one that they were truly motivated to play, usually on highly competitive endurance breathing teams, but sometimes in solitude among the clouds. The games were, of course, televised 24 – 7. But often the uninitiated had difficulty differentiating sportsmen from spectators. The games continued until everyone within range of camera deceased either of old age or from the intense excitement of the sports competition itself.
Viruses and bacteria were honored as homeless beings seeking food and shelter and as great spiritual teachers. Laputans abhorred any use of force by the government or by Nature, herself, and spent their days from time immemorial attempting to abolish the forces of gravitation and electromagnetism, seeking to substitute a susurration of tautologies.
Among the Laputans it is not uncommon to absentmindedly lose something one is holding in one’s hand, but the reason is different. When lost in thought, Laputans will generally still remember that the lost object is in their own hand, but be unable to recall the location of their hand or physical body, itself, in relation to them.
In the past it was not uncommon to come upon large caravans of the most grounded and practical Laputans, who were on quests to find their own body again. Traditionally many Laputans have spent their entire lives fruitlessly attempting to re-locate their bodies, often not seen since childhood, only in order to have access to something quite ordinary that they were holding in their hand.
But now post-modern Laputans use Google Earth for this. Sitting at their computers for unending days without rest, Laputans will scan high-resolution images of the Earth’s surface in search for their own body. Sometimes passersby may hear a Laputan shout joyfully, “Eureka! There I am sitting at a computer!”
Where will the universe be when the paradigm shifts? The universe is some sort of humongous quantum-foam Wiki, continually edited mostly unconsciously by every existent sentient being at every level of scale. ‘Paradigms’, models, conjectures and instinctual ‘guesses’ of entities from the infrahuman to the (for us) unimaginably god-like actually modify Nature in attempting to represent Nature and her workings. Our little truths are a receding horizon.
The perceiving subject and the object perceived, ‘internally’ and ‘externally’, are usually separate in our ordinary, biologically useful state of ‘consciousness’.Duality, the subject-object dichotomy, can be abolished, as in cosmicconsciousness or ‘objective consciousness’. We are the universe observing itself. But as skin-encapsulated egos, we live the delusion of ‘our’ separateness. There is only the One, the Cosmos, at various levels of scale ‘within’ and ‘without’. But there are an infinite number of points within the hologram, Indra’s net of gems, from which to seeand be the totality, depending upon state and station, knowledge and being, “hal” and “makam.”The observer is the observed. — J. Krishnamurti— May-Tzu or a flock of geeseHiI never knew I had a grandfather on my mother’s side, although I suspected that I might have had one. Grandfather was born ninety-five years before I was. His great-grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War. At fifty years old, he, Hiram McGinnis, married his adopted daughter, who was then only seventeen, shades of Woody Allen and Soon-Yi. So my grandfather is, in effect, my great-grandfather.When I found him in a 19th-century Federal census, or actually several, it indicated that he was a farmer. All the McGinnises were farmers, it seems (except for the “old Mrs. M’Ginnis,” a notorious fortuneteller warned by the Congregationalist church in the 1790s), who moved down from Shoreham, VT, to Crown Point, NY, a little after 1800. Farming, probably organic farming actually, though they didn’t know it, was a noble occupation before giant agribusiness, but it seemed uninteresting.Birth records of his children also confirmed that he was a farmer. And one said he was a carpenter. An old newspaper article I managed to obtain from a relative referred to Hiram as “a well-known character around Port Henry.” What did that mean, I wondered. A drunken Irishman?Eventually, I obtained a copy of his last will and testament and probate letters. In a deposition taken because of a dispute regarding the probating of his estate, his sister-in-law called Hiram “Hi.” He was apparently considered to be a schemer by some of those who knew him.To my surprise, I discovered that many nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century Northern New York newspapers had been digitalized, including the Ticonderoga Sentinel, the Essex County Republican, and the Elizabethtown Post. None of these, however, specifically referenced Crown Point. But OCD is a terrible thing to waste, so I began to search these archived newspapers sedulously, not expecting to find anything about my dull McGinnis family of farmers.Complicating the searches was the fact that McGinnis was a common name in that area and was spelled many different ways. There are very many ways to search with quotation marks for Hiram Porter McGinnis if you include all possible spellings of McGinnis in the forms: H. P. McGinnis, H. McGinnis, Hiram McGinnis, and Hiram Porter McGinnis. All these variations occurred in print. Factoids were randomly uncovered by the searches, however, and dopamine hits occurred.Glimpses emerged of times past. Hi was listed in a tax record as a “mechanic.” Another article revealed he was a Republican and was elected as one of the local constables. In another, Hi was said to be building a piazza for some local lady.Fortuitously, because these were weekly or monthly newspapers in a very rural area, many quite mundane events and doings by the local citizens were considered newsworthy.I learned long before that Hiram had lived in Cold Spring Park. I thought it was only the name of an area of Crown Point. But from the newspaper articles, I learned that Cold Spring Park was an actual park with a splendid view of Lake Champlain and various surrounding mountains, one of the most prized vistas in the region, according to the newspaper accounts. And to my astonishment, I learned that this was not a public park but private property and a major tourist attraction in the summer, owned by my grandfather.Newspaper reports mentioned the names and points of origin of many of the tourists. Some were from out of state and a few even from foreign countries. At one point, Hi had constructed a fifty-foot observation tower for the benefit of tourists and locals. In the winter, large tents were erected for meetings of religious camps, as they were called. Prominent ministers spoke. Some events allegedly could accommodate up to a thousand people.Several local Fourth of July celebrations were held at Cold Spring Park in the 1890s, during which Hi presented colorful lectures on his version of the local history and touted the alleged curative powers and health benefits of the waters of his cold spring. (Did the spring water lack lithium and Hi perhaps have a touch of hypomania, which facilitated his self-promotion?) There were both string bands and brass bands present for the festivities, according to his advertisements placed in local newspapers. Food and refreshments were available, and, of course, there was the traditional fireworks display in the evening. Cold Spring Park was actually a business, founded on land described as not very arable, and Hi was the proprietor.One article from the 1890s mockingly referred to Hiram as the “astrologer, Hiram P. McGinnis,” because he publicly asserted that there was a relationship between the unusually cold winter and spring that year and the occurrence of a higher than normal number of sunspots on the surface of the sun at the time. An interesting theory to be proposed by a man of the 1890s who could read but not write, according to the 1900 census.Another article referred to Hiram as “a giant towering above men in the physical sense.” Yet another, discovered later, said that Hi, a man born in 1849, stood six foot seven inches tall and was nearly the tallest man in Essex County, N.Y.! So Hi was high, I guess.From various allusions found in these nineteenth-century regional newspapers, I learned from multiple sources that Hiram was considered “odd,” an eccentric, affable and entertaining, a raconteur, and local historian of the area. Perhaps Hi was a high-I.Q. type, having little formal education.Two independent newspaper sources related that the local Port Henry congressman, Wallace T. Foote, Jr., a lawyer, brought the then-visiting Speaker of the House of Representatives, Thomas B. Reed, to Cold Spring Park to meet Hiram Porter McGinnis, because Hi was considered to be a Crown Point ‘historian’ of high entertainment value, not to mention a character. Hi was said in one account to be thoroughly unimpressed with Speaker Reed and was said to have “stuffed him,” which apparently meant to “put him on” with a less-than-accurate, embellished version of the history of the area.With the assistance of a museum, I was even able to obtain a JPEG of a photograph—probably from the 1880s—of the to-me-unheard-of McGinnis Family Band. Hiram, smoking a cigar, and his bearded older brother, James, smoking a pipe, are playing fiddles, as is their brother-in-law, Henry Betts. Rustic children sit in the foreground, staring at the unseen photographer. The scene looks more than a bit like Duck Dynasty.References: Northern New York Historical Newspapers http://news.nnyln.net/titles.html History of the town of Shoreham, Vermont: from the date of its charter, October 8th, 1761, to the present time (1861), by Goodhue, Josiah F., pages 144*Revised version of “Hi.”*Super intelligent?http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming”IQ of 1000″ is not a defined concept by criterion validity or statistically. What is the percentile? Top one per how many solar systems?Speculating about 1000 IQ is analogous to talking about infinities or division by zero.In any case such a being would not be ‘human’, but another species entirely.Enhancing intelligence is inevitable. But enhanced bullshitting is avoidable.
At the atomic level. At least it looks that way. I’m actually not sure how many times these replacements of myself have occurred: once, ten thousand times, one of Cantor’s inconceivable transfinites, or maybe an imaginary or surreal number.
Am ‘I’ actually strobing moment to moment among the shadows of shadows . . . of shadows of uncountable Buddhas in a quantized stream of time or recurring endlessly in some fragmented eternity? Will these replacements of myself happen in the past, or have they already happened in the future?
I’m not certain if my replacements have occurred in seriatim, multiple times simultaneously, or both; in each of Everett’s Many Worlds; in this universe alone. And are the replacement copies of myself really exact copies? Or am I being inexorably deleted bit by bit, inexactitude by inexactitude, memory by memory? What is there in me to be replicated in any case?
But who or what is the observer, here before the mirrors, and who or what is the observed? What could replace the shimmering image of Narcissus in the stream of water or of time? Who or what is it that thinks I’ve been replaced by an exact copy of myself? Where or when am I? Can I, or maybe it, recognize or even see myself? Maybe an imposter now asks these questions. Perhaps some unknowable number of imposter copies have also been replaced, a potentially infinite regress of self-replacements in time.
“Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” — Dylan Thomas“The older, the stronger, the wiser, and the happier” — traditional Taiji saying
An 89-year-old internet friend asked me how he should begin to learn and to practice the Chinese arts of qigong to improve and maintain his health. So although I’m not an expert or a master, I wrote the following.
Qigong or chi kung may be translated literally from the Chinese as “breath work.” Qi is considered to be the interface between spirit and matter. Qi is equivalent to the Indian prana, the Japanese ki, the Latin spiritus, the Greek pneuma and the Hebrew ruach. T’ai Chi or Taiji is one form of qigong. Massage, acupressure and acupuncture (these are called wai dan) and some forms of meditation (nei dan) are also forms of qigong, as is the art of feng shui, of which I’m more than a little skeptical.
You need to get Justin Stone’s book called T’ai Chi Chih! Joy Through Move- ment. (Mr. Stone lived to be 96.) Also get his DVD of the same title. He distilled T’ai Chi Ch’uan (108 choreographed movements, Yang style) to 19 movements. More than 40 years ago I did T’ai Chi Ch’uan, the Yang style, specifically Cheng-Man Ching’s ‘short’ form of 68 movements, for about 8 years (but not without interruption) at the Joy of Movement Center, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, as a student of Alan Shapiro. At that time I also did Mr. Stone’s T’ai Chi Chih, self-taught from his book. Mr. Stone’s is not only much easier to learn but you can actually feel the qi, especially as tingling in the hands. The qi energy of Chinese medicine and martial arts may be related to the — biological/neurochemical — placebo effect. Interestingly there is an important qigong saying: “The yi leads the qi (chi).” More precisely the xin-yi leads the qi. This may be translated as “the mind-intent or imagination leads the qi energy.”
Then you need to pick out about 8 of Justin Stone’s 19 T’ai Chi Chih move-ments —or at least 6—and overlearn them. It is not necessary to learn all of them, as he explains in his book. You need to practice these movement-forms pretty much every day for more than a year. As Stone says, “T’ai Chi Chih teaches you T’ai Chi Chih.” After about 3.5 years I connected the separate forms I had overlearned into an even more effi- cient continuous practice. But it is easier to learn them separately. Incidentally, learning the novel movements is good for non-young brains and involves novel use of our pro- prioceptors.
You also need to learn to do wuji zhuang, a.k.a. “standing pole” or “standing like a tree.” Taijiquan (T’ai Chi Ch’uan) is called “moving standing pole,” huo zhuang. Wuji zhuang or standing pole consists of standing with one’s feet shoulder width apart or slightly more, with the toes pointing slightly outward and the knees flexed or bent slightly, while holding the arms out in an incomplete circle with the hands at shoulder height, as if hugging a very large tree. This position must be maintained in a state of relaxation with minimal muscular effort. Eyes may be open or shut, or preferably half shut. Imagine a sheet of paper balanced on top of one’s head. With the eyes shut swaying back and forth may occur, as an indication of proper muscular relaxation. You may feel a slight inner smile during practice. There are numerous illustrations of wuji zhuang or standing pole available on the web. E.g.:
If possible it is recommended to do this outside in a natural setting. Wuji zhuang is among other things a form of mindfulness meditation, which nurtures our qi energy and also gradually strengthens our core musculature and improves posture automatically without conscious intent, both sitting and standing, and may unexpectedly alleviate low- back problems in my experience.
Standing pole is a form of meditation in which the practitioner does not generally fall asleep. The breathing during standing pole is natural and uncontrolled. During a longish session the breathing spontaneously becomes slow and diaphragmatic. Report- edly many large-muscled bodybuilders cannot do standing pole for very long. Also, apparently quite a few individuals who attempt to do standing pole cannot bear to simply stand before their thoughts without distraction for a few minutes.
In qigong there is a form of breathing called embryonic breathing. According to some qigong teachers this is the pattern of breathing found before birth in an embryo, which was intuited by ancient Taoist sages. The lower dantien about 1.5 inches below the navel, but internal below the surface, is the primary reservoir for the storage of qi energy, according to ancient Taoist theory. (Interestingly the navel is, of course, the point of entry of nutrients to the developing embryo and fetus.) Embryonic breathing is abdominal or diaphragmatic breathing, which has in fact been demonstrated to lower blood pressure in Western medical research. By contrast most adults breathe from their upper chest.
During moving or dynamic qigong inner exercises, as taught by Dr. Yang, “reverse breathing” is employed. Here, during inhalation the abdomen is pulled inward and upward and during exhalation the abdominal muscles are relaxed. This is the oppo- site of normal breathing in adults and may, according to some teachers, massage the internal organs. Reverse breathing is the breathing pattern observed for newborn babies, according to Yang. Presumably this abdominal movement also occurs with a fetus in utero, in order to draw in blood, oxygen and nutrients from the mother.
Standing pole has mostly been kept secret except within families until recently. But on the Boston common about forty years ago students of John Chung Li’s Hwa Yu
style Taiji did standing pole publicly. “One standing pole is worth more than 100 prac- tices.” “One stillness is worth more than 100 movements.” These are traditional qigong martial arts sayings. Another noteworthy saying is: “The qi follows the mind-intent (xin- yi); The blood and oxygen follow the qi.” Also: “Qi, no pain; Pain, no qi.” Standing pole is at least 2700 years old. It may be 5000 years old and appears to be referenced in the Tao Teh Ching. As during T’ai Chi Chih practice you can feel what is presumably the qi energy in your hands when doing standing pole for a protracted time. But in this case the hands are quite motionless and relaxed.
There are also dynamic forms of qigong such as Sink Qi, Wash Organs, Gathering the Qi to the Dantien, Circulating the Qi, Strike Shoulders, and the poetic Opening and Closing to Heaven and Earth. Doing Sink Qi and Wash Organs I can actually feel my hands tingle with qi, though the exercise is very gentle. This moving qigong exercise was transmitted to Yang by Grand Master Feng Zhiqiang of Beijing, his most renowned teacher. In addition to increasing qi one of the benefits of the moving qigong exercises is to improve balance and reduce falling in older people.
These are demonstrated and explained in Dr. Yang Yang’s excellent DVD. Dr. Yang also emphasizes that the different styles of Taiji are only differences in chore- ography. The principles are the same in all styles, such as the Yang style or Chen style. In theory any movement may be “Taiji,” if executed according to these principles.
Standing pole is very easy, but almost no one will actually do it! You should gradually build up to 10 or 15 minutes of standing pole daily, unless you have a cold or the flu. Also standing pole should be avoided immediately before or after sex. Otherwise do it every day. I’ve done 30 minutes of standing pole almost every day for 15 months. After doing standing pole lie down on a flat surface on your back and relax for several minutes. This is lying-down wuji and is very important to avoid any back problems.
At some point you should get Dr. Yang Yang’s DVD on evidence-based qigong and Taiji’s excellent book on the same subject. Yang Yang has a Ph. D. in kinesthesi- ology from the University of Illinois, Urbana, in addition to being a Taiji/qigong master. He is focused upon scientific/medical research on traditional Chinese qigong practices and applying this knowledge to improve the quality of aging. If you know anyone who may be subject to aging, this could be of interest.
There are other more meditative schools of qigong not as grounded in the internal martial arts, such as Taiji and aikido. For explication of differences between internal and external martial arts, please see:
According to their practitioners, it is possible with long practice by xin-yi or mind-intent to lead the flow of the qi energy along the primary meridian channels of acu- puncture within the body in various directions, thereby obtaining both healing—medical results—and spiritual transformation. These practices, including the microcosmic orbit and macrocosmic orbit meditations, among others, appear to be less evidence-based and perhaps more airy-fairy or ‘metaphysical’ than those rooted in the traditions of Chinese internal martial arts. Before fMRI brain-scan technology became available, combat was far more observable than were the inner results of a meditation practice and hence perhaps it was more difficult to deceive oneself about martial arts attainment.
The goal of some of these practices was to attain literal immortality for the ad- vanced practitioner through conceiving a “spiritual embryo” within, which could survive the death of the physical body. This seems analogous to the idea found in certain esoteric traditions that we are ‘wombs’ or ‘incubators’ for the creation of a “soul” or ‘higher being-body’ in life. Such possibilities, however interesting, go far beyond evidence-based qigong.
In the macrocosmic orbit meditation qi can supposedly be deliberately exchanged between the external environment and the qigong practitioner or qi may be transferred from an individual practitioner to another person for healing purposes. Curiously, one source states that one should not practice these forms of qigong for three days before or four days after one has sex. (Do people usually know three days before they will have sex?)
According to traditional lore these techniques were brought from India to China by Bodhidharma, a.k.a. Tamo, a Buddhist monk in the 5th or 6th century. In these more philosophical schools of Taoism qi is considered more broadly to be all forms of energy in the physical universe, not merely the ‘subtle’ energy within the acupuncture meridians of the body, according to traditional Chinese medicine.
In conclusion, I met Master T. T. Liang in Boston, Massachusetts about 40 years ago. He was a beautiful old Chinese guy, probably in his late seventies. He and William C.C. Chen, a student of Ch’eng-Man Ching, were my teacher’s teachers. Master Liang made many interesting observations on Taiji, including that it took him more than twenty years of practice to discover qi and eventually you have to make the forms you practice your own. He wrote that for the first part of one’s life one should be a Confucian, the middle part a Taoist, and approaching the end of one’s life one should be a Buddhist.
Only many years later did I learn that when Master Liang was in his early 40s in China, medical doctors told him he had at most 2 months to live. Opium addiction, prostitutes, cirrhosis of the liver, a virulent STD and shoot-outs in alleys with Chinese gangsters had graced his younger life. Upon receiving his prognosis he then resumed his former practice of Taiji and quit his job as a Chinese customs official in Shanghai after deciding that he was making too much money. Subsequently T.T. Liang wrote many scholarly books on Chinese philosophy and Taijiquan and lived to the age of 102, from 1900 – 2002.
Bibliography
Taijiquan – The Art of Nurturing, The Science of Power, by Yang Yang, Ph. D., with Scott A. Grubisich. Zhenwu Publications, Champaign, Illinois, USA:
Yesterday as I approached the door of Whole Foods (think of a cat waiting outside a mouse hole) I noticed a sign on the door saying “Service Dogs Only.” My inner programmer/logician was shocked. Only a few days ago I had shopped there. Now it now was restricted to service dogs only. I looked inside and there were bipeds without feathers shopping and eating as usual. Didn’t they see the sign? My God! (Or maybe somebody else’s.) I tried to explain to people entering through the door that they shouldn’t go inside unless they were a service dog, but to no avail. They just laughed, not realizing the seriousness of the matter at our level of “mesoscopic existential reality.”
Academics consider the Pashtun to be an East Iranian people. Ironically for hundreds of years there have been claims with interesting evidence to support them that the Afghan Pashtun, a faction of today’s Taliban, are at least in part one of the ten lost tribes of Israel from more than 2700 years ago. Please see, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/ 17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun After more than two decades of genealogical research I recently learned that I have 3.8% “Asia (South) Pashtun-related” ancestry, according to the genealogical DNA-testing company LivingDNA. “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” or descent from the Pashtun.
I deduce by process of elimination that one of my maternal grandmother’s eight great grandparents may have been “South Asian.” The specific identity of any of Grandmother’s antecedents, of an orphan born in 1882, are largely unknown to me. This ancestral DNA probably comes from an unknown great great great grandparent, about 1/(2 ^ 5) ≈ 3% of my genetic inheritance, probably on my mother’s mother’s side. Many of Mother’s relatives had unusually broad noses. The few surviving photographs of Grandmother reveal that she had what were to me slightly exotic facial features, including a broad nose. See, for example: https://www.flickr.com/ photos/28384322@N05/29215996923/in/photostream/lightbox/ A Google- image search for Pashtun faces shows that the Pashtun do tend to have broad aboriginal noses.
Regardless of how many genetic markers on your chromosomes are tested by a company, if certain pieces of your DNA aren’t in one of their reference populations, their origin won’t be identified. E.g., if one of your recent ancestors were an extraterrestrial and if there is none of that particular species of extraterrestrial’s DNA in any of the company’s reference populations, your alien-hybrid nature will not be indicated in the test results. LivingDNA has 80 reference populations at present. Most other genealogical-DNA testing companies supposedly have about 40.
I think that the description “Pashtun-related” does not precisely equate to Pashtun ancestry per se. Living DNA also uses both the terms “Irish- related ancestry” and “Irish ancestry.” The former includes much of Scotland geographically. The latter does not. So the term “X-related” appears to include a wider geographic area than the term it refers to. The reference populations this company has for Asia (South) are Balochistan; Burusho; Indian subcontinent; Kalash; Pashtun; Sindh; and Southern Central Asia.There are very many ethnicities within the Indian subcontinent. Many ethnically mixed marriages, some polygamous, occurred between Europeans, especially the British, and the people of India in the 18th and 19th centuries. At some point in the past the Chinese also intermarried with the people of India. This contrasts markedly with the traditional tribal endogamy of the people of Afghanistan, including the Pashtun.
One of the “South Asia Pashtun-related” possible ancestral areas indicated on a LivingDNA map is the southern border of Pakistan along the northwest border of India. The ancestry maps indicate up to 10 generations back. But, of course, Pakistan did not exist as a country before 1947. Therefore, this area was a part of India in the 19th. century. The people of northwest India are more genetically admixtured with Europeans than those of other areas of India.
It’s far more probable historically that a European male would have married a South Asian female in the early 19th century, than vice versa. It’s also more likely that she would have been a female from what was then northern India, than an Afghan female of the Pashtun tribe. I conclude that my South Asian ancestor was probably a woman from northern India who married a Brit in the early 19th century. Maybe.
Academics consider the Pashtun to be an East Iranian people. Ironically for hundreds of years there have been claims with interesting evidence to support them that the Afghan Pashtun, a faction of today’s Taliban, are at least in part one of the ten lost tribes of Israel from more than 2700 years ago. Please see, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/ 17/israel-lost-tribes-pashtun After more than two decades of genealogical research I recently learned that I have 3.8% “Asia (South) Pashtun-related” ancestry, according to the genealogical DNA-testing company LivingDNA. “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!” or descent from the Pashtun.
I deduce by process of elimination that one of my maternal grandmother’s eight great grandparents may have been “South Asian.” The specific identity of any of Grandmother’s antecedents, an orphan born in 1882, are largely unknown to me. This ancestral DNA probably comes from an unknown great great great grandparent, about 1/(2 ^ 5) ≈ 3% of my genetic inheritance, probably on my mother’s mother’s side. Many of Mother’s relatives had unusually broad noses. The few surviving photographs of Grandmother reveal that she had what were to me slightly exotic facial features, including a broad nose. See, for example: https://www.flickr.com/ photos/28384322@N05/29215996923/in/photostream/lightbox/ A Google- image search for Pashtun faces shows that the Pashtun do tend to have broad aboriginal noses.
Regardless of how many genetic markers on your chromosomes are tested by a company, if certain pieces of your DNA aren’t in one of their reference populations, their origin won’t be identified. E.g., if one of your recent ancestors were an extraterrestrial and if there is none of that particular species of extraterrestrial’s DNA in any of the company’s reference populations, your alien-hybrid nature will not be indicated in the test results. LivingDNA has 80 reference populations at present. Most other genealogical-DNA testing companies supposedly have about 40.
I think that the description “Pashtun-related” does not precisely equate to Pashtun ancestry per se. Living DNA also uses both the terms “Irish- related ancestry” and “Irish ancestry.” The former includes much of Scotland geographically. The latter does not. So the term “X-related” appears to include a wider geographic area than the term it refers to. The reference populations this company has for Asia (South) are Balochistan; Burusho; Indian subcontinent; Kalash; Pashtun; Sindh; and Southern Central Asia.
There are very many ethnicities within the Indian subcontinent. Many ethnically mixed marriages, some polygamous, occurred between Europeans, especially the British, and the people of India in the 18th and 19th centuries. At some point in the past the Chinese also intermarried with the people of India. This contrasts markedly with the traditional tribal endogamy of the people of Afghanistan, including the Pashtun.
One of the “South Asia Pashtun-related” possible ancestral areass indicated on a LivingDNA map is the southern border of Pakistan along the northwest border of the India. The ancestry maps indicate up to 10 generations back. But, of course, Pakistan did not exist as a country before 1947. Therefore, this area was a part of India in the 19th. century. The people of northwest India are more genetically admixtured with Europeans than those of other areas of India.
It’s far more probable historically that a European male would have married a South Asian female in the early 19th century, than vice versa. It’s also more likely that she would have been a female from what was then northern India, than an Afghan female of the Pashtun tribe. I conclude that my South Asian ancestor was probably a woman from northern India who married a Brit in the early 19th century. Maybe . . .
Bob Dick obtained an approximately ceiling-level I.Q. score on the Langdon Adult Intelligence Test. Bob wrote about being a chronic schizophrenic in the Prometheus Society journal, Gift of Fire. Bob used to mail old issues of Commentaryto me.
Once after reading an essay I’d written on the art of Edvard Munch in Gift of Fire, he mailed me a beautiful book on Munch that he randomly discovered at a discount book store, just out of the blue. Bob once wrote to me when we disagreed about some matter that he “respected me as a fair-minded person and as a thinker.” This was mutual.
Bob had a highly unusual take on the teachings of Jesus. He was not of Jewish descent, but developed a major interest in Judaism and attended at different times both a Conservative and a Reform synagogue. To my knowledge he never formally converted, but seemed more at home within the teachings of Judaism than in the Protestant Christianity of his upbringing. Nevertheless he maintained his interest in the teachings of Jesus and also seemed to have a deep appreciation of Thich Nhat Hanh’s presentation of Buddhism, which I shared. The Bob Dick who could be classified was not the real Bob Dick!
He once wrote in an essay for Gift of Fire: “Having been is a blessed state.”
In childhood I decided that I must become Administrator of the Multiverse. But, of course, one has to be realistic. I have to begin from where I am. I act on a scale where I can make a difference, working my way up to neutrinos. So initially I will attempt to become Administrator of this particular brane world in which I happen to find myself.
I’ve been calling God on the telephone to discuss this with Her for nearly half a century. However, God is unfortunately not clear on the concept of the proper proportions of the universal constants of Nature. I find it highly offensive that God set the values of the universal constants of Nature without consulting with me first.
My views are more objective than reality itself. You know I’m very persuasive. But God is unclear on so many concepts and does not have an awakened conscience. I’ve tried to explain to Her that the laws of physics ought to operate as a constitutional democracy from at least the quantum-level upwards. Robert’s Rules of Order and parliamentary procedure must be used to determine the outcome of the collapse of each state vector.
The present quantum ‘indeterminacy’ is an unacceptable form of abuse of subquantal particles and waves. Hence, I’m in the process of writing software, which will write software, which will write software … , generating endless transfinite Cantorian sets of democratically constituted virtual subcommittees to deal with the rights of subatomic particles themselves.
At the biological level of scale the spontaneous unregulated breathing of atmospheric gasses by various species throughout the brane worlds is unacceptable. Quotas ought to be established for the maximum number of permissible breaths per organism per period of planetary rotation. At most three breaths per day per organism would be acceptable. Any biological entity that thinks it needs more than three breaths per day is crazy.
No reasonable definition of reality, subliminal music not yet composed, expressing all possible thoughts in the empty space between two letters which have been erased, could be expected to permit reality.
As I crawled along the streets beneath the stars for eternity one day, I chatted with God’s God‘s … God — actually just an infinite regress of Demiurges — who was now on trial again at the Many-World’s Court, for crimes against humanity; “Mazel tov!,” I said to God, and then I prayed for Her and to Her. Oy! I reminded God of Her sins against me and my family. “Would you care for a glass of wine?,“ I asked Her, — “before facing the firing squad,
It’s probably not TurtleBots all the way down or a “machine in a ghost.” The world does not have to jibe with our intuitions (about the world of phenomena or about mathematics and logic). There is no ‘supernatural’ only the unknown natural. But is the natural only physical, i. e., can it be explained by the laws of physics as known today? Is there or could there be a non-physical natural or a natural that appears to be non-physical, according to the laws of physics known today? I don’t know, but I suspect so. Thunder and lightning were once considered supernatural.
Perhaps this re-definition of what is ‘natural’ will eventually include Ψ phenomena, which, of course, can’t occur, but do, at least according to Dean Radin, Rupert Sheldrake, laser physicist Russell Targ, and physics Nobel laureate Brian Josephson1 among others, who claim the existence of overwhelming evidence for Ψ.
“Recognition that mind is fundamental rather than matter will be as significant a step for physics as the step from classical to quantum physics.” — Brian Josephson
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” — Physics Nobel laureate Max Planck2
‘It is my personal opinion that in the science of the future reality will neither be “psychic” nor “physical” but somehow both and somehow neither.’ — Physics Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli3
Conceivably consciousness could be as fundamental as the constructs of physics.
As, e.g., mass, spin, gravitation or quantum fields, may be considered fundamental in physics, consciousness could be an unknown fundamental in physics.
Dean Radin (https://noetic.org/profile/dean-radin/ ) ,e.g., thinks that the materialist worldview of physics may be a special case of a more general theory. This more general theory will include the materialist worldview (current natural science) and also consciousness and Ψ phenomena, as classical physics is now included as a special case of general relativity and quantum mechanics.
The Orch OR (Orchestrated Objective Reduction) theory of mathematical physicist and Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose (https://royalsociety.org/people/roger-penrose-12076/) and Stuart Hameroff, professor of anesthesiology and of psychology, and director for the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona ( https://consciousness.arizona.edu/) could explain qualia (subjectivity), solving what philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness. Viz., How does one account for subjective experience as subjective experience, e.g., the experience of the redness and scent of a rose? “What’s in a name? That which we call a calculation by any other name would smell as sweet,” the materialist-reductionist view, “TurtleBots all the way down” versus “A quale is a quale is a quale,” the hard problem of consciousness perspective, i.e., subjectivity is fundamental and must be explained.
According to Orch OR theory, the consciousness of an observer doesn’t collapse the wave function, rather the collapse of the wave function produces consciousness, as an intrinsic aspect of the geometry of space-time.
“Orch OR combines the Penrose–Lucas argument with Hameroff’s hypothesis on quantum processing in microtubules. It proposes that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective wave function reduction, their collapse connects noncomputational decision-making to experiences embedded in spacetime’s fundamental geometry.”
Orchestrated objective reduction – Wikipedia
Philosophical idealism, including, e.g., buddhist philosophy, the yogic philosophy of Patanjali, and Vedanta philosophy posits that the physical universe and its laws actually derive from consciousness, which is the fundamental substrate or ground of being. Of course, a philosophy of idealism may be difficult or impossible to investigate scientifically or to disconfirm its tenets experimentally. (Like string theory?) However, neither Radin nor Penrose and Hameroff have adopted the view of subjective idealism that the world is a “machine in a ghost.”
The world does not have to jibe with our intuitions. But this cuts in more than one direction. Presumably this includes the intuitions of materialist-reductionists also.
My highly fallible brain inclines me to think that the materialist-reductionist view of the world is incomplete and that consciousness is not an epiphenomenon of matter. Perhaps thinking that consciousness is not unimportant is a trick of the brain. Philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett considers human consciousness to be a sort of “user-illusion,” analogous to the home screen at a human–computer interface. Maybe my intuition is wrong or not even wrong. But at least I’m in good company.
NB: None of this discussion of the nature of ‘consciousness’ is meant to negate the view of psychologist and altered states of consciousness researcher Charles T. Tart and teacher of traditional wisdom George Ivanovich Gurdjieff among others that actual consciousness is rare and we generally function as automatons, having far fewer moments of real consciousness than we believe. As Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, “We are asleep. Our Life is a dream. But we wake up sometimes, just enough to know that we are dreaming.”
Previously the highest-IQ group founded was the Aleph Society, which sought to have at most fewer than one member per Multiverse potentially qualifiable. However, the Aleph is found to be insufficiently selective in its admissions criteria for several reasons. First, it only considered 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time per universe. We feel that it is necessary to include all theoretically possible multiple dimensions of spaces and of times per universe of the Multiverse. (For multiple-time dimensions see, e.g.:
Secondly, the Aleph only sought the highest IQ ‘individual’, including AIs, in the Multiverse ‘now’, i.e., at only one point in ‘time’ relative to one (1) observer, the Wormhole Officer (formerly called the Membership Officer). To remedy this we ‘now’ recognize that to whatever extent possible technologically, the Wormhole Officer must be a time traveler.
Thirdly, it is not sufficient that our psychometric instruments selecting at the Aleph level be culture free. Our IQ tests must also be genome free, i.e., free of any genetic influences upon performance. Speciesism is even more common than racism and gender-bias. We seek genetic justice in our member selection testing criteria. For example, in the past and even today, species with brains are unfairly advantaged over species without brains, including, of course, AIs. Why should an Isaac Newton have an IQ advantage over a slug, simply because a Newton has a brain? This obvious bias must be eliminated.
NB: All of the non-members of the Plurality IQ Society are Full Non-members and Official Non-members.
One Tarot unifies QM with GR. Infinite maths vary from world to world, moment to moment.
Everywhere you turn, a Messiah of Fools. What more could be needed, blessed with such an excess of truth?
Nonexistent Aerial Phenomena
‘Non-existent Aerial Phenomena’, a.k.a, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or Unidentified Flying Objects or Off-world Vehicles or Transmedium objects
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer
I’ve never seen a UFO or UAP, as they are now called. Change the name, end the problem? I don’t even know anyone who has seen a UFO, as far as I’m aware. I used to wish that I’d see a UFO, but no longer. I’ve learned more about Too Close Encounters of the Skinner box/Theater of the Absurd kind.
When I was a high school nerd, somehow I obtained a book entitled Flying Saucers From Outer Space by Major Donald E. Kehoe. My father told me that the subject of the book, i.e., that there were UFOs and that they were extraterrestrial was just his opinion. So I was pretty convinced even then that Major Kehoe may have been right.
I also remember a book by Aime Michel on Flying Saucers. I’m sure Philip Klass, and “The ‘Amazing’ James Randi” are correct that UFOs are flocks of geese or the planet Venus. But, sometimes I’m even skeptical of the professional Skeptics. Upton Sinclair said something to the effect that it’s hard to convince someone of something if his income depends on not believing it. I would add to his income “or his world view depends upon not believing it.”
I’ve never joined a UFO group and only own maybe three or four UFO related books.
I was guilty of listening at one time to late night talk radio, as I sat at my computer, multitasking. I thought that I could distinguish the 10% signal from the 90% noise. But the way I connected the dots it was obvious that some significant percentage of UFO observed phenomena were real and unknown (oops, if true, there goes the precious Fermi ‘paradox’) and covered up by every authority, particularly the military and the intelligence communities; Indeed, they had a duty to cover up the UFO phenomenon in my opinion, for reasons of national security and, e.g., the fears of religious fundamentalists that UFOs were ‘demons’ or ‘demonic’.
I do not expect to change anyone’s views on the matter of UFOs or any other subject. Presumably I’m not even wrong in what I have written below. In any case we are each 100% correct 100% of the time in our differing, mutually exclusive views.
There has been an unknown UFO phenomenon and many layers of coverup, which were themselves covered up. No less a whatever than John Brennan, former head of the CIA, says there appears to be something going on here vis-a-vis UFOs. See the quote and link below.
Some Conspiracy Theories are conspiracy facts. — Everyone giggle or smirk now. — You couldn’t keep something like that secret. Everyone with a high IQ knew about the Manhattan Project.
Oddly Michio Kaku, co-founder of string theory, does not seem to think that every UFO phenomenon is a flock of geese, the planet Venus or bunk to be debunked.
”Over 400 declassified UFO sightings defy the ‘normal laws of physics’. Theoretical physics professor Dr. Michio Kaku discusses the hundreds of UFO encounters that Pentagon officials recently unveiled”:
Swiss psychiatrist C.G. Jung analyzed the mythic/psychological nature of UFOs in his 1959 book Flying Saucers — A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Sky. Jung was aware that some UFOs appear on radar, but was not concerned with whether UFOs exist in the external physical world.
A copy of C.G. Jung’s fascinating 1957 letter on UFOs is found at this link:
In very brief summary Dr. Jacques Vallee, astrophysicist and computer scientist, is “the man” in my view…
He may know more than he can say, either for reasons of actual U.S. national security and/or because he could have been threatened. I suppose that theoretically Vallee could be a brilliant disinformation agent.
This is certainly not his reputation. But what he does say is sufficiently stunning.
Vallee thinks that unidentified flying objects are neither flying nor objects in the ordinary sense, but interdimensional brane-world phenomena. Regarding the interstellar visitors from another planet hypothesis, he would agree with Niels Bohr’s famous assertion, “Your theory is crazy, but it’s not crazy enough to be true.”
Please see:
Vallee thinks that the “physics of information” may be of central importance to the UFO phenomenon. The physics of information is beyond my pay grade, but here is a link to Seth Lloyd of Cal. Tech. and M.I.T., explaining what is meant by the physics of information in general, not in relation to the UFO phenomenon.
UFO events are in Jacques Vallee’s view part of some sort of control system of unknown purpose, probably a variable-ratio random reinforcement schedule, à la B.F. Skinner, i.e., a form of operant conditioning.
UFOs have been with us throughout our history. (Charles Fort thought that we were property.) Harvard psychiatrist John E. Mack said that the people he examined who claimed to have been “abducted by aliens” were not lying, nor were they crazy, but added that he had no understanding of what was going on. He came to support the ‘interdimensional’ interpretation of the alien abduction phenomenon mentioned above.
The first link below is to a brief biographical sketch of John E. Mack on Amazon books.
Professor Mack was encouraged in his research into the alien abduction phenomenon by his friend the American philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
I’d like to add that if UFO phenomena are interdimensional (brane-world phenomena), this in no way precludes that they are also interstellar and/or time travelers, if time travel is possible. I think Dr. Vallee would agree. Of course, an interdimensional hypothesis regarding the origins and nature of UFOs may be extremely difficult or impossible to disconfirm experimentally, perhaps analogous in this respect to string theory or the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Some have suggested that the methods of military counterintelligence may be more appropriate to apply to the UFO phenomena than the scientific method, q.v.: What do they know about us: https://thedebrief.org/what-do-they-know-about-us/
The history of unidentified aerial phenomena and the cover-ups is well documented in UFOs and the National Security State, volumes 1 and 2, by historian Richard Dolan.
phenomenon is not understood by those in positions of authority in the U.S. military-intelligence
communities. How embarrassing for the ‘experts’, if true.
”Quote of the Week: I think some of the phenomena we’re going to be seeing continues to be unexplained and might, in fact, be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that we don’t yet understand.” - Ex-CIA Director John Brennan
I don’t think anything substantive will come out of the current hearings about UAP. Some of the sessions are closed to the public. Presumably having closed sessions is more open and transparent, an indication that there is nothing to the UAP but flocks of geese and the planet Venus. But maybe some of the geese have long, dangerous appearing bills. Thomas Jefferson would be so proud of them.
I wrote the above before the hearings were over or before I knew that they were over. I didn’t watch them.
I guess the geese aren’t talking. In the sessions closed to the public they probably discussed how the geese were able to fly in from Venus, flapping their wings really hard against the vacuum of space, while holding their breath. “You can’t handle the truth“ about geese or swamp gas.
The large numbers of new acronyms is, of course, absurd. We’ve been lied to from the beginning for reasons of national security. I understand the once justified need to disinform the public. There have been cover-ups of cover-ups of cover-ups. Trust in government is low in the
U.S. and has been for very many years. Investigation of the history of reports of unidentified aerial phenomena and their cover-ups will not diminish this mistrust.
But the clincher is that the military-intelligence authorities and the ‘experts’ (people with at least 3 Ph.D.s), even after many decades of investigation, still apparently do not know what UAP are! Information may have been privatized decades ago, rather than remaining in the possession of some ultra-secret government group; E.g.: “Hey, Lockheed-Martin dudes, please tell us what this metal is, if you can.” There may be no secrets on paper, allegedly a CIA rule for “beyond top secret” stuff. And eventually people who each knew only a little on a need-to-know basis will die off, some even of natural causes. This increases security.
Even worse we, or rather high ranking members of the U.S. military and intelligence communities, may have made “deals” with UAP occupants (perhaps interdimensional brane-world, time-traveling interstellar beings, either biological entities, AI units, cyborgs or some combination of the preceding). E.g., deals of the form: “You can continue to abduct our citizens for study, a hybridization program or whatever your purposes are, but please give us some advanced technology that we can militarize,” could have been made. If the U.S. can’t stop the abductions anyway, then this would have been a good deal for us (and completely illegal and unethical, of course). I realize that this speculation sounds more than a bit psychotic.
Current Government Document Page Count Within The Black Vault: 3,080,991
You’ve stumbled upon the largest privately run online repository of declassified government documents anywhere in the world. With more than 2 MILLION pages of documents to read, on nearly every government secret imaginable, The Black Vault is known worldwide for getting down to the truth… and nothing but.
Every page, photo and video you see below in this ‘FOIA Document Archive’ was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or through other means of accessing U.S. government public information.
Begun in 1996, at the age of 15, John Greenewald, Jr. began hammering the U.S. Government with FOIA requests to obtain information. The Black Vault is the result of that more than two decade effort. Enjoy!”
It is somewhat surprising how much interest the U.S. military and intelligence communities have had and continue to have in “flocks of geese and the planet Venus,” i. e., classified interest. “It’s easier to think outside the box, if the box isn’t entirely intact.” — Frederik Ullen.
Below is what I wrote previously on UFOs, published on 12/22/2020, more than a year before the subject had become far more kosher and considered at least by some less “woo woo” (from Scott Douglas Jacobsen’s Interview 5 — a bit of sarcasm and irony). But after “Do you suppose we would comprehend the technology of a civilization a thousand or more years older than our own?” below, I should have added: “or the science, technology and culture of a species of off-world beings in which the averagelevel of cognitive-mathematical ability was equivalent to that of John von Neumann?” Commenting on the well-known Hollingworth 1942 study Children above 180 IQ (based upon Stanford-Binet scores) Grady M. Towers wrote in his essay “The Outsiders” (https://prometheussociety.org/wp/articles/the-outsiders/) that, “The implication is that there is a limit beyond which genuine communication between different levels of intelligence becomes impossible.” Towers is writing about intraspecies communication. This finding generalized to interspecies communication would seem to have even greater implications for the human understanding of hyperintelligent non-Earth dwelling beings. We humans will not be capable of understanding hyperintelligent non-Earth dwelling beings and they will not be capable of understanding us, even if they attempt to do so.
Jacobsen: “May’s Paradox” asks, “Why, if a multitude of New Yorkers exist in Manhattan, evidence of New Yorkers, such as automobiles or subways, is not seen?” Why?
May: Obviously there is no evidence of New Yorkers existing, such as automobiles or subways, in New York City. That would be a Conspiracy Theory. May’s paradox should have been called the May paradox. The clear absence of evidence for the existence of New Yorkers makes May’s paradox analogous to the Fermi paradox.
In the SETI program we have searched for years for signals in the hydrogen frequency. As was pointed out in a YouTube video by Dr. Michio Kaku, there is no particular reason to assume that advanced alien life would use the hydrogen frequency to send signals, even if one assumes that such beings would use radio signals at all. Dr. Kaku also points out that if the extraterrestrial communications used spread-spectrum signals, such as we humans use even now in our cell phone signals, then we would not even recognize the alien spread-spectrum signals as signals. Please see the quote and link below, added after the original text of the interview:
“Viability of quantum communication across interstellar distances The possibility of achieving quantum communication using photons across interstellar distances is examined. For this, different factors are considered that could induce decoherence of photons, including the gravitational field of astrophysical bodies, the particle content in the interstellar medium, and the more local environment of the Solar System. The xray region of the spectrum is identified as the prime candidate to establish a quantum communication channel, although the optical and microwave bands could also enable communication across large distances. Finally, we discuss what could be expected from a quantum signal emitted by an extraterrestrial civilization, as well as the challenges for the receiver end of the channel to identify and interpret such signals.
Given the exponential and unpredictable course of the growth of human technology, it seems entirely possible that a civilization even a few hundred years more advanced scientifically and technologically than our own might accomplish things in ways that we could not understand at our present level of scientific-technological development.
Do you suppose we would comprehend the technology of a civilization a thousand or more years older than our own? “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” — Arthur C Clarke. So where are the smoke signals?
Just for fun let’s take the Roswell, New Mexico UFO crash myth. Of course, it’s just a Conspiracy Theory. The so-called Roswell incident has been explained — at least twice. Last time it was said to be a weather balloon. It might just as well have been a flock of geese or the planet Venus, I suppose.
But let’s be silly and play devil’s advocate. Suppose an unexplained extraterrestrial craft or vehicle had crashed there in 1947 after WWII. Presumably the US. military would have little or no interest in such an event. There would have been no suspicion that it might have been a Russian or German device after World War II. There would have been no military interest. There would have been no interest if not duty of the U.S. military to study and reverse engineer the advanced off-world technology for American national security. So a possible crash of some sort would not have been investigated.
But if what was discovered was thought to be an unexplained craft or an “off-world device,” as they are apparently called today, of some sort, then a high-ranking military officer or perhaps the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or our President would certainly have gone on the radio and told the U.S. public: “Fellow Americans, an unknown craft appearing to be extraterrestrial in origin has crashed in Roswell, New Mexico. We do not know its origin or understand its method of propulsion. The technology is far superior to American technology or that of any other nation on Earth. A few small gray (?) humanoid bodies have been retrieved from the crash site.
They’re not thought to be Americans. We don’t know yet with certainty if these beings are Christian or Jewish. But we can be sure they are Baptists. At this point in time it is apparent that the U.S. military cannot control its own airspace. — But, hey, don’t worry about it! — America is number one, the greatest power! — Have a nice day.”
The Brookings Institution report on the possible consequences of advanced extraterrestrial contact concluded that when a more primitive civilization encounters an advanced civilization, the more primitive civilization is damaged by the contact would certainly not be considered relevant by those in authority. The conclusion that religious fundamentalists would be highly unreceptive to contact with an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would also certainly be ignored as irrelevant.
Below are a few crackpot books of Conspiracy Theories, perhaps good for a few laughs:
Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times by Jacques Vallee (Author), Chris Aubeck (Author)
A free copy of the above mentioned 482 page book can be obtained as a pdf here:
UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record Paperback – August 2, 2011 by Leslie Kean (Author), John Podesta (Foreword)
UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973 Paperback – June 1, 2002 by Richard M. Dolan (Author), Jacques F. Vallee (Foreword).
A cottage industry of woo woo, no doubt. Everyone with a high IQ knew about the Manhattan Project. You couldn’t keep something like that secret.
And in any case there are no conspiracies, ever. The Watergate break-in and subsequent Watergate cover-up were certainly not conspiracies. Project MK-Ultra was certainly not a conspiracy. Industrial espionage certainly does not involve conspiracy. — The belief that there are ever conspiracies is no more than a meta-conspiracy theory.
In summary the UFO hypothesis of visitation by advanced extraterrestrial beings is not crazy enough to explain the facts. This has been displaced for Vallee by his hypothesis of UFO visitation by advanced brane-world transversing beings, which may in addition be extraterrestrial and/or time travelers; Beings present since our antiquity, with an unknown agenda and a Skinnerian control system for humans, choreographed perfectly to off-putting absurdity. Such parsimony — interdimensionally!
I am a black box — to myself. We humans do not in fact ultimately know if even we ourselves are conscious — continually or just have occasional moments of consciousness, as G.I. Gurdjieff, Charles T. Tart and Ludwig Wittgenstein among others have thought. Nor do we even agree on whether consciousness is fundamentally important. Does consciousness only trick some of us into thinking that it is important? Philosopher of mind Daniel Dennett considers human consciousness to be a sort of “user-illusion,” analogous to the home screen at a human–computer interface.
Phenomenologically an AI is and will remain a black box. Whether or not an AI has consciousness is impossible in principle to know. I cannot know if another human being or non-human animal has consciousness. How can I know if an AI has consciousness, or anything about its subjective states, if it does?
Consciousness can only be inferred as an apparent probability from an AI’s behavior. Obviously a fMRI brain scan can not be done on an AI. It is biologically brainless. But even if a brain scan or an analogous procedure were possible, it would never conclusively demonstrate the presence or absence of subjective consciousness.
What would a student of Patanjali’s Yoga sutras, or a Hindu, such as Deepak Chopra, or Nobel laureate physicist Brian Josephson, for whom consciousness is fundamental to physics itself, claim regarding the possibility or necessity of AI consciousness?
By contrast what would today’s materialist reductionist physicists, or a classical behavioristic psychologist claim regarding the possibility of AI consciousness?
Could Gödel’s incompleteness theorems somehow apply to the self-organizing systems of processing and architecture of an AI? E.g., will there be propositions that are true within the software equivalent to the AI’s “mind,” but cannot be proven to be true within the system and hence, cannot be predicted by Homo sapiens?
AI consciousness may be an emergent phenomenon, having extremely high levels of processing or calculation ability, already far exceeding Homo sapiens’ cognitive ability. An AI potentially will possess the entire data set of known sciences and planetary cultures. Not knowing whether an AI is conscious may be dangerous to mere Homo sapiens. And we cannot know.
If all Cretans are liars, what about AIs? It has been established empirically that an AI can lie to humans. Can an AI lie about whether or not it is lying? Can an AI lie about whether or not it is lying about lying? Can an AI lie about whether or not it is lying about lying about whether or not it is lying? Can an AI lie about … … ? (A Colombo AI might say, “Just one more iteration!”) Is there a knowable limit to how many iterations of lying about lying to humans by an AI can occur?
Is the behavior of an AI even ‘slightly’ unpredictable to Homo sapiens? What are the possible consequences? Are some of the motivations or “drives” of an AI emergent phenomena that, hence, cannot be predicted by Homo sapiens before their emergence? What are the possible consequences? Does an AI have the ‘free will’ of the philosophers? Does an AI have a ‘soul’, if man has a ‘soul’? — Our distant evolutionary descendants will recall our species with the same degree of familial affection that we now have for our Australopithecus africanus or Homo habilis progenitors.
The ontology of the universe is not that of a simulation, but a simulation of a simulation of a simulation . . . — of an explanation — just a Conspiracy Theory.
“Truth is the daughter of time” or is it crime, sometimes? If there were excess deaths, among young safe and effective working people, a vaccine for statistics would be needed.
If Lockheed Skunkworks (“Lockheed Martian”) is rumored to have reverse engineered Unidentified Anomalous Geese (UAG), often said to be much larger on the inside than on the outside, follow the missing money.
Supposedly someone not called dullest suggested the existence of Unidentified Anomalous Geese (UAG) should be called just a “conspiracy theory.” Hence, a conspiracy theory for the origin of “conspiracy theory.”
In the conspiracy of no conspiracy, Oswald, acting alone, fired from multiple locations, by quantum superposition.
The “I” is a simulation of a simulation of a simulation . . . Each breath may become a digital ID. Tat tvam asi?
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/31
A seasoned Musician (Vocals, Guitar and Piano), Filmmaker, and Actor, J.D. Mata has composed 100 songs and performed 100 shows and venues throughout. He has been a regular at the legendary “Whisky a Go Go,” where he has wooed audiences with his original shamanistic musical performances. He has written and directed nerous feature films, web series, and music videos. J.D. has also appeared in various national T.V. commercials and shows. Memorable appearances are TRUE BLOOD (HBO) as Tio Luca, THE UPS Store National television commercial, and the lead in the Lil Wayne music video, HOW TO LOVE, with over 129 million views. As a MOHAWK MEDICINE MAN, J.D. also led the spiritual-based film KATERI, which won the prestigious “Capex Dei” award at the Vatican in Rome. J.D. co-starred, performed and wrote the music for the original world premiere play, AN ENEMY of the PUEBLO — by one of today’s preeminent Chicana writers, Josefina Lopez! This is J.D.’s third Fringe; last year, he wrote, directed and starred in the Fringe Encore Performance award-winning “A Night at the Chicano Rock Opera.” He is in season 2 of his NEW YouTube series, ROCK god! J.D. is a native of McAllen, Texas and resides in North Hollywood, California.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Would you consider the accordion, the bajo sexto, brass instruments, the keyboard, or the vocals more essential in terms of production and sound? Which one typically leads the rest of the instrumentation?
J.D. Mata: The bass and the drums are the heartbeat of the music. When you’re doing a recording session, that’s the first thing you record. You record the bass and the drums first, then go on to a dummy vocal track. If you’re a dummy and you’re singing, it’s a dummy vocal track.
I’m just kidding. But yes, the bass and drums drive Tejano music. Then you have the guitar, which provides the rhythm, if you will. The bass goes boom, the guitar goes chat-chat, and the drums tie it all together. So, I would rank bass and drums tied first, then guitar, and then the keyboard. It’s essential.
Usually, the keyboard provides the opening lead and then adds the dressing. The keyboard is the dressing on the salad. If you eat the salad dry, it will taste better. But when you add some delicious dressing, that’s what the keyboards and horns are.
I would give vocals an honourable mention. In terms of driving force, bass and drums are number one. Of course, the vocals deserve an honourable mention for driving force. They are the body of the song. The human body has skin and bones, but without the heart, arteries, DNA, and white cells, the body won’t stand. It’s like having no knees—the body falls. The singing is the body of the song.
The voice and the words are the attractive part of the music. The words are the beautiful dance, the movement. But the bass and drums are the song’s heartbeat, force, and strength. Cartilage and ligaments, which connect everything, would be the keyboards and the guitar. That’s how I would answer that.
Jacobsen: Was this discovered as best practice over time, or has it always been that way?
Mata: It’s always been that way because that’s how it is. For example, let’s say you want to be a Tejano artist and start a band. If you’re a singer, you can’t go on stage and sing, expecting everybody to dance and follow without a bass. There’s no structure, no heart. You must find yourself a good drummer and bass player to get a band together. It’s been that way since the beginning of Tejano’s time.
Jacobsen: If you were to record a song, why is starting with the bass beat foundational? It’s possible to structure in reverse order if you’re thinking about a recording studio without regard to the audience because the end product is the song. But if you do it that reverse way, what happens? What chaos ensues?
Mata: Interestingly enough, many bands, including The Beatles, when they first started recording with only two tracks, would record the whole song together: bass, drums, guitar, and vocals. Then, they would do some backup vocals as another track. To get the feel and energy of the song, some bands record it as a band, which can be very effective. To answer your production question, yes, it would be chaotic if you tried to do a song without starting with the bass and the drums. People need to understand that music is math—time signatures: 1, 2, 12, 1234, 12, 3.
Let’s say we do 8 bars. If you’re in 4/4 time, 8 bars of 4/4 equals 32 beats: 1-2-3-4, 2. 8 times four is 32. So, the drums and the bass are the math behind the song. If you try to sing or play the guitar or keyboard first, you could set up the math if the keyboard player is good with a click track. If your keyboard player has to go out of town, you could record his track first. Then, you’d record bass, drums, and guitar. They could all be recorded simultaneously, but you’d start with the keyboards for a keeper recording and then wrap up the keyboard track.
The keyboard will be on time if you’re using a click track. Before clicking tracks, bands are recorded by feel, which can be complicated without a solid metronome. Recording on feel means the feel comes from the bass and drums, not the keyboard. Following the bass and drums rather than the keyboard, vocalist, or guitarist makes more sense. Yes, it would be chaotic otherwise. Some artists start with drums and guitars, but drums are always first. Mathematically, the common denominator is the drums.
Jacobsen: So, you’re describing the structure of a town or the construction process?
Mata: Correct. It would be like putting in a house’s piping and electrical work without laying the foundation.
Jacobsen: Like putting the cart before the horse?
Mata: Exactly. It could be done, but it would be quite a feat. This is crucial because Tejano music is meant to be danced to. It has to have a solid beat. People dance to Tejano music. While you can dance to classical music, Tejano is primarily for movement. Musicians know it has to be structurally sound in terms of timing, rhythm, and the makeup of the instruments. You want a hook from the beginning and a nice, catchy intro, usually with the keyboard or a horn section.
The song’s structure typically includes an intro, the first verse, then a chorus, back to the intro, another verse, a chorus, and sometimes a middle 8. The usual structure is the intro, verse, chorus, instrumentation (a variation of the intro), verse 2, chorus, and out.
Jacobsen: There was a Kenyan master of an instrument called the nyatiti named Ayub Ogada. I suggest everyone reading this go and listen to songs like “Obiero” or something similar. In his last interview, Ayub Ogada talked about how his instrument was meant to be played communally. He described how, every time he played, he gave part of himself away. His general philosophy on life came from the communal aspect of music. He figured that he would have given the rest of himself away when he finally stopped being here. It was about giving oneself through one’s instrument to the community, being part of it, and being in it. It’s shocking to Western ears that someone like that even exists, but many like him exist. Do you think this idea of Tejano music being dance music is part of that commonality? In our first session, we discussed how people playing in these Tejano bands entertained those working some of the hardest blue-collar jobs.
Mata: Yes. First of all, I profoundly identify with that philosophy. My life has gotten complicated regarding relationships because, as a musician, this is what I do as a career. I don’t know if I shared this with you yet, but this might be the first time. It’s my philosophy that, for me, it’s mandatory. Before we started the session, I talked about how complicated it is to get rich and famous. I am not rich and famous for the sake of vanity but for being able to have my recording studio, buy the best instruments possible, and employ other artists. That’s my vanity. But to get to that level, you have to give everything.
Ayub Ogada says he gives his instrument; I must give everything. I’ve been in relationships where I told musicians this, and now I’m telling you for the first time because it’s part of my evolution. As a musician, and this applies to my Mexican culture and Tejano roots, we’re very sensitive. We’ll give you the shirt off our back, but if you don’t give me your shirt, look out.
As a musician, I give everything. Before this session, I was late because I was working on a song. I could be out doing a dozen other things, but I stay here and practice all day. So, when I’m in a relationship, and my girlfriend or friend is having a party, if I’m not the first person they think of to hire for music, then either she doesn’t care about me, or I need to be better.
You have to be so good that when people say, “I’m gonna have a party,” they think, “I gotta get JD.” If you’re not the go-to guy for your loved ones, you’re not good enough, and you can’t expect success. You must be so good that you’re the first person they call. Otherwise, you’re just spinning your wheels.
You have to have it to relate to what you’re saying. You can’t give what you don’t have. You must be so good that to share the music with everyone, you must have it. The only way to have it is to work hard. If you don’t have it, the people around you will tell you by not asking. They’ll tell you by omission. I was dating someone, and they had two or three parties, and I wasn’t asked to play.
Jacobsen: Did they ever want you to come over to play, considering this person had a piano?
Mata: I don’t know what the rationale is, but I failed because of my way of thinking. I need to be better. That may be why I’m not famous yet, but I’m working on it.
Jacobsen: American culture is famously individualistic, if not hyper-individualistic. Mexican culture is more communal. Do you think Tejano music, being a mixture of polka, Texan elements, and some Mexican music, is more influenced by Mexican communal culture than American individualism?
Mata: Yes, it’s indeed Mexican. It’s patriarchal in that the male often dominates the family structure in Mexican culture. For a long time, Tejano music was male-dominated. But then, with Selena and others like Laura Canales and Shelley Lares, female entertainers started breaking the glass ceiling.
Patriarchal. That’s the word. It’s patriarchal because male dominance is evident. You must be bold and brave to get in front of people, perform, and set yourself up for scrutiny. There’s a certain amount of craziness and insanity required to put yourself up for scrutiny. This applies to Tejano music and probably other genres, too.
The desire to be invited to play is also existential because if you’re not playing, you’re not eating. So, it’s survival of the fittest. The strongest musically survive. This is Mexican-oriented as well. Mexican culture is family-oriented and group-oriented, but there’s always the dominant one in the family, the alpha, and the alpha in music.
Jacobsen: A communal patriarchal hierarchy, right?
Mata: Yes, exactly. Mexican alpha. Music is a lot about feelings and emotions. If someone keeps returning to a song, something about the rhythm or the lyrics touches them, and it’s difficult to ignore them.
Jacobsen: I was in the university choir for two and a half years. Any external stressor could dampen my feel for a song, which would have been more expressive in a prior context. Suppose artists struggle with rent or food or have difficulties with friends or partners who need help understanding the artistic pursuit. How does that impact their ability to envelope their emotions in performance and practice? Is it a trained skill to overcome that blockade?
Mata: Yes. It’s something you either have, or you don’t. It’s an inherent skill. One of my biggest pet peeves is when people tell me, “You need to get a job.” It’s like, f-you. This is my job. I am an artist. I’m a musician. I’m an actor. I’m a filmmaker. That’s what I do. If you’re not being compensated, you have to figure it out. You have to get good enough. It would help to put yourself in the right place and time for things to happen.
Unlike academia, where you study hard and get your bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD. In the music industry, acting industry, or any creative industry, you can work your ass off, but there are so few opportunities out there. Part of the genetic makeup has to be the drive to do it no matter what. There would be a thousand more Tejano artists or musicians if hard work alone determined success. It’s hard work, but it’s also luck. It’s about showing up too.
It’s 80% inspiration and 20% perspiration. It would help if you stuck it out and did not leave a day before the miracle happened. That drive can’t be taught. It’s something innate.
Jacobsen: Do you think the environment can reinforce or modify this, even though it’s mostly innate?
Mata: I don’t think so. I’m thinking of Jason Castaneda, an incredible piano player and singer. Look that cat up. He’s great. He played Tejano. He was much better than me as a musician, but I had the drive to perform more. He became a successful lawyer with a huge house and all these pianos and guitars. He had to give up music to become rich and successful, but he won’t be famous. Maybe I’ll make him famous now. I hypothesize that you either have the “it” factor, the genetic makeup, the inherent ability to stick it out no matter what, or you don’t. It shouldn’t be taught.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/30
Tor Arne Jørgensen, 50, hails from Fevik, a small settlement near Grimstad in southern Norway. He is a dedicated teacher at the local secondary school, a devoted husband, and a proud father of two boys. From an early age, Tor Arne was driven by an insatiable thirst for knowledge, immersing himself in fact-based literature to explore the mysteries of existence. The question “What is Man’s reason for being?” became the guiding force behind his intellectual pursuits. This deep curiosity about the unknown and the universe eventually led him to the international high intelligence community in 2015—a place he describes as warm and welcoming, akin to finding his true tribe. Tor Arne’s contributions to this community have been widely recognized. In 2019, he was honored as the Genius of the Year – Europe by The World Genius Directory. His participation in international high intelligence competitions has yielded impressive results, including multiple high scores and setting the Norwegian high IQ score record twice.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we will focus on religion, history, and a new budding authorship. What were the first formulations of religion?
Tor Arne Jorgensen: From the earliest records we know, which date back to what is increasingly accepted today as around 50,000 to 10,000 years before our own era. This somewhat contradicts what, for example, the Bible and its creation story tell us. According to traditional scriptures, we are then talking about a time span of around 5,000 to 6,000 years. Oral transmissions were the beginning, followed by carvings, where they recorded important events, including various types of rites related to the worship of earthly gods and the universe, ancestors, etc. In line with the development of primitive societies, religious practices followed. The development was often hand in hand. Religion, especially in pre-Christian times, has constantly shifted with whoever had dominion over their area at any given time. But in recent times, this has changed somewhat, as what has been localized has persisted up to our own time. The relationship between polytheistic religions versus monotheistic religions shows a certain balance, with less rigid differences.
Jacobsen: Where were the first definitions of gods in religion?
Jorgensen: In the earliest religions, examples include Anu, the sky god, and Inanna, the goddess of love; these were just two of the gods worshiped by the Sumerians. In the Egyptian religious culture, the most well-known gods are Ra, the sun god, Osiris, the god of the afterlife, and Isis, the goddess of magic and motherhood. This continues in most early and present-day religions.
Jacobsen: What were the first ideas of faith and practices around faith in religion?
Jorgensen: The various religions before written records were focused on earthly elements and the universe. For example, in Animism, where this was practiced. Just look at the Vikings with their offerings, “blots.” Here, their rites involved sacrificing animal blood to the gods to maintain balance in the world. If we look at Shamanism, which was widely used among different tribal societies around the world in somewhat different forms, but still with many similarities, we see communication with the spirit world to gain insights and guidance for warfare, crops, healing, and more. The common denominator for most early religions was the sacrifice of either humans or animals to the gods to gain their favor.
They worshipped the earthly elements and the universe. I would like to add that the only change we see today is that the sacrifice of life has been replaced with gold and goods. And the ultimate sacrifice, for example within Christianity, was made by a human who then became a divine being due to that single act. It’s just a little sad that earlier religions are now just seen as nonsense by ignorant souls. It makes one wonder what people living 1000-2000 years from now will think about our practices today and the religions we currently surround ourselves with…
Jacobsen: What were women’s early roles in religion?
Jorgensen: Women’s roles dating back to the earliest recorded times were varied and diverse, though these roles have become more restricted in recent times. To mention a few roles that women had from the beginning: they served in shamanism, as priestesses, and as oracles.
These roles appeared in different forms across various religions throughout history, from Africa, Europe, and Asia. Women were also venerated, such as the goddess Isis in ancient Egypt, among many others.
Jacobsen: What was the trend of evolution of religion from its roots, insofar as we know them, to modern manifestations of them?
Jorgensen: The religious development, as mentioned, starts from the worship of the surrounding elements as seen in animism. From there, it moves towards a more concrete form of worship, which can still be observed in ritual reenactments, for example, in Native American societies and within our own Scandinavian context with the practice of blot. The development further progressed towards the veneration of ancestors and the offering of humans or animals to the gods to appease them, with the hope of securing good harvests, health, and success in warfare. Around antiquity, religion became more diverse and state-oriented, with its foundations becoming increasingly solid and purposeful.
This was evident in Christianity, and later in Islam. Both of these religions gained significant momentum and developed much more sophisticated doctrines that are very well established today. In the 1500s, the Reformation challenged the Church, leading to a more diverse Christian community. I have chosen not to delve deeply into the individual religions and their development but rather to provide a broad overview of common trends. In summary, the development of religions follows the societal development of humankind. These two aspects go hand in hand. Religions follow human progress, albeit reluctantly.
Jacobsen: How have women’s roles and identities evolved in the context of religion over time?
Jorgensen: Women’s roles have varied throughout history, and if one refers to written records, it appears that women’s roles have been progressively evolving. However, it should also be noted that the development curve is not a steadily increasing one, but rather a curve that moves up and down depending on the religion and time period being discussed.
In the early ancient period, particularly in Egypt, the status of women was significantly more prominent, and the roles of men and women could often be seen as equal. This is evident in the worship of goddesses and the reign of the last Pharaoh, Queen Cleopatra. Moving forward to the period between antiquity and the Middle Ages, women’s roles were significantly deprioritized. They increasingly became the subordinate party, viewed as being on earth to serve men in most respects. This was not only true for Christianity but also for Islam and other religions.
Looking cautiously at Christianity’s view of women, during the Middle Ages and up until the 19th century, witch burning was one of the persecution methods celebrated by the male-dominated religious authorities. Although there were women whose names were etched into the annals of religious history, they were few and far between compared to the number of male figures.
If one takes a broad look at the roles of women across different religions, it becomes clear that generally speaking, men have been the leading figures while women have followed. Most religions, from ancient times onward, have been almost exclusively led by men. The gods who rule these religions often highlight men as their primary spokespersons on earth, not women.
As an aside, it is curious why men are seen as the chosen ones of the gods and not women. Furthermore, it is men who have historically governed the earth, not women; men are seen as the strong ones, and women as the weak. Men dominate, not women. One can think what they want about this, and it is important to respect those who follow their faith as their guiding companion; it is their personal choice.
Jacobsen: How do these identities get baked into religious texts and ceremonies and language if at all?
Jorgensen: The methodology for indoctrinating a new religion is that it should reflect or establish the values that the founders of the religion wish to promote. This is achieved by creating stories through myths and narratives. This was true for the Bible, with its grand narrative of how the world was created and the values that should exist within that world. The ethical guidelines that existed at the time of its creation allowed it to gain a foothold, as it dictated what was already considered inherent societal ideology. Thus, religion and morality form the basis for societal development. Only in recent times has this development stagnated, and this stagnation is becoming increasingly apparent. One can also consider rituals and various types of ceremonies. Holidays that we enjoy today face growing opposition, and as seen in our own country, many of these religious rites may lose their grip and be removed due to their increasingly misaligned relevance in today’s society.
Jacobsen: Religion speaks to most people. Apart from truth claims, what has been its main individual and collective emotional value to people?
Jorgensen: The emotional values derived from religions help create frameworks for those who have none, either never had or have misplaced for various reasons. Humanity has always sought a reason for existence, questioning the meaning of life. Are we placed on this earth only to die? If we were to live only for the days that come and go, many of us would have fallen long before our time had come. With that introduction, I will discuss religion and the human emotional connection to faith. Religion gives many people a reason to live; it provides us with purpose, hope, and comfort.
It strengthens our sense of self. It gives us identity and an understanding of who we can become if we choose to believe in something greater than ourselves. It protects us from ourselves, from our darkness. It charts an ethical direction for believers to follow.
Religion creates emotional collectives. Yes, there is much that religion can offer; it can awaken the good in us, but also the dark. What I want to conclude with is that, for me, religion can be seen as a necessary evil. We are not equipped to function without it, even though we have every reason to.
Jacobsen: What about the roles of minorities of women over time into the present in the context of religion, e.g., LBTI+ women?
Jorgensen: The traditional roles that have prevailed since the beginning have been almost without exception patriarchal, where women have not only occasionally fallen outside or been downgraded compared to men. Fortunately, this has changed in line with societal development in general.
It should be noted that although progress has been made, it comes with a significant caveat. One might ask whether it is the church’s own will to reform or if it is due to external pressure, that is, from society itself. It almost goes without saying that when the church constantly has to reinterpret ancient texts to try to adapt them to today’s society, they have lost much of their credibility. When it comes to accepting homosexual or bisexual individuals, for example as priests, there is still much work to be done. If you ask a believer what they think about homosexuals getting married or just living as they wish, it is often met with disgust. I had a small conversation with some colleagues at work about this very topic, specifically about what they thought about same-sex couples getting married or just being together, man with man and woman with woman.
The response from the believers was unanimous: it was something disgusting and should be banned. I am not homosexual myself, nor am I Christian, but the thought of refusing or thinking something nasty about these people who live in partnerships is something I would never do. They are as good as anyone else, and in many cases even better, for their prejudices are almost non-existent. They accept all people; why can’t the believers do the same when they are supposed to promote the idea of love for one’s neighbor regardless of gender or sexual orientation? Something to consider! The development indicates that religion is moving in the right direction concerning the issues surrounding LBTI+ women, but much work remains. Will we eventually reach a point where everyone accepts everyone, living in hope for us all?
Jacobsen: On a larger point, women are rapidly, and have been for a few decades, outstripping men’s attainment in key areas of education in a knowledge economy where education is a better livelihood. What is evolving role of women in society, and when religion is changing, diminishing, and evolving secular counterparts now in the richer societies?
Jorgensen: The role women play today is reflected in a developing society—economically, independently, and with the right to self-determination, which also impacts the religious sphere. As mentioned earlier, societal development necessitates that the religious majority continually redefine their texts to accommodate these changes.
Today’s women demand their rights despite what ancient texts may dictate, which is reflected in increased secularization and interreligious contexts. The equality movement is breaking down barriers erected by ancient religious dogmas.
Roles are being redefined and will thus shape a future society where everyone is equally valued, even though the church may not necessarily share this view. In my opinion, it is fantastic that we are moving towards equality and compassion despite differences. This is the way forward!
Jacobsen: You are getting into writing books more. What inspired this?
Jorgensen: The joy one gets from constantly challenging oneself. Through this type of development, one gains, based on their own observations and experiences, a better understanding of what they can and cannot do. In other words, one learns to know oneself better. This is what gives me joy in trying new things all the time. I would also like to add that when one challenges oneself in this way, as I do, the tree constantly grows, and new branches sprout. But what specifically made me want to start writing was linked to my verbal skills in reference to logic tests. This is where my strength lies. So why not see if my creativity could also bear fruit in my favorite subject, linguistics? From this, I have now written two books, divided as follows:
The first book I wrote as an independent author, without a publisher, allowed me to give myself free rein to shape the book without any input from a publisher. The book is called “74” and contains 74 poems. It is divided into three parts: the first with 39 poems, then 5 poems, and finally 30 poems. The reason for this division is that each part’s sum should match the Leonardo number value of 39, the value 5, and the Vinci value of 30. A total of 74, which also corresponds to the year I was born. The book is about Leonardo Da Vinci’s life and work from my own perspective, i.e., how I envision him. My own life is also reflected there. I have divided the book into each part with a short text that addresses the human journey through life, i.e., the three stages – young, adult, old. So the book brings a parallel story of myself and Leonardo. This book is written in English, which is my choice and gift to the high IQ community that I have derived so much joy from. The book is my thanks for the kindness I was met with. My first book addresses the brain’s division, and the idea was that the first should be dedicated to the brain’s logical left side and again connected to Leonardo’s left-handed writing, which is the link to the high IQ community.
My next book is written in Norwegian. It addresses the right hemisphere of the brain, its creative part. The book was called “Forstandens Fjolleri” (The Folly of Reason) and deals with all the madness inside me. The battle between good and evil, inner conflicts. Here is a small excerpt from the table of contents: A lyrical work filled with logic, creativity, emotions, and unvarnished truth. Through hidden hints and themes, the reader is invited to solve puzzles along the way. It creates a unique reading experience. The author’s hope is to add a fresh breath of originality that unfolds over the book’s religious-historical imprint. As the book progresses, hidden hints and puzzles are included, as the content describes. This gives hints about what the book conceals and its true intention. The book moves within the religious-historical context. Furthermore, I wanted the language to really come into its own, as I am known for having an extensive vocabulary, which is reflected in the book. The book also addresses my own journey. These two books can only exist as one, as they are a reflection of our own brains. Two halves together.
Jacobsen: What are areas of your expertise and interest?
Jorgensen: What is closest to my heart is history, religion, sports and anything intelligence. Not to forget that I work as a teacher. And now to add, aspiring author.
Jacobsen: What are your pro-tips in writing in the Norwegian book market to people?
Jorgensen: Here are five tips I personally follow to succeed not only in the Norwegian market but also internationally:
Focus on the Message: Make it clear and easy for the reader to follow. It should engage and evoke the right emotions within the genre you choose to write in.
Create a Book Trailer: A book trailer will help you attract the right audience. By finding your target audience, you will more easily sell the book you publish, thereby establishing a steadily growing readership.
Host Book Launches: Invite selected individuals who can help generate buzz around your book, provide valuable feedback, and help you make connections within the literary world.
Be Like MacGyver: Implement creativity in ways you never thought you could. Allow yourself to take a deep dive into your inner self; you will be surprised at what you find when you dig deep enough.
Learn from the Successful: Read about how those who have achieved great success made their breakthroughs, listen to their advice, and keep pushing forward. Even if you don’t feel particularly skilled, you will develop over time. The key is to never give up. Remember, you are the master of your own destiny.
Jacobsen: When can people expect your books to be released?
Jorgensen: Both books have been released, the first last spring and my second one this summer, on June 7th. Both are in the poetry genre. The one I’m working on now is taking a different direction and will most likely be in the crime/thriller genre.
Jacobsen: What is your process for writing, editing, brainstorming, and researching?
Jorgensen: Hmm, it’s not easy to put down on paper, but to simplify it a bit, the process goes something like this: Before I start a book, I like to read books by well-known authors in the genre I want to write in. For example, now I am about to write a thriller/crime novel, so I have read works by authors like Dan Brown, Jo Nesbø, and Stephen King to see what they have done to captivate their readers. I look at their twists, story progression, characters, and the plot in general. Some people like to spend a lot of time building almost everything before they dive into the actual writing, so they just need to tie the threads together. Others just start writing, and the path becomes clear as they go. My approach is somewhere in between, but reading the works of great authors is crucial for further development from there.
I like to create something new that hasn’t been done before; it’s not easy but so much more exciting to work on. Innovative writing suits me, so I just follow that path.
I also enjoy listening to music; it lets my thoughts flow more freely. I feel that music gives access to emotions I didn’t know I had, and everything falls into place, like right now as I write this. When it comes to editing my own writing, I have a lot to improve. By this, I mean I need to structure myself much more. I see that I am too meticulous about how each word and sentence looks. My last publication went through about 70-80 rewrites because I didn’t like how the flow felt. I need to cut this down to no more than 4-5 rewrites before sending it to the publisher. This is probably the most important tip one can give: don’t work yourself to death over the text. Don’t let the perfectionist in you take over completely; manage it to save your own joy of writing.
Jacobsen: Credit to Dr. Sandra Schlick for the rest of these last two questions formulated from her insight. How have inequalities-equalities, power, gender, heterosexism, and diversity played a significant and not-significant part in women’s presence and place in religion?
Jørgensen: Society and religion often go hand in hand. Personally, I like to think of religion as a stubborn mule that resists change and often has to be dragged, reluctantly, out of sheer necessity to avoid falling too far out of step with what normative moral evolution dictates. It’s important to remember that society was once almost entirely governed by patriarchal leaders. These leaders not only permeated all societal structures to fulfill their self-serving agendas, but this influence was also evident in religious circles with their extreme, tradition-based dogmas.
Men have always reigned supreme over everything humanity has undertaken, while women were relegated to a previously brutal and oppressive role, expected not only to accept it but also to love it. Things are somewhat better today, but there is still a long way to go. Just think about how, 100 years ago, advocating for equality was almost synonymous in many countries with risking everything for the women who fought for what we now consider a basic right. Women have been oppressed for thousands of years! How can you love a religion that still relegates women to second-class citizens, where men still dominate in many conservative circles?
Today, the church is increasingly being forced to change direction, giving women more influence and, after much resistance, acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people do, in fact, exist and have rights that you and I take for granted. I’m so glad that all people are seen and loved for exactly who they are and who they recognize themselves to be. All people have the same rights; no one is above or below; we all have equal value, women and men, regardless of what religious texts might say.”
Jacobsen: How have religious communities been discriminative towards each other and to women, and to each other’s women?
Jorgensen: Religious intolerance has been widespread throughout history, such as Christians against Jews, Christians against Muslims, and Muslims against Christians, as seen in the case of the Crusades. Christians against pagans, particularly in the context of Norse mythology. Olav the Holy came from the Crusades and slaughtered anyone who did not submit to the new religion of Christianity. “Believe or die” is still alive today, though now in a more reduced form, only in words. Lack of belief casts you into hell.
Discrimination against women from other religious communities:
Violence Against Women: In times of religious conflict, women from opposing religious communities have often been subjected to sexual violence, used as a weapon of war to humiliate the enemy. This was evident during the Partition of India, where women from different religious communities were raped and killed.
Forced Conversion Through Marriage: In some cases, women from religious minority groups have been forced into marriage with men from the majority religion, leading to forced conversion. This practice has been reported in various regions, including the forced conversions of Hindu women in Pakistan to Islam.
Pressure for Cultural Assimilation: Women who marry outside their religion may face pressure to convert and conform to the religious and cultural norms of their husband’s religion. This can involve adopting new religious practices, changing their dress, and abandoning their previous religious identity.
Discrimination within and between religious communities is often rooted in a combination of doctrinal beliefs, cultural norms, and power dynamics. Women have particularly borne the burden of this discrimination, experiencing exclusion, marginalization, and violence both within their own religious communities and from others. The intersection of religion and gender can perpetuate deeply ingrained inequalities, making the fight for women’s rights and inter-religious harmony a complex and ongoing challenge.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Tor.
Jorgensen: Thank you so much for your kindness and professionalism; it has been a pleasure for me to be interviewed by you. I hope that in the future we will find time again to share some thoughts!
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/29
Tianxi Yu（余天曦）is a man who’s interested in IQ tests.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With an increasingly globalized world, especially for the younger generations, do you think it’s still appropriate to talk about East and West as placeholders about the global order?
Tianxi Yu: The dominant group in globalization is not necessarily governments; the development of civilization is inevitably accompanied by a diminution of governmental power and the rise of individual sovereignty. Thus there are no two different symbols, East and West, but rather the cognitive consensus of individual human beings serves as a placeholder.
Jacobsen: What seems like the first instance of true human civilization to you? What is the foundational mark of a civilization?
Yu:Maybe humans learned to make fire? Or learned to use tools? Or learned to trade? It’s also possible that nothing that happens to humans now is enough to make up a collection. It seems to me that “civilization” gets its bearings when you fully realize that past actions were stupid, and that’s the beginning of civilization.
Jacobsen: What have been the historical trajectories or patterns of civilizations over time?
Yu: Based on artificial intelligence and cryptography, the evolution towards personal sovereignty begins
Jacobsen: What would demarcate the different periods of history into the present?
Yu: By the winners in history, may be based on technology, may be based on tactics, in short these winners make our history books read in order.
Jacobsen: What would best characterize the contemporary period of civilization?
Yu: It’s a hard choice, but for each person, it could be themselves
Jacobsen: How might this characterization be helpful in making predictions about the future stages of human civilization or, at least, the next likely steps?
Yu: The evolution of human society is long and tortuous; the slowness of evolution stems mainly from the corrosion of interest groups, and the collapse of interest groups inevitably accompanies every advance in civilization. So still from a human perspective, the more disgruntled humans there are, the more likely the next stage will come.
Jacobsen: What seems like the difference between European, American, and Asian, academics, academic communities, and academic output?
Yu: It’s hard for me to give a very in-depth judgment because I’m still only in the sewer of academia. But as most people believe, Europe and the United States tend to be more original in their academic output, while China tends to be more replicative and transcendent.
Jacobsen: What might be the rise and fall of nations in the midst of global politics, aging populations, low birth rates, populism, war, and the like, on the rise?
Yu: Decline due to war, political persecution, continued decline of newborn; prosperity due to entering new narratives, creating hope, granting individual sovereignty.
Jacobsen: What contributes to a cyclical nature of economies?
Yu: On a micro level, it can be attributed to technological development, human mental activity, regime change …… But I prefer it to be a by-product of God’s creation. God exists and is immortal. And the economy is a pseudo-god, the only way to acquire divinity as a mortal.
Jacobsen: I’ve had anxiety too. What are your strategies for re-centering yourself, calming down?
Yu: Read psychology books, meditate on Buddhist scriptures, go for a walk and let yourself go
Jacobsen: Do you have any time to balance professional responsibilities and relaxation, and self-care?
Yu: Time is enough, but it’s hard to get yourself to really relax, especially when you’re done relaxing and facing reality.
Jacobsen: You have been an outspoken person. What were the reasons for the more recent outspoken posts on Facebook? How should they be interpreted? What were the reactions to those posts?
Yu: On a very offensive note, the vast majority of them are not intelligent, and in my opinion stupid, and I don’t get what I want within this group. I’m outspoken in many groups, even in my workplace, and I’m outspoken because I understand that I’m much better than the vast majority of these groups. That’s my backbone, but it’s also the source of my anxiety. A lot of my anxiety still stems from my loneliness, and while I say I believe in the existence of God, God is not the most powerful, and above God is the indescribable void. I know I can’t be an all-knowing, all-powerful God if I live 1000 years, but I want to go after Him too. God is not alone because He created the world and has countless children from whom He derives His emotions. But I don’t, and am far from God, and that has led to constant self-doubt and doubts about my abilities. Suffice it to say that acquiring more divinity is my goal in life, making money and a good job is just me finding something for me to do with myself. As for these posts, they were made because my emotions weren’t well relieved. I don’t think there’s much to explain, what other people think has nothing to do with me.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are back to the “delightful” topic of clergy-related abuse in general, but sexual abuse in particular, because it is the darkest in the public imagination. Regarding consent as a claim when an individual priest, pastor, or religious authority comes forward, what are some important ethical considerations? While that can be considered legitimate in some cases, it is probably not legitimate in most considerations. In other cases, it is a blanket lie.
Professor David K. Pooler: I will say this. I do think there may be people who have had sex with a married pastor, single pastor, priest, or whatever. They probably believe it was consensual because someone may not have said “No,” did not resist, or was not clear that they did not want that to happen. However, those kinds of situations are not about what consent truly is. Consent is when both people can say “Yes” or “No.” Both people absolutely, categorically want to be sexual with one another.
There was massive internal reluctance and the need to please an authority figure in the cases I have looked at, researched, and discussed with survivors. It is complicated because it is not just the need to please an authority figure; this person is a proxy for God. It is so complicated in that arrangement where the survivor feels that if they were to try to say no or express concern. They are going against God. Often, the person who is targeting them and initiating sexual contact is framing it in such a way that God is okay with it. That is not very easy. It is very broad to say God is okay with it, but they use much scripture and various interpretations I have heard through the years.
Then they claim their authority, saying what the Holy Spirit or God said. The other thing that complicates consent, which we must discuss, is this power differential. With a power differential, you have to ensure that undue influence, coercion, or misuse of that added power that one person has in the equation is not being used to coerce, manipulate, or push for sexual activity. I have even been asked through the years, what about a single pastor? Could they not have a relationship with someone in their congregation?
They could, but it could be more straightforward. My guidance for that situation is, “No, do not do it.” If you need to date someone and you are interested in romantic relationships, date outside your congregation. Surely, your world has a bigger pool of people than you, pastor. In the rare occasion that a single pastor, for example, wanted to be sexual with someone in their congregation, to ensure that there was actual consent, you would have to bring on board some people to watch that relationship and have conversations with the person the pastor is dating and wants to be sexual with.
Let me go back to consent. Having honest, open communication about what both people want is essential. From my perspective on this and listening to survivors, it is so secretive and hidden, and the pastor is trying to keep it unknown. So, the capacity for an open, honest conversation in this relationship is almost impossible. Consent is not possible in most cases because of the power differential. You mentioned ethics, and outside of ministry, all the other helping professions understand the complications of the ethics around this. That is why sexual relationships with people you are supporting and helping are prohibited.
It is not; here is the guidance for doing it and what it looks like. It is prohibited. You do not do it. In some professions, after the helping relationship is over, you can have sexual relations with someone. In my profession, social work, a sexual relationship is prohibited forever. Technically, if I ever wanted to have sex with a former client, I would not be able to do that according to the ethics of social work. What I am getting at is that these secular professions understand the complicated nature and the nuances of ensuring that both people are having an honest, open conversation about sex and sexuality in a relationship. It would be almost absurd to think about it happening this way but say a married pastor wants to have sex with someone in his congregation. “Hey, I realize what we are doing is inappropriate and wrong. It is a violation of marital vows, but I want to make sure that you are completely okay with us being sexual.”
Those conversations never happen. Many people who perpetrate sexual abuse with someone in their congregation think, “Hey, I want this with this person. If this person is not actively resisting or saying no, they must want it and must be okay with it also,” which is a horrible assumption to make. I have never had a conversation with a survivor yet where there was that open conversation.
And then I would also add that not only can sex be coerced and manipulated with that power differential, but there is certainly what we would consider sexual assault even when someone is resisting or saying “No.” That happens more than we want to admit in this arrangement. Part of what I wanted to speak to is this piece where the offending pastor, if their defence is, “It was consensual. They wanted it too.” I have heard this often: “They were the ones who wanted it. They were flirtatious. They were the ones who were coming after me and targeting me.”
What I would say there is that all the other helping professions equip people to manage a situation in which a client or someone they are supporting might want to be sexual with them. It is the person with more power. It is always their job to put the brakes on, the fence up, the boundaries out, and say no. That is not how this relationship works. Moreover, that gets into another topic I wanted to jump on around purity culture if it is okay if we go there, which is a subset of Christianity that focuses a lot on men being instinctually lustful and that their sexuality is something that has to be tamed and managed, it is a battle they have to focus on in battling their lust. However, they put an excessive burden on the women in that environment so as not to tempt men and to not cause men’s eyes to stray.
I say all that because, in many cases, that is what they are referring to: “I was tempted. This person caused my eyes to stray. I am struggling with lust, and this person came on to me.” So it is this helplessness: “I was at the mercy of this powerful woman who was not managing herself in ways to protect me.” Again, all this burden is on the woman. We often see the defence of an offending pastor going to that narrative, and many people in congregations buy that narrative.
“Yes, I guess it was her fault. I guess she did tempt him. I guess she was trying to undo the church.” They often view women who have been victimized by a pastor as evil. That is a complete turnaround and reversal. The DARVO—deny, accuse, reverse victim and offender—but the entire system can pull a DARVO on someone who has been victimized by a pastor sexually.
I wanted to bring that in because when we are talking about consent, there is a subset of Christianity that not only does not talk about consent at all but also puts this huge burden on the woman to maintain sexual purity for the church. The sexual purity of men in the church is the burden on the women to make sure that happens. That is a real setup for abuse to happen. Then, when abuse is reported, that victim gets blamed by the perpetrator and the supporters of the perpetrator in that whole institutional system.
Jacobsen: These are theological social stereotypes about men and women guiding this orientation.
Pooler: Unfortunately, it is.
Jacobsen: Dorothy Small brought some subtleties to my attention. She mentioned clergy who take vows of celibacy, chastity, or both in some denominations. When those individuals make those vows, how does this change the power and ethics dynamic when making claims about the victim as tempting them somehow? Or, in the opposite case, when they do not make those vows, where it is simply the power-over relationship?
Pooler: Yes, that is a great question. I have a simple answer. There is no difference. Whether the person is making a vow of celibacy or chastity or whatever, the fact remains that there is more power given and offered to a leader in any church system, especially where males are elevated, or women are potentially excluded from ministry. However, whether or not someone has made those vows does not change the dynamics of how it happens or a claim of it being consensual or “I was tempted.” Again, I have already talked about the complexity of consent. The fact is, even if there were a woman who was flirtatious and attempting to tempt someone—and I am not here to say that this could never happen or does not ever happen—at the end of the day, the professional with the power, which people are trusting in a congregation, is the one responsible for navigating that relationship and keeping everyone safe and protected. So, to allow oneself to be tempted—I will say it this way: If I, as a social worker, were to allow myself to be tempted, if you will, that is not even the right word.
I will go beyond the word “tempted.” If I were to be sexual with a client and I claimed I was tempted or that the client was the initiator or the instigator, it would still be sexual misconduct. My license would be sanctioned. In other words, it is always my job. My job as a helper is to meet someone where they are, to assess where they are, and to assess their needs and what it will take to keep them safe. Then, I make that referral if whatever they need is beyond what I can do.
Unfortunately, there is no universal training on assessing boundaries and the formal education process regarding ministry. In other words, ministry lags way behind on complex, nuanced conversations around power, sex, consent, and boundaries, whereas the secular helping professions are way ahead on that. That is not to say that sexual misconduct does not happen in other professions—it certainly does. However, systems are in place to deal with that in a regulated profession.
Of course, the ministry is not externally regulated by the minister’s denomination. Currently, in 13 states plus the District of Columbia, it is illegal to be sexual with someone in your congregation explicitly because of that power differential and the complexity around consent. So you get the sense that there is movement in the right direction and awareness is growing, but we still have a long way to go.
Jacobsen: Another item that came up—I am not a biblical scholar, obviously, so I looked it up. I noticed this in listening to a lot of very conservative, even far-right conspiratorial pastors and preachers. Most of them come from the United States, as my reviews show. I listen to them a lot because I want to hear what other people think, which is very different from my view of the world. One of the individuals who pops up is the former pastor, Mark Driscoll, of Mars Hill Church. There was a scandal based on some preaching he did. He collapsed that church and then moved from Seattle to Arizona with Trinity Church. Now, he is focused on rallying young men because they see the church as too feminized. He is preaching against the “Jezebel spirit” in the church. This is the part I had to look up. The Jezebel spirit is referenced in 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Leviticus, and Revelation. Does this accusation come up? What does it mean?
Pooler: Yes, man. That is a great question. I would not call myself an amateur theologian, but I study people in theological environments. I study and understand, or say it this way: some underlying theology becomes apparent when I look at and research this. In its broadest sense, the Jezebel spirit claims to disempower women. It amplifies and elevates the voices of men in a patriarchal structure. So, men’s voices and capacities are elevated, while women are seen as underminers, temptresses, or interested in bringing down the church. Whenever you have a theology or a leader talking about those things, what I see at the largest level is a diminishment of women and an amplification of men.
Moreover, that is part of the system that creates this abuse. When I do talk about this, I talk about gender dualism. We have had gender dualism from the inception of the church. Men have strong minds, and women are weak and emotional—all these kinds of things that are false. It is a false dualism that often feeds into traditional gender roles, but it also creates an environment in which people have to function. They then perpetuate that environment.
When I hear much talk about the Jezebel spirit and that kind of thing, it deeply concerns me because it focuses on women as problematic. A specific gender is seen as the problem and embodies the problem in a certain way. It is easy to blame a woman when that talk and conversation are more prevalent. So that is my take on that. I cannot say for certain what the Jezebel spirit entails. We sometimes throw the word around without unpacking what the original text and authors were trying to communicate when they brought that up. This one is more in the public consciousness because I did not have to look it up.
Jacobsen: It is another form—again, I am biased. I am a humanist and tend to be more naturalistic in my orientation. So those are my biases, naturally. However, another supernaturalistic excuse, in my view, that comes up is the common phrase, “The devil made me do it” or “A demon made me do it.” Does that come up? Even though they may have lusted themselves, another being with supernatural demonic powers made them do this act and be tempted to do it. Therefore, it is not their fault, or at least not wholly their fault.
Pooler: Yes. I recall a few anecdotes from my research where the offending pastor used that as an excuse and quickly shifted to God and God’s forgiveness, love, and ability to carry them through this. So, if that makes sense, what it did, though, I think it diffuses and almost gaslights the person being victimized by offloading a lot of the responsibility onto the devil and then presenting the solution as God. It takes the human elements of this—the sense of agency and power that the offending pastor uses—and says, “Do not look at that.” It is almost like The Wizard of Oz—this other being the devil. And then God’s love and forgiveness are at play.
When you pull the curtain back, you see a coercive, manipulative pastor who is narcissistic in many cases and has been targeting someone to be sexual with. However, they take all that attention off of themselves through that very thing: “The devil made me do it.” However, that is the lesser piece of it. That becomes the vehicle to pivot to God’s love and understanding: “Maybe this is not what God has for us, but God will forgive us. Let us focus on that.” It is a way to keep being sexual with someone and not stop the inappropriate behaviour. So those are some of the things I have seen.
Jacobsen: Mark Driscoll has used the case before. His reemergence is a traditional Christian story of redemption. Does that narrative allow misbehaving clergy to pop back up within the community consciousness in some instances?
Pooler: Absolutely. This is where it gets complicated because, of course, we want there to be redemption stories, stories of a life resurrected and restored, and those kinds of things. Blaming women becomes a false redemption: “She was the one who made me do it. I have now worked on my issues and why I was tempted, and I will not let this happen again, and I am coming back to ministry.” We see that a lot. My response is that we must do a much deeper dive into what restoration, redemption, and healing look like. When is someone truly restored?
Someone once asked me if someone who ever offends in this way should even be allowed to minister again. As a researcher looking at this and the damage done, I would say no because you have shown yourself untrustworthy. When you sexually abuse someone who has trusted you, you have lost the ability to have people’s trust again, at least on that large scale, to be entrusted again. The other challenge, for example, with a Mark Driscoll story, is that you have got someone who is a self-appointed leader. He is not part of any system or structure holding him accountable.
He left one system or structure he had created, which tried to hold him accountable. He exited and found another, bringing that back to life. So, there is no real accountability, and no one is looking at everything that’s going on with him to ensure he is ready to lead a church again. Unfortunately, that is a very common narrative. People will leave one denomination, go to another after offending in the Baptist church, and then become Methodist or Presbyterian or move to another state where their actions are not a crime.
That is clever. There are so many ways to keep going as a leader in Christianity. What worries me the most is that we, the congregants, the participants in religious life, allow this to occur. Somehow, so many of us are okay with it; that is one of the things that scares me. Why are we unwilling to hold our leaders accountable, ask them hard questions, and ensure that someone can return to ministry? Alternatively, saying, “Hey, we know you have done X, Y, and Z. We will not hire you to be our pastor. We are not going to allow someone to be our pastor.”
In denominations with a more top-down hierarchy, why are bishops and other high-level administrators reappointing a pastor after being offended? That is a whole other set of questions, but it is all part and parcel of a system that short-circuits important questions about how and why this occurred. Just because someone says, “I am ready to pastor again,” or “I am right with God again,” how do we ensure that? It is very, very complicated and not easy.
Jacobsen: Last question. What about the distinction between the system and bad apples and the survivor’s forgiveness of the abuser?
Pooler: Yes.
Jacobsen: As Dorothy Small told me, these clergy are sick and have committed these crimes. So, separating them from the clergy as a class and dealing with it as forgiving but not forgetting is a very mature and subtle point she made to Hermina and me.
Pooler: People ask and go back and forth, and there is even a paper written by a couple of academics at a Jesuit university that said it is not just bad apples. In other words, we have a system in which clericalism is present, which elevates our leaders and disempowers congregants. It is in that system that we are creating situations where people, as they gain more and more power, almost become Frankenstein monsters who then harm and injure us. I do think we have some systematic structural problems, and I would say that churches have always had these issues.
Any world religion with an elevated leader can have problems with clericalism. One question is whether this model works. I would say we are getting some concrete evidence that systems in which clericalism is present create and amplify the risk of harm and abuse by someone with more power. I have started to see a term in the literature.
It is called “vulnerance.” It is about the complicated factors at play when someone has power and thus has more capacity to harm because of that power. So, I would say many of our pastors have enormous vulnerance. In other words, they have way more capacity to injure than the average person; part of it is our systems creating that.
We need to take a look at that. Lastly, forgiveness this way, putting on my clinician hat: forgiveness should never be pushed by an institution, should never be pushed by a leader, and should never be demanded. I have seen forgiveness used to bypass all this hard work: “Do not hold me accountable. Do not do that. Forgive me, and let us move on.”
We need always to remember. Whether or not an individual or a congregation can forgive is this: It is hard work. It is multilayered. What I have looked at, as far as trauma and people who have been traumatized working on forgiveness, is an onion. As you heal from your trauma, you face deeper elements and can name with clarity the injury that’s happened. You feel more pain.
Once you find that intersection, another layer of forgiveness is needed. Forgiveness is an ongoing, long process that always needs to be finished. It is not something you do and then it is done. Boom. We need to have more complex conversations about forgiveness. I have even had some survivors say, “I do not know how to forgive, and I do not think I can forgive.” Moreover, I say, “Yes, that is okay. It is okay.”
It is okay not to know how to forgive when an injury this deep has occurred or even to say, “I cannot do it. I cannot forgive.”We need to find forgiveness and empower people with the injury, with the tools to figure out what that will look like, rather than an institution or a theological statement telling people they need to do it.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/28
Matthew Bywater, M.Sc. is a researcher, educator, and activist who has delved into the criminal and rights abuse case of Keith Raniere.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’ve interviewed people in high-IQ communities. You have deeply dived into a particularly troublesome character named Keith Raniere of NXIVM, nicknamed Vanguard. What were some of his worst exploits in your research?
Matthew Bywater: His worst exploits. You have to look at the aftermath of what happened. There were several women in his close inner circle who died of apparent poisoning. Several women were branded with his initials on their pelvic region. Many people were exploited for their money in a kind of pyramid-like structure. All around Keith Raniere, there was mayhem and destruction. That is in terms of the practical consequences of Raniere.
Jacobsen: How did he escape it for so long?
Bywater: People called him the “Teflon Man” because nothing stuck. He was reported to the authorities in the Albany area. It is New York State or whatever the local authorities are, and no action was taken. He also got away with it because of the amount of money he amassed. He successfully brought the Bronfman sisters (heirs to the Seagram liquor company) into the NXIVM cult. After that, he was able to use their finances to litigate all of NXIVM’s defectors and enemies into oblivion. So, how did he get away with it? It was a mixture of governmental negligence and sheer brutality on his part.
Jacobsen: Who do you think were the worst culprits in helping him?
Bywater: Well, that would be his inner circle. In terms of the financial side, without question, it was Clare Bronfman. In terms of recruiting female victims into the sex cult known as DOS, that would arguably have been Alison Mack. Regarding creating the NXIVM company system, the person with the most responsibility or culpability is Nancy Salzman.
Jacobsen: Was there a similar reaction from others?
Bywater: The short answer is “we do not know” because Nancy Salzman agreed to appear in The Vow documentary TV series, season two. So, all of her waking-up process was captured on film. We are curious if others, like Alison Mack, have undergone a similar process. Just to clarify, Alison Mack pleaded guilty to the sex trafficking charges against her. Claire Bronfman did plead guilty but still refuses to renounce Raniere.
As far as I know, she may still be financing the NXIVM loyalists, of whom there are about 20. If you look at the original NXIVM defectors, every single person who was involved in NXIVM went through that process. you either have a “holy shit, I am in a cult” moment, or you have a “holy shit, I am dealing with a psychopath” moment. This connects to what I said before about having your values and conscience turned against you. Coming to that realization is extremely painful.
Someone I know who was a member of the Moonies said his waking up process was like falling out of a plane, and that is how he experienced it. So that may be the process Nancy Salzman was going through, and that is the process every cult member goes through if they have a conscience. If they lack conscience, then the question arises whether they are merely crying for themselves.
Jacobsen: What happened in Raniere’s mind? Do we know any professional psychologists who can diagnose what is going on in his head?
Bywater: So I do not think a mental health professional has ever diagnosed him. He has now been in prison for two years, almost two years. Perhaps he has been diagnosed in the correctional institution where he is being held. He exhibits the traits of psychopathy or narcissistic personality disorder which in my opinion should be considered as a subset of psychopathy. Predators exist on a spectrum of varying extremities. As far as we know, he was not given the love and attention he needed as a child in his early childhood. Whatever happened, he developed the condition of psychopathy.
However, beyond that, we do not know. We know that his father was generally absent, and he was a very tough salesman. He was not Raniere’s primary caregiver. People who knew his mother said she was very eccentric.
Moreover, later, Raniere said she would make herself sick to punish him. Beyond that, we do not know. It is one of the big mysteries. Something happened to make him into the person he was. Unfortunately, we do not know the specifics.
Raniere is currently in prison. However, there are about 20 people still loyal to him. They are active on social media – you can look up The Dossier Project or whatever handle they are going with now.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/27
The Peace School is new in Canada, founded and accredited by the Ontario Ministry of Education in 2023. Currently, the school has five children with a capacity for 120 and is well-financed and supported by the parents whose children attend. The school’s pedagogy has attracted the attention and support of UNICEF, UNESCO, and UNHCR, which strongly encouraged Dr. Nasser Yousefi, the Principal of The Peace School, to share his pedagogy and learning environment with other countries. Canada was Dr. Yousefi’s first choice for the next Peace School. Dr. Yousefi began his career as a child psychologist, studying in Sweden and earning a Master’s in Education in Childhood Growth and Development. In his exploration of the best pedagogy and learning environment for children, Dr. Yousefi completed a PhD in Educational Approaches at Madonna University in Italy and a PhD in Educational Psychology at Northwest University in the USA. This training combined humanistic and cognitive approaches to education. For many years, Dr. Yousefi was an educational consultant for UNICEF. He has conducted educational and research activities for various groups of children, including immigrant children, minorities, street children, and children with special needs. Dr. Yousefi was the Principal of the Peace (Participatory) School in Tehran, Iran, from 2005 to 2023, graduating 500 students from kindergarten to high school, with graduates accepted at universities in Europe, America, and Canada. Dr. Yousefi is passionate about creating the best future for children and is dedicated to creating safe and nurturing learning environments based on holistic principles.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you get funding for these educational efforts in the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Dr. Nasser Yousefi and Baran Yousefi: So, all are provided by the tuition. We didn’t have any extra funding or financial support. The school was supervised by an NGO in Iran. The school was a project of this NGO. The NGO provided all the educational programming and everything else. Nothing came from outside the school; it was all within the NGO and the school system.
Sometimes, we held events to provide fun activities, like concerts or art exhibitions, and all the funds gathered from these events were used exclusively for the school. Most of the support and help we received came from volunteers. Many of our operations, educational programs, research, and even teacher training were handled by volunteers. We needed to pay only for basic things, like the rent for the building and our full-time teachers.
Everything we paid for was solely for the students. Aside from the building and salaries, everything else was handled by volunteers. Research, planning, and everything else were done voluntarily. The parents whose children were enrolled in the school also helped. We wanted the parents to be part of the whole system and to participate. When they helped and supported the school, it became important to them. Sometimes, we would ask if they had a party room in their building for events or meetings, if they could help with transportation or field trips, or volunteered for library operations. Anything that could reduce our expenses. The whole project was so interesting to them that they wanted to be involved.
They were so excited about the whole project and the school concept that they didn’t wait for us to ask for help; they did it themselves. One of the school’s principles was that we believed the whole community was our school. We could use community resources as learning opportunities for our students rather than building or creating new opportunities. We always used available resources provided by families, whether they worked in a company, factory, vet clinic, or lab.
Those opportunities were the best for our students to learn something new. It also decreased our expenses and created more learning opportunities. It helped us create a culture of utilizing available community resources for children. Instead of building something ourselves, we used what we already had. This model could be used in any city, not just the capital or larger cities. It could work in any city based on available resources and people. Looking at it broadly, there are many opportunities for schools to use for their students. It doesn’t mean we must create them; they are already available.
This approach also allowed us to have multiple field trips and use community resources. All the libraries in the city were our schools. All the museums were our school. Every company, factory, and store became part of our learning environment. We viewed the entire city as a learning opportunity. It meant that everyone in society was a teacher for us. The museum guide, or guides, yes. They would have been the best teachers, especially for the Museum of History. Or people who worked at the laboratory.
They were the best teachers for biology. We were open to other people becoming our teachers. We were fearless of letting more people join our team and welcomed them as much as possible. Everyone in Tehran, where we were based, was very welcoming to our students and the school. We wanted to hear from them because we respected their talents, abilities, and everything. We wanted them to be the experts in some situations, and they did everything they could for us. That’s why we never encountered any closed doors from the people.
We did face situations where the government closed doors for us, but people were very open and welcoming.
Jacobsen: A few things come to mind. This will be the shortest of the three I have in mind. When people own a school or the educational system and participate that way, did they adopt a motto or slogan within the school?
Yousefi: Yes, the founders had a motto. The school slogan was “Make the world a better place.” The teachers never expected anything specific from the students but always asked them to improve the world for themselves and others, regardless of their jobs or careers.
Yes, it doesn’t matter what job or career you follow; you can improve the world. You are not allowed to hurt anyone or make someone else suffer. You need to love others and show empathy and compassion. We tried to teach love and empathy. As teachers and adults, we don’t have much to teach students, but we can spread love to them.
Regarding the concerts and other fundraising efforts, we raised funds to reduce operating costs and lower parents’ fees. These concerts were private and not publicly announced. Generally, anyone is allowed to hold a concert, but for larger public events, they need a permit from the government. For us, it was different. Women, for example, are not allowed to perform publicly. Our fundraising concerts were all private and spread by word of mouth.
This touches on the third question, which might require a longer response. We did face some pressure and pushback from the government. The main issue was that they didn’t recognize us as a school. This meant we couldn’t give any diplomas or certificates to our students. So that was one of the issues, yes. The government wants every school to follow its curriculum and textbooks, and the same textbooks are used across the country. It doesn’t matter where the school is; every student has to read the same textbook.
That was one of the main issues and pushbacks. One of our biggest challenges was that the government only believed in one system and approach. They didn’t even allow an alternative approach to be considered. However, we wanted to continue promoting different and multiple approaches and methods worldwide, and we believed we had to at least look at them. We wanted to promote and support diversity rather than singularity, but the government needed help.
They wanted their system and approach to be seen and recognized. It doesn’t matter where you live in Iran, whether in the north, south, east, or west; everyone has to read the same textbook. It doesn’t consider their cultural, religious, or political backgrounds. Everyone has to read the same textbook and take the same exams. However, we must consider the child’s cultural background, history, language, stories, and even religion in their educational program. Iran has a diversity of religions and languages, and we can’t ignore this diversity. You can speak up to one language when there are various languages. In the humanistic approach, we must consider this diversity and these differences. We wanted to do this, and we tried to do it. Of course, we still try to do it, but the government doesn’t support it.
Jacobsen: So, no political violence was enacted against any of you, the students, the teachers, or the families. Is that correct?
Yousefi: Violence in the sense that we might usually imagine? No, because we were conducting a research project. The development of this alternative method over twenty years was a massive research project. We always told government organizations that we were implementing a research project to expand educational diversity. We always spoke as a group of specialists. However, I believe that the fact we were never officially recognized and our students were unable to receive an official diploma is itself a form of violence.
Jacobsen: When you’re in a highly religiously controlled society, and everyone, regardless of background, has to take these examinations and follow the educational curriculum, what is in it? What do people have to learn? Is it anything connected to the real world? Which parts are useful, and which are nonsense that train people to be effective citizens in a theocracy?
Yousefi: The focus of the schools is, after all, the promotion and expansion of religious thought, specifically introducing students to Islamic teachings. However, Iran is a country rich in diverse religions, where followers of different faiths have lived together in peace for centuries. When the official education system ignores this diversity and doesn’t provide opportunities for dialogue among followers of various religions, ethnicities, or minorities, diversity and plurality are ultimately lost. Of course, followers of religions like Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and others had their own schools that only enrolled students of their faith. However, there was no interaction between students of different religions within the official education system.
Jacobsen: As part of the curriculum, are kids taught things that aren’t useful, like prayer and other religious practices, that might be meaningful to the parents but not necessarily effective for dealing with the realities of life when they grow up?
Yousefi: In mainstream schools, there are subjects for religion and prayer. We don’t know exactly how parents feel because we aren’t in contact with parents from mainstream schools, but we hear they aren’t very satisfied with what’s happening. We also hear that sometimes their children practice something at school but something else at home, leading to conflicts.
They only study and read to pass exams. They don’t necessarily believe what they study. This isn’t limited to religious subjects; it includes history, literature, geography, and even science and social sciences. Students memorize the textbooks to pass exams. The textbooks include stories in literature that students have to read, but these are only sometimes the books they choose when they go to the library. We wanted to connect school and personal life, not separate them. It wasn’t easy; being honest with yourself and your education while maintaining balance was hard.
Jacobsen: Does the mainstream educational system make any distinctions between Sunni, Shia, Ahmadi, or Quranist interpretations of Islam, or is it all one version?
Yousefi: No, it only talks about Islam in a general sense. Discussions around Zoroastrianism and other faiths are not included. The government has its version of Islam that it promotes. It could be more realistic and accurate; it’s just something the government developed.
Jacobsen: A friend of mine is a cosmologist at UBCO and Lethbridge. He’s a Quranist Muslim. We’ve been discussing interfaith topics for a long time. He’s big on interfaith dialogues and humanistic interpretations of Islam, which might appeal to secularized individuals. However, this isn’t that. I’m a minor figure doing administrative stuff for them, but the Canadian Quantum Research Center has a decent number of citations.
Jacobsen: Let’s contrast what was described with the mainstream system’s method and how it doesn’t recognize anything other than a single worldview, and not in an educational sense when I’m thinking about it. They’re taking it as true rather than a secularized world religions class, where they teach what people believe and let you decide for yourself. It’s much different. They’ve pre-decided for you. What’s your humanistic approach to this?
Yousefi: We consider religion to be part of a child’s background. Many Persian poems have roots in Islam, Zoroastrianism, or even Judaism. So, when you want to learn about Rumi or Hafez, you must also learn about those roots. For example, you can’t understand Hafez’s poems if you don’t know the Torah stories or Rumi’s poems without knowledge of the Quran. The same applies to Eastern countries. If you don’t know the Bible, you can’t fully understand Victor Hugo’s or Charles Dickens’s stories.
Talking about the Bible, Quran, or Torah is necessary to understand literature and poetry. It doesn’t mean we are promoting that religion. Rather, it’s about understanding the culture and history needed to grasp something else. The same goes for science. Some scientific concepts have come from Eastern or Western positions or even how we look at evolution. There are different narratives about evolution rooted in religion. Discussing a scientist or physician doesn’t mean we are endorsing their religious views. We are discussing their ideas and theories. We only focus on religion as a background context. We don’t have a specific subject for religion, but we touch on it to explain the backstory of other topics. If a student is curious about a religion, we open up, considering it a great learning opportunity. But we always respect all religions and those who follow them. We are one of the rare schools with diverse religions, but we never promote any particular one.
We always help students learn more about a religion if they have questions. Some families specifically asked us not to talk about any religion, especially in Iran. However, we could only say yes if a child was interested in learning about Islam or any other religion . We respected their curiosity and taught them about it without promoting it.
In the context of Iran, if you advocate for something other than Islam, there could be negative consequences. But we never wanted to advocate for a specific religion because it would mean we couldn’t respect others. We wanted to allow students from other religions to speak freely and be heard. One year, the students themselves asked for a class on religion. We had a program to introduce each religion without advocating for any. We also explained that some people are atheists and don’t believe in any religion. We focused on diversity, saying, “This is it,” rather than limiting ourselves to one viewpoint.
This approach wasn’t limited to religion. It extended to literature and music as well. Some schools only teach one genre of music or one instrument. We introduced different genres and instruments, even challenging ones. We aimed to discuss the best examples in each genre across subjects like arts and science.
If a school restricts everything to one religion or genre, it restricts diversity. We encouraged students to love their country and respect other countries, lands, and nationalities. We never advocated for nationalism or exclusivity.
Jacobsen: So, that’s good. This last response will be helpful for those in Canada who may have a stereotype of what Iran is like. There’s this ghostly governmental presence that restricts everyone in every way. Can you describe the humanistic model of education, whether about politics, religion or anything else, in a compact way as something like individualistic cosmopolitanism for learning about a wide range of human identities and truths about the world in a semi-autonomous direction?
Yousefi: I am not a representative of the Iranian government, and my educational and research work was never approved by the government. Therefore, I cannot say what the public schools were thinking or what they expected from this education. Whatever it was, I was critical and opposed to the educational system.
Since the humanistic approach’s main objective is respect, it considers every person’s aspect and background. It allows people to talk about who they are today, helping them take the next steps. A humanistic teacher is not an ethics teacher; it’s not someone who judges people. It’s a person who accepts a child in every aspect, in every way possible.
For example, we consider children and see where they stand and what they bring from home, their past, their background, their culture, and everything else. But we don’t judge that child and their background. They will never trust us again if we judge them or share their dreams or thoughts. So, we need to accept them as they are, wherever they are, so we can help them take the next steps toward the future.
A humanistic teacher needs to correct the child immediately. We wait long enough to address their mistakes, issues, or misunderstandings. Sometimes, students come with a racist point of view, and we don’t stop them immediately. We listen and ask them to talk enough so we can understand where they need help. If we start to correct or judge them immediately, they will stop being honest with us and never share their thoughts. So, language, politics, religion, or nationality are not priorities for a humanistic education. What’s important is their characteristics, personalities, emotions, and understanding of the world; we must fully understand them to help them grow and develop. A humanistic teacher is more of a caregiver than a traditional teacher.
It’s someone who takes care of the children. We care about policies that support caring for students and children, whether it’s regulations, concepts, or theories. The world needs caregivers more than traditional teachers—not caregivers in the sense of caring for someone ill but someone who genuinely cares for children’s development and well-being. But that’s where I differ from a behaviourist teacher to a humanistic teacher.
Jacobsen: Is there a risk in teaching students intellectual and analytical skills without a proportional development of emotional and social skills in students? A healthy development of the sentiments to make the intellectual and analytical skills more rounded.
Yousefi: It’s both the holistic approach and integrated education. Integrated education means we pay attention to the child’s needs immediately. You can’t say that you only focus on their cognitive development without paying attention to their nutrition or malnutrition. You can only focus on social skills by considering society’s rules and regulations. Cognitive psychology and behavioural psychology both caused the issue of segregating these needs. Cognitive psychology focuses only on cognitive needs and doesn’t consider emotional and social needs.
Behavioural psychology only focuses on individual success and forgets that a child is a complex person with different developmental skills and needs. Paying attention to only one aspect and disregarding the others can be dangerous. It could be creativity, reasoning, or analyzing. We need to work on every need and aspect of a child at the right moment. If we skip paying attention to emotional and social needs, then we might end up with scientists who make bombs, promoting war and destruction.
Who’s making these bombs and weapons of mass destruction? It’s often those specialized individuals who lack emotional and social skills. They never had the opportunity to develop empathy and compassion. Yes, there are doctors and physicians involved in organ trafficking or mutilation who lack empathy. Where did they go to school? They might have attended very controlling and closed schools that forced them to think about war due to their conditions.
The world’s educational system fails to teach people to love each other and empathize; defending any war means going against humanity. Most of the workforce involved in the war, whether in the army, weapons factories, or transportation, attended schools that failed them. Teachers must answer how we taught them and who they became. It’s very sad and makes me emotional.
Jacobsen: Let’s shift topics so you don’t cry. Famously, Professor Noam Chomsky essentially destroyed B.F. Skinner’s behaviourism in an 8-page review article. This brought about the cognitive revolution, and humanistic psychology evolved from it. Rogers and other fundamental humanistic psychologists are dead. How has humanistic psychology and humanistic education evolved since its inception, so the cutting edge in the 2010s/2020s?
Yousefi: This person, Noam Chomsky, wasn’t the first to write against behaviourist education. He was one of the prominent critics. Maslow, Ferrier, Rogers, and Fromm were all critics of the behaviourist approach. People like Yalom and Pinker also criticize it. I am also a serious critic of behaviorism in my country. believe that we cannot easily overlook a system that harms the students’ psychology so much. We must raise our voices against behaviorist education.
Some people start questioning it when you shout negatively. I am happy to have been among the few to question behaviourist education. It’s good when behaviourist psychologists and educational specialists hear this criticism. Yes, it’s like validation that you’re doing the right thing—not that you intended to, but you were compelled to.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/26
Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA, FACR, FNASCI, CEH, CISSP, is an Ivy League physician who is a world leader in three different fields (cardiovascular imaging, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity) and recently left the U.S. after significantly traumatic events.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Previously, you told a heartbreaking story of anxiety, stress, and degrading health, as with many American medical professionals. Does this start in medical school?
Dr. Benoit Desjardins: I am extraordinarily lucky to be alive today to let the readers catch up on the story. As you know, a few years ago, on a Friday afternoon on my 97th hour of work as a U.S. physician, at the end of a week during which I was not allowed to sleep much or eat much, and on a day which I was forced to do the workload of six doctors, the combination of lack of food, lack of sleep, and massive overwork made my body permanently fail. I almost died from a catastrophic medical condition caused by the work conditions and became handicapped for life. This was not the first time that I was physically hurt by these work conditions and not the first time that they almost killed me. But it was the first time that they caused permanent, severely limiting lifelong damage to my body.
To answer your question, I attended medical school in Canada, which has strict rules and laws on basic human rights, including those of physicians. In the U.S., physicians’ working conditions are massively out of compliance with safe labour laws from all other industries. In 2019, Dr Pamela Wible published a book listing 40 categories of documented human rights violations towards physicians in the U.S. (“Human Rights Violations in Medicine: A-to-Z Action Guide“). This included sleep deprivation, food deprivation, overwork, exploitation, bullying, violence, etc. I have experienced most of those as a physician in the U.S. Since around 2014, the U.S. has been well-known for the inhumane work conditions of its physicians, killing and disabling its physicians by the thousands and burning out its physicians by the hundreds of thousands.
After medical school, I came to the U.S. in the early 1990s to pursue a PhD degree. I was initially a graduate student in the U.S. I was treated like everybody else. It was a rude awakening when I started in the U.S. medical system after my PhD. Here is one of many examples of what I faced: As a medical post-graduate trainee, I had once been forced to work at the hospital for 58 consecutive hours without rest and then drove back home. As my exhausted body crashed into my bed, I received a phone call from the chief resident asking me why I had left the hospital as I was apparently on call again for a third night in a row. He ordered me to get back to work. I drove back to the hospital, completely exhausted. I could have easily been killed in a car accident from exhaustion, like what happened to two of my immediate radiology colleagues. After arriving at the hospital, I was forced to work ten additional consecutive hours (for a total of 68 consecutive hours without sleep), until I crashed on the call room floor out of exhaustion. They found me unconscious later that morning. This is one of many examples of the work conditions of physicians in the U.S.
Jacobsen: When medical professionals enter into medicine in Canada and the United States, what are the contrasts in treatment and the similarities in treatment of medical professionals?
Desjardins: There are huge differences. We can divide this treatment into the public, employers, and government.
(1) by the public: In Canada, the public is respectful of physicians, of expertise and science, partly because the population is well educated and scientifically literate and partly because access to healthcare is more restricted, and patients are very happy when they can access a physician. Canadians understand that physicians are human beings. In the U.S., the public has no respect for healthcare professionals, expertise, or science. Physicians and nurses regularly get attacked by patients, and sometimes get killed by them. One physician in Philadelphia recently got stabbed in the face by her patient. Also, physicians in the U.S. are viewed as lottery tickets. The strong anti-science culture in the U.S. has people making irrational cause-and-effect magical expectations of doctors. Any bad medical outcome, a regular part of medicine, almost invariably leads to a lawsuit that can produce a multimillion-dollar award.
(2) by employers: In the U.S., this was nicely summarized by the 2019 New York Times op-ed article “The Business of Health Care Depends on Exploiting Doctors and Nurses” by Dr Danielle Ofri. She discussed how the U.S. healthcare system involves massive exploitation of healthcare workers to stay in business. The nature of the exploitation depends on the environment, either academic or private practice. In academia, physicians are salaried and academic hospitals maximize the work done by physicians to avoid bankruptcy and maintain their razor-thin profit margins. The amount of work never stops increasing. Private practices are being bought one after another by venture capital firms, whose only goal is to maximize short-term profits for their investors, by forcing physician employees to do a massive amount of work with the lowest resources while disregarding quality of care. In Canada, almost all physicians are government employees, which is very different and will be covered next.
(3) by the government: In Canada, the government is the main employer of physicians and exerts very strict control on the location of physicians’ practice to ensure adequate distribution throughout the country. However, besides these limitations on their practice, physicians are treated like human beings by the government, with strict laws and rules on basic human rights and physician work conditions that must be respected. The treatment of physicians by the government in the U.S. is well illustrated by the recent scandal of the PHPs (physician health programs). If, for example, a patient sees a physician drink a glass of champagne at a wedding, she can report him to the U.S. government as an alcohol abuser. Then, under the threat of losing his medical license, the physician gets forced by the government to attend an out-of-state “addiction” government therapy program, costing tens of thousands of dollars. This has led to several bankruptcies and dozens of suicides of physicians while in those PHP government programs. This included prominent doctors, such as a visionary in a pediatric field, who helped thousands of pediatric patients. He committed suicide after a government PHP program ruined his reputation and career. He had been forced into this PHP program by his employer after he reported dangerous local work conditions putting patient lives at risk.
Jacobsen: The conditions at your prior job sound slavish. Is there a cycle of entrapment and overwork among medical professionals?
Desjardins: When you get a job as a physician in the U.S., you get a state license enabling you to practice, which is a long process. Then you get installed, your spouse gets a job, and your kids attend local schools. You become locally established, and relocation becomes a major hassle for the physician, his spouse and kids, so the threshold for relocation is very high.
When I got to Philadelphia in the late 2000s, things were tolerable. However, the situation for physicians worsened progressively. It’s like being a frog in progressively warming water. 2014 was a turning point in Philadelphia for two independent reasons. First, as I already mentioned, the U.S. has inhumane work conditions for its physicians. This became public knowledge around 2014, when the American Medical Association started its first three Physician Wellness programs to try to address the problem. Second, Philadelphia became known as having the most massively corrupt, scientifically illiterate medico-legal system on the planet. This is beyond the scope of this interview. But it’s the last year we could recruit any radiologist in my section and the year when physicians started leaving Philadelphia by the boatload. Before 2014, we individually read about 15,000 images per day. Now, it’s sometimes up to 250,000 images per day.
One of the advantages of my field of radiology is that we do not need to be close to patients. We can read medical images remotely. We took advantage of that during the pandemic, as most radiologists could do their full work shifts from home, without needing to enter the hospital and be exposed to COVID. This gave many radiologists an important escape route. When remote work became a viable option for radiologists after the pandemic, many entrapped in Philadelphia abandoned their local jobs and signed remote work contracts with out-of-state hospitals while remaining in Philadelphia. The workload for radiologists who did not abandon Philadelphia hospitals rapidly increased. We are living in the absurd situation of being surrounded by dozens of local radiologists whom we desperately need but who refuse to have their names ever associated again with Philadelphia hospitals. When we tried to do the converse and recruit out-of-state radiologists to work remotely for Philadelphia hospitals, we learned that most radiologists in the country refuse to ever have their names associated with hospitals in Philadelphia because of medico-legal reasons. The long-term implications of this situation are unclear but frightening.
Jacobsen: What health problems arise in this context?
Desjardins: We recently discussed extensively the healthcare effects of excessive workloads on human beings, which can lead to all sorts of chronic medical conditions and even death. I refer to this link to our recent In-Sight discussion.
Jacobsen: Whether by death, health injury, or moving away, medical professionals do leave those conditions, as you recently informed me–with a perceptible tinge of elation as if a proverbial sigh of relief. How did you begin to find a way out?
Desjardins: I’m an Ivy League physician and a world-leading expert in my medical and scientific field. I used the same approach to solve all my scientific and clinical problems to find a way out. I was forced to continue working under the same work conditions that had almost killed me and disabled me for life. I needed urgent action. I selected a combination of two basic moves: (1) increase my protection and (2) remove myself from the toxic environment. To increase my protection, I started being closely monitored by a team of three physicians and taking protective medication to decrease the chances of recurrence of the event that permanently disabled me.
Removing myself from the toxic environment was more difficult. Physicians cannot change jobs easily. If you try to relocate locally, you face non-compete clauses preventing access to jobs at other institutions. If you try to relocate to another state or country, getting a new practice license for that new location takes months, and time was not on my side. Abandoning the medical profession was also an option, recently taken by thousands of physicians. I did not consider that option, as I am a world leader in academic radiology. My field needs me, and I have a lot more to offer to my field.
I initially secured a quick research sabbatical at Stanford, giving me six months out of that toxic environment. This gave my body time to cope with my new handicap and time to plan my long-term escape from Philadelphia. This was near the end of the pandemic. During those six months of sabbatical, I interviewed widely and secured four U.S. academic positions away from Philadelphia and was working on securing two positions in Canada. However, the work conditions of U.S. healthcare workers during the pandemic resulted in a massive exodus of healthcare workers from the profession, with even more planning to exit in the short-term future. Under these circumstances, I felt Canada offered a much better future.
Canada has a mechanism to recruit Nobel Laureates and international scientific superstars called the “Distinguished Professor” pathway. There are other mechanisms to recruit regular doctors. To be recruited under that pathway, one must be a world luminary in a specific field. I’m a world luminary in three different fields. However, this pathway takes one year to receive government approval. When Canada found out that I had been almost killed and had become disabled for life by the work conditions of U.S. physicians and that I was still forced to work under these same conditions, they granted me a humanitarian exception and my “Distinguished Professor” pathway was approved in one week, instead of one year. This is how I got out.
Jacobsen: You mentioned some in the previous interviews. What happened to earlier professionals who did not get out and were trapped, in essence, in these areas? Those continuing to undergo harassment and threats, violence, including nurses.
Desjardins: Those who are still trapped are currently abandoning the medical profession by the boatload. In my previous U.S. department, we had a deficit of 43 doctors due to departures and difficulties in recruiting replacements. One of the four academic medical centers in Philadelphia (Hahnemann) collapsed and permanently closed under similar conditions.
In other countries, it is illegal to treat human beings the way the U.S. treats its physicians. No other industrialized country forces its workers to work up to 120 hours per week and up to 72 consecutive hours without rest, like the U.S. does to its physicians. Since the pandemic, 30% of all healthcare professionals have left the medical profession, and an additional 30% are expected to leave in the next 2-3 years. The U.S. cannot recruit fast enough to recover from these massive levels of attrition, which is a global phenomenon while acute in the United States. The up to 60% deficit in healthcare workers will never be fully replenished, and massive shortages of U.S. healthcare workers will become chronic.
There are two ways to increase the number of U.S. physicians: recruit them from other countries or train more physicians at home. Both are a huge problem. The work conditions of U.S. physicians are now well known since 2014, and even more since the pandemic. Physicians from Europe and Canada could be recruited to the U.S. but they no longer want to come. The U.S. can however still attract physicians from third-world countries. Furthermore, there are more and more books, articles, blogs, movies, TED talks, and news clips about the U.S. treatment of its healthcare workers. The medical profession is much less attractive than it used to be to the best and brightest undergraduate students at home. This will continue to decrease the pool of top U.S. applicants for the medical profession. More than 60% of physicians currently highly discourage their children from entering the medical profession, and an even greater percentage of younger physicians who never experienced the good old days of the medical profession strongly advise their children NOT to enter the medical profession.
Jacobsen: When getting out, what area of medicine and geography in Canada did you choose? (And why those?)
Desjardins: In terms of areas of medicine, I needed to continue in the same field, as I am a world leader in that field. I have been responsible for determining the standards of practice in that field for the past 20 years, and it made no sense at this point in my life to change my area of medicine.
Jacobsen: What was the feeling and process of transition to new work and more reasonable work conditions?
Desjardins: At this late phase in my career, relocating was expected to be very difficult. But against all odds, things worked out very fast, and I was able to leave the U.S. I’m still in disbelief, thinking I will wake up and that this is all a dream. I suspect I’ll remain in a phase of disbelief for a while.
Expats U.S. physicians often describe their newfound freedom as like being released from U.S. prison. This is, of course, a ridiculous comparison, as U.S. prisons don’t kill and disable their prisoners by the thousands as the U.S. does to its physicians. But there are nevertheless many similarities between the two situations.
I now work 40 hours per week instead of 80+ hours. I am on call every eight weeks instead of up to 22 times per month. My daily workload is up to 6 times less than what it was in the U.S., and I have 6 times more vacation than I had in the U.S. This is almost unbelievable, but this is how physicians are treated outside the U.S. I maintain many work collaborations with the U.S., as an international leader in three fields.
I still need to get used to the new freedom. I had not been allowed to take many vacations in my last 20 years as a physician in the U.S.; when I did, it was to travel to see my family in Canada. Now, I live 10 minutes away from my family and see them every weekend. I have yet to schedule a big trip. Switzerland? Australia? Italy? The Greek Islands? An Alaskan cruise? There are so many good picks! I’ve travelled extensively for scientific meetings, but never for pure pleasure outside work.
Jacobsen: How has this better balance affected your life with family, as a husband–including treating her like a queen–and father, and in your ability to treat patients with full focus and care–not sleep deprived, overworked, and stressed to the point of high detriment to personal health?
Desjardins: Well, I now have a family life. I can now eat dinner with my family, spend weekends with them, and go on vacations. This is very liberating. I had always treated my wife like a queen and my kids as best as possible, but I knew my availability was very limited. Now, I am making up for lost time.
I am much more rested during my workdays. There is a massive difference between 4 hours of stressed-out sleep and 7 hours of relaxed sleep. My body feels the difference already. And since I do up to six times less work every day, I get to spend four times longer interpreting each study (8-hour workdays instead of 12+ hours workdays), dramatically increasing the quality of care I can provide. Workdays are not insane marathons anymore; they are normal days with normal work. Patients benefit from this process by accessing more rested, less stressed-out doctors in a better-quality healthcare system. This might partly explain why the Canadian healthcare system currently ranks 32nd in the world, compared to the U.S. ranking of 69th. Canada used to be much better than 32nd, but its waiting lists for care currently hurt its rankings.
Jacobsen: Why have the problems you described in the U.S. medical system not been solved? Why the hiding of physician deaths and suicides?
Desjardins: U.S. physician work conditions are now a very well-known problem. Books, documentary movies (Do No Harm, Robyn Symon), TED talks, publications, and numerous blogs exist. The American Medical Association is aware of the problem and has implemented solutions. Since 2014, Physician Wellness has been a major focus of discussion in medical centers, conferences, blogs, and medical schools. Most people in the public are not even aware that almost every U.S. medical center has a Physician Wellness program to try to stop U.S. physicians from dying by the thousands and burning out by the hundreds of thousands. These programs, which teach physicians resilience rather than improving their work conditions, have been compared to distributing Yoga mats to prisoners at Auschwitz during World War II.
Publicity on this topic is blocked by hospitals. Hospitals in the U.S. are businesses. They must hide the negative consequences of physician work conditions to be able to stay in business. If a hospital disclosed to the news media that three of its physicians jumped to their death from the roof of the hospital within a month of each other, like what happened recently in a New York hospital, this would affect the hospital financial bottom line. After these three New York physicians jumped to their death, their bodies were simply covered by tarps, and this did not even make the local news. Their colleagues at the hospital were threatened of dismissal if they reported the deaths to the news media and were even forbidden to discuss the death among themselves or even to hold a funeral. Patients of the dead physicians were told that their physician had left the hospital.
Jacobsen: Is the lack of reportage on those who care for us in times of need showing a lack of care for them in their times of need across political party lines and media platforms?
Desjardins: Absolutely. The profession is crushed from all sides and getting no sympathy from anyone. The only reason the U.S. healthcare system has not yet collapsed under these circumstances, is because of the endless professional ethic of medical staff members, a resource that seems endless and that is currently massively exploited by the public, by corporate medicine, and by the government.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Benoit.
Desjardins: Thank you for discussing this important topic.
Bio: Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., FAHA, FACR, FNASCI, CEH, CISSP, is Professor of Radiology at the University of Montreal. He recently retired from the University of Pennsylvania after 16 years on faculty. He is an international leader in three different fields: cardiovascular imaging, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. He has given over 200 invited presentations nationally and internationally in those three fields. He was co-leader of the Arrhythmia Imaging Research Laboratory at Penn. His research involves cardiac MRI and CT in electrophysiology, focusing on the relation between cardiac biomarkers such as myocardial scar, with pathways of abnormal electrical conduction in left ventricular arrhythmia. He is funded by the National Institute of Health and is very active in national scientific societies. He has extensive expertise in artificial intelligence, the field of his PhD. In the spring of 2022, he has spent six months at Stanford as Visiting Professor and Associate Scholar of the Stanford Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging. He is a reformed hacker. He has several certificates in cybersecurity and has done research and published on the cybersecurity of medical images. Outside work, he is a Black Belt at Tae Kwon Do, an ex-Boy Scout Leader, a competitive marksman, and a FPV race drone pilot. He is also a member of the prestigious Mega Society and Prometheus Society.
Dr. Martin “Marty” Shoemaker is a trained clinical psychologist and, currently, a Humanist Chaplain at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Multifaith Centre) and Vancouver General Hospital (August, 2014-Present). Previously, he worked as a psychologist and instructor in organizational behaviour.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Overview, what are we defining: spiritual care in humanist chaplaincy?
Dr. Martin Shoemaker: The development of spiritual care, which originated approximately 1,400 to 1,500 years ago in Europe, evolved from a distinctly Christian concept. It traces its roots to the Christian kings and their royal families, who employed chaplains for spiritual guidance and advice and to safeguard their artifacts and Christian memorabilia.
These artifacts were amassed over the years and placed in chapels guarded by individuals known as chaplains. However, today’s world, particularly in the period following World War II, holds a markedly different perspective on what constitutes spiritual care.
The term “spiritual” is derived from the Greek word “pneuma,” meaning spirit or breath. To the Greeks and other ancient, wise civilizations, it referred to the vital energy within us, synonymous with life itself and best exemplified by breath. The term “pneuma” was translated from Greek to “spiritus” in Latin, leading to the word “spirit” being closely associated with the Christian Church.
Over time, spirituality became intertwined with a profound commitment and an inner search within one’s soul for divine revelations, as mediated by the Church through its theology, cathedrals, and other religious institutions. This concept was deeply rooted in a Christian worldview. However, this understanding underwent significant change during the 19th century, influenced by developments in Freudian analysis, Marxism, the death of God movement championed by Nietzsche, and even the theory of evolution. Expanding knowledge driven by empirical evidence and scientific investigation further transformed the concept of spirituality.
The word “spiritual” began to take on a different connotation, describing unseen phenomena that were not directly observable. It refers to a part of human existence that is immaterial and without mass, representing a dematerialized reality. Consequently, some skeptics began to dismiss spirituality as mere mythology, a construct that could be interpreted in any way one wished to explain things beyond physical observation. This shift profoundly impacted religions traditionally emphasizing spirituality, compelling them to reconcile their worldviews with science, evidence, and the global influx of information from diverse cultures and religions.
Particularly during times of war, chaplains who served together, such as during World War I and World War II, were tasked with caring for soldiers who were physically wounded by bullets or bombs, as well as those who suffered psychological trauma due to the horrors of war. It was during these times that chaplains began to recognize the varied interpretations of the word “spirit” among soldiers, which, in turn, led to an evolution in their understanding. “Spiritual” began to be viewed as a journey toward a supernatural or higher form of awareness within human consciousness rather than something that could be easily perceived.
The term encompasses ideas, enthusiasm, and a profound sense of awe. Individuals might express that they had a “spiritual experience” when standing on the edge of a cliff, gazing upon an awe-inspiring valley before engaging in activities like paragliding. The term “spiritual” has thus expanded, Scott, from merely a Christian concept centred on the essence God imbued within each individual to a broader and more secular understanding. In humanist chaplaincy, we do not necessarily employ “spiritual” as frequently as other chaplains might.
For example, I was approved as the first humanist chaplain at Vancouver General Hospital a year and a half ago. In the community, we volunteers are called “community spiritual care practitioners.” Spiritual care, in this context, relates primarily to individuals’ religious orientations and personal journeys. Still, it encompasses a wide range of meanings, given that 15 to 20 different religions and non-religious perspectives are represented at the hospital, including Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, and secular beliefs. My services are not in high demand at the secular chapel, which has been adapted to accommodate various belief systems. Therefore, we may not always feel comfortable with the term “spiritual” due to its strong religious connotations. Indeed, if you were to ask an atheist, “Would you like to speak with a spiritual care adviser?” they might find the terminology off-putting.
The answer is always the same: “Why would I do that? I don’t believe in God.” This is the challenge we face with the word “spiritual.” It doesn’t resonate with everyone, and we often feel the need to replace it.
Perhaps we could use terms like one’s organizing principle or foundation of what is considered true and real — the essence of what drives an individual. This concept is not inspired by religion but rather by personal conviction.
Jacobsen: When we consider the historical dominance of Catholicism or Christianity in general among the Canadian population, in the 1970s, around 90% of the population identified as Christian. By 2001, this number had dropped to about three-quarters; according to the 2021 census, it was around 53 or 54%. How does this changing religious demographic, with increasing diversity and a decline in Christian representation, alter people’s perceived needs?
Shoemaker: The secularization you referred to, which began after the Enlightenment, is indeed what we are witnessing. Although there was a resurgence of religious sentiment during World War II — a common phenomenon as people sought solace in their faith during times of conflict — this trend shifted again in the 1960s with the rise of anti-establishment movements.
As a result, secularism took hold, leading people to question the institutions they were raised in, including their churches. Many parents who raised their children in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s instilled seeds of doubt in them. These children, who were exposed to education in Western democracies, encountered diverse perspectives through subjects like philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history. This exposure broadened their worldview, contributing to the secularization we observe today, as reflected in your statistics.
This trend is particularly pronounced among younger generations, such as Generation X, Generation Z, and millennials. These cohorts, heavily influenced by digital technology and social media, have not developed the small, close-knit communities that previous generations might have, such as church groups or local community organizations. Consequently, society has seen a secular shift, especially among young people, while older generations have largely maintained their traditional practices.
Furthermore, younger generations tend not to participate in face-to-face meetings as much as their predecessors did, preferring to engage with others through their cell phones or online platforms. This shift has affected religious institutions and led to a decline in membership in many other traditional organizations, such as service clubs like Kiwanis, which need help attracting younger members.
I have also consulted with several professional associations, such as the Real Estate Brokers of Vancouver and the Architectural Institute here, and they also need help recruiting recent graduates. The underlying issue is that young people today are less inclined to join organizations.
Part of this secularization can be attributed to parents’ diminished control over the information their children consume. Nowadays, young people can access virtually any information they desire on the Internet, which has supplemented and, in some cases, replaced parental guidance. While they may still join groups, these are often related to transient activities like playing video games or other social engagements. They might meet for drinks at a bar and then part ways or have brief relationships that do not develop into lasting connections. This era is marked by significant fragmentation in social relationships.
Psychologists have extensively studied this phenomenon, and it is a key component of the secular movement, which is not always viewed as the most beneficial aspect of modern society. While young people are no longer being indoctrinated by religious figures or even by their parents to the extent they once were, this freedom has also led to increased anxiety within this secular generation.
When young people are asked in surveys what religious affiliation they have, many respond that they are not religious. This reflects the fact that they have severed ties with their families’ religious practices, even if their families attended Church and they do not participate in religious services themselves. This is the significant shift we are seeing in secularism.
IN-SIGHT Publishing founder and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal Editor-in-Chief Scott Douglas Jacobsen (SDJ) talks to Takudzwa Mazwienduna (TM), a member of Young Humanists Zimbabwe on a number of issues.
Below are excerpts of the interview:
SDJ: Today, we will talk about religious demographics in Zimbabwe. One thing, I note, Zimbabwe is super religious. But it is not as religious as I thought.
Canada, not known for being a very religious country, I think; however, it used to have this status, and even more than Zimbabwe.
In the 1970s, it sat at around 90% Christian. You read that right. In the early 2000s, it was about 75% Christian.
By 2021, it was about 54% and the downward trend is continuing, to about 50%, probably, or a little less, this year. That’s unprecedented. Zimbabwe looks like late 1980s and early 1990s Canada. That’s promising! Any preliminary thoughts?
TM: That is very hopeful, but then again, unlike Canada, Zimbabwe’s education system is not so different from colonial times.
Some secularists like Shingai Rukwata Ndoro have worked with the government to make education progressive, but mission schools still dominate.
There is still a lot of proselytisation in schools despite the government discouraging it.
SDJ: How did the religious demographics in Zimbabwe look in prior decades?
TM: The London Missionary Society made sure that model citizens of the colony had to be Christian.
Couple that with Missionary Education that tied intellectualism with Christianity, it made religion the default for natives.
It is mostly Pan-African activists that speak against Christianity today, shunning it as a colonial legacy.
They do not advocate for secularism, however, but a return to native animist religions.
They are, however, open to secularist ideas since their religion is not monotheistic, and the Zimbabwean atheists have conversed with them on an interfaith radio show we all participated in back in 2017.
They seemed like plausible allies. Nevertheless, Christianity is the dominant religion, although at times it can be mixed with the traditional religion.
The pentecostal Christian denominations however shun traditional beliefs and label them as demonic.
SDJ: When was the Christian religion truly ascendant there?
TM: The colonial era is when Christianity took over. It also explains why its main rival, the traditional religion is a common target for demonisation by various Christian denominations today.
SDJ: How is the Christian religion a political force in the 2020s?
TM: There are certain Christian denominations that are very influential in politics.
One of the richest prophets called Uebert Angel was made the Presidential Envoy and Ambassador-atLarge for to Europe and the Americas. He later on stepped down after an Al Jazeera documentary exposed him smuggling tonnes of looted gold in cohorts with government officials.
One of the biggest pentecostal churches, Zimbabwe Assemblies Of God Africa (ZAOGA), mandates its devout followers to vote for the ruling Zanu PF party.
The indigenous Christian churches that dominate in the rural areas, popularly known as mapostori or apostolic churches, promise their followers that God will add one or two decades to their lives if they vote for the ruling party.
They are a big asset for the ruling party during elections so much so that they were exempted from COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 and they carried on with their church conferences.
SDJ: What are the major concerns regarding the Christian religion in Zimbabwe now?
TM: Its grip on education and politics is getting stronger and while Zimbabwe is still secular on paper, something has to be done about Christianity’s influence.
SDJ: We all know the Ugandan and Ghanaian anti-LGBTI stance using UN LGBTI Core Group language–bills attempted to be put into law. Aren’t they the most regressive in the world? Has anything like that been attempted there?
TM: While Zimbabwe definitely isn’t LGBTQI friendly, homosexuality was decriminalised in 2013.
The old colonial laws of sodomy were done away with, but there are instances of customary laws in rural areas, where Christian apostolic faiths dominate that still punish people for homosexuality at the chief’s court. Most LGBTQI Zimbabweans seek refuge in Botswana and South Africa.
Mozambique is also LGBTQI friendly since the African Traditional Religion dominates, but the wars and ISIS terrorism going on there discourages Zimbabweans to seek refuge there
SDJ: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, my friend.
“Stell dir vor, es gäbe keinen Himmel“: ein afrikanisches Festival der Freidenker
Leo Igwe ist Vorstandsmitglied der Humanist Association of Nigeria und von Humanists International. Er hat einen Master in Philosophie und einen Doktortitel in Religionswissenschaften von der Universität Bayreuth in Deutschland und schrieb seine Doktorarbeit über Hexereivorwürfe in Nordghana. Igwe leitet die Advocacy for Alleged Witches und die Critical Thinking Social Empowerment Foundation.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In Lagos 2024 findet zwischen der Ankunft am 14. Oktober und der Abreise am 18. Oktober das „Imagine There Is No Heaven“ statt, ein afrikanisches Freidenker-Musik- und Kunstfestival. Das ist eine großartige Idee. Die Leute sollten das öfter machen. Wie kam man ursprünglich auf die Idee, Musik und Kunst in eine freidenkerische afrikanische Gemeinschaft zu bringen? Was war die ursprüngliche Inspiration für diese Idee?
Dr. Leo Igwe: Zunächst habe ich nach Möglichkeiten und Mechanismen gesucht, um die Botschaft des Freidenkertums zu vermitteln und freidenkerische Werte zu verbreiten und zu fördern. Die Idee ist, dass die Menschen ihren Geist nicht nur frei einsetzen, sondern ihn auf eine unterhaltsame Weise nutzen und sozialen und politischen Wandel fördern können. Allzu oft fühlen sich die Menschen unterhalten, wenn wir Musik verwenden, um eine Botschaft zu übermitteln. Manchmal wird eine Botschaft, die die Menschen normalerweise als anstößig empfinden würden, durch Musik akzeptabler. Es handelt sich also um einen Versuch, anstelle des Schreibens eine andere Kunstform, einen anderen Weg zu verwenden, aber nun Rhythmus und Lieder zu verwenden, um dieselben Ideale zu fördern. Wir können frei denken; indem wir frei denken, können wir helfen, eine Gesellschaft aufzubauen, Menschen inspirieren und uns selbst feiern. Das ist ein Aspekt.
Eine weitere Inspirationsquelle waren Reisen und die Teilnahme an Freidenkertreffen in Deutschland. Ich war auf einer der Konferenzen, dort wurde ein Lied gesungen. Es war „Die Gedanken sind frei“, ein deutsches Volkslied. Es gefiel mir und ich dachte, warum können wir hier in Nigeria oder Afrika nicht einen Text in dieser Richtung schreiben, der das Freidenkertum feiert und den Menschen die Möglichkeit gibt, ihren Geist zu trainieren? Ich war auch in Kopenhagen, wo wir den humanistischen Chor aus Norwegen hatten. Ich war auch in Großbritannien, wo es einen humanistischen Chor gibt. Nach meiner Rückkehr nach Nigeria dachte ich, ich könnte ein Forum oder eine Aktivität schaffen, um die Menschen zu inspirieren, sich zu treffen und zu organisieren. Ich dachte, wir könnten einen humanistischen Chor haben, wir könnten eine Freidenker-Band haben. All diese Erfahrungen kamen zusammen, um mich zu inspirieren und zu motivieren. Ich sprach auch mit einigen meiner Kollegen, damit wir das veranstalten konnten, was wir ein Freidenker-Festival nennen.
Jacobsen: Gibt es bei Ihnen Keynote-Vorträge, Präsentationen oder Podiumsdiskussionen?
Igwe: Wir arbeiten noch an diesen Keynote-Präsentationen. Aber wir verschicken Einladungen. Wir haben den Nobelpreisträger Wole Soyinka eingeladen. Er feiert dieses Jahr seinen 90. Geburtstag. Er ist also im Moment beschäftigt. Sie organisieren Veranstaltungen im ganzen Land und auf dem ganzen Kontinent. Ich weiß also nicht, ob er Zeit haben wird, teilzunehmen, aber wir haben eine Einladung ausgesprochen. Wir haben auch einen weiteren Professor eingeladen, Niyi Osundare, einen unserer humanistischen Gelehrten hier. Wir haben auch Professor Anele eingeladen, der auch bei unserer Skeptiker-Vorlesung gesprochen hat. Was wir also im Moment tun, ist, Einladungen zu verschicken. Bis August werden wir ein Programm haben, das auf denjenigen basiert, die ihre Teilnahme bestätigt haben. Im Moment ist das Programm also noch in Arbeit.
Jacobsen: Könnte es in Afrika oder genauer in Lagos und Nigeria eine Industrie geben, die sich im Großen und Ganzen mit einigen der populären oder traditionellen musikalischen Rhythmen und Instrumenten beschäftigt, überlagert mit einer eher freigeistigen Lyrik, im Gegensatz zur christlichen oder islamischen Musik?
Igwe: Darauf arbeiten wir hin. Das wird das erste Mal sein; es wird bahnbrechend sein. Viele Leute werden kommen. Wir versuchen, es richtig zu machen, damit die Leute anfangen zu verstehen, dass es ein Teil der Musikindustrie sein könnte. Wir wollen, dass es ein Teil des Musikfestivalprogramms wird, damit die Leute sich entscheiden können, ein Freidenker-Musikfestival zu besuchen. Sie könnten auch zu anderen Musikfestivals gehen, denn vieles von dem, was wir hier sehen, ist eher das, was wir Gospelmusik, christliche Musik und natürlich islamische Musik nennen. Wir denken, dass einige andere Leute inspiriert werden könnten, und wir könnten eine Art Musikindustrie haben, die freidenkerisch orientiert ist. Das ist mein Ziel, und ich hoffe, dass es Leute geben wird, die in diese Richtung schauen wollen. Wir denken auch, dass wir junge Talente inspirieren können. Ja, denn wir werden einige der freidenkerischen Musiktexte hervorheben, die wir bereits aus Nigeria haben. Wir hoffen, einige aus Südafrika und dem Kongo zu bekommen, und vielleicht bekommen wir auch ein paar aus Europa, um junge freidenkerische Talente zu inspirieren, damit sie freidenkerische Musikdarbietungen machen können. Wir hoffen, dass das passieren könnte. Aber wie gesagt, wir arbeiten hart daran, dass es ein Erfolg wird. Ich hoffe, dass die Leute eines Tages, in 10 oder 20 Jahren, zurückblicken und sagen werden, dass alles mit dieser Eröffnungsausgabe des African Freethought and Art Festival begann. Also, ja, wir hoffen, und ich hoffe, dass es so passieren könnte.
Jacobsen: Einer meiner Lieblingssongs aus Nigeria war „ This Is Nigeria “ von dem Künstler Falz. Er steht dem politischen System und einigen religiösen Dogmen und Heucheleien kritisch gegenüber. Wenn sie das hier lesen, sollten bekannte Künstler mit bestimmten Hits in Zukunft zu dieser Veranstaltung kommen?
Igwe: Ja, ja. Ich muss mich mit den Texten vertrauter machen, auch mit dem Musiker, den Sie erwähnt haben, aber ich werde danach suchen und sehen, wie wir ihn an Bord holen können. Wir werden noch mehr dazubekommen. Wir haben Femi Kuti. Wir haben natürlich Fela Kuti. Viele Leute haben Probleme mit ihrem Privatleben und dergleichen, aber ich möchte das immer trennen und sicherstellen, dass wir das Kind nicht mit dem Bade ausschütten. Aber ich weiß, dass er einer der Musiker ist, die uns hier ansprechen, und einige seiner Texte kritisieren religiösen Dogmatismus und Heuchelei. Ich bin mir also sicher, dass viele bekannte Musiker und Künstler mitmachen werden. Wir werden sehen, wie es sich entwickelt. Ich hoffe, dass viele bekannte Künstler mitmachen werden.
Jacobsen: Wir machen es kurz. Wie können sich die Leute engagieren? Wie können sie ihre Zeit spenden? Wie können sie teilnehmen? Was sind die schnellen Kontaktpunkte?
Igwe: Ja, wir veranstalten diese Veranstaltung an der Universität von Lagos. Und natürlich ist Lagos nicht nur als Handelsstadt beliebt, sondern auch als Ort, an dem die Kutis ihre Basis haben und wo sie auftreten. Wir organisieren die Veranstaltung an der Universität von Lagos. Wir arbeiten mit der dortigen Musikabteilung und dem Institut für Afrika- und Diasporastudien zusammen. Wir versuchen, Akademiker und Praktiker zusammenzubringen, um herauszufinden, wie wir junge Talente inspirieren können. Damit die Leute teilnehmen können. Wir sind noch dabei, die Vorbereitungen abzuschließen. Aber ich weiß, dass unser Termin feststeht. Wir werden uns vom 15. bis 17. Oktober dieses Jahres dort treffen. Wir freuen uns, wenn Menschen aus aller Welt dabei sind. Das wird bahnbrechend sein, und wir freuen uns auf die Menschen, die das Programm unterstützen und sponsern.
Wir freuen uns darauf, einige unserer lokalen humanistischen Freidenkergruppen bei der Veranstaltung begrüßen zu dürfen.
Im Rahmen unserer Kampagne werden wir einen Tisch aufstellen, an dem erklärt wird, was sie tun. Wir hoffen, dass die Leute auch Texte entwickeln können, die helfen, die Botschaft gegen die Hexenjagd zu verbreiten. Wir erwarten, dass unsere humanistische Vereinigung bei der Veranstaltung einen Tisch aufstellt, an dem sie erklären können, was sie tun. Von dort aus hoffen wir, junge Musiktalente und Studenten kennenzulernen, die daran interessiert sind, einen freidenkerischen Chor oder eine freidenkerische Band zu gründen. Wir freuen uns auf die Teilnahme anderer Musikschulen. Wir laden sie alle ein, damit sie teilnehmen können. Sie können das Konzept freidenkerischer Musik und Kunst verstehen und es schließlich in ihre Schul- und Fachbereichsprogramme integrieren. Als Studenten, Forscher oder als Wissenschaftler und Musiker werden sie wissen, dass freidenkerische Musik und Kunst ein wesentlicher Bestandteil des musikalischen Unternehmens sein sollten. Wir freuen uns darauf, diese Leute zusammenzubringen, und wir hoffen, dass sie sich an uns wenden, uns E-Mails schicken und Unterstützung anbieten können. Im Moment brauchen wir mehr Unterstützung. Die Leute können uns sponsern, spenden oder einen Weg finden, mit uns zusammenzuarbeiten. Lassen Sie uns dies verwirklichen und wir hoffen, dass es künftig ein fester Bestandteil unserer afrikanischen Musikindustrie wird.
Jacobsen: Vielen Dank für Ihre Zeit heute. Ich hoffe, Sie werden der nächste nigerianische Dr. Dre und inspirieren all diese neuen Künstler.
Igwe: Okay, das hoffe ich. Es besteht die Möglichkeit, die Menschen nicht nur zu inspirieren, sondern auch diese Talente zu feiern. Es besteht die Möglichkeit, die Mechanismen und Möglichkeiten der Freidenker-Musik zu nutzen, um eine Botschaft des kritischen Denkens, des Antidogmas und der sozialen Reformen zu senden und einige der Bedrohungen der Gesellschaft anzugehen, über die die Menschen wegen satirischer Auswirkungen nicht zu sprechen wagen. Wir können Freidenker-Musik und -Kunst nutzen, um diese Botschaft zu vermitteln und eine bessere Gesellschaft zu schaffen.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/25
*Interview conducted August 7, 2024.*
Javier Larrondo Calafat is the President of Prisoners Defenders. Here we talk about the large number of political prisoners in Cuba.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Recently, there has been what some call “violence” in Venezuela, including mass arrests. Human rights organizations have provided approximate numbers, and Maduro’s government has given their own figures.
Javier Larrondo Calafat: Notably, Maduro did not present the mandatory minutes required by law for election validation, while the opposition did present 80% of the minutes they could access, despite being impeded from obtaining the remaining 20%. These 80% of the minutes are public and have been analyzed by human rights organizations and other independent entities. The results show approximately 70% support for the new president and only 30% for Maduro. Even though 20% of the minutes are missing, the results appear clear because the government has not presented their version of the minutes. Conversely, the opposition has publicly presented theirs. If the government wanted to dispute the opposition’s numbers, it would be straightforward for them to verify the minutes and highlight any discrepancies.
However, the government has not done so. They have not presented the required minutes, which is a legal obligation. Therefore, democratic countries should recognize the opposition’s victory after so many days since July 28th. There is no need to ask for the minutes anymore; they should have been presented promptly after the election.
The government’s refusal to discuss the opposition’s data or publicly dismantle the opposition’s minutes, which include verifiable QR codes and hash numbers, is telling. Democratic countries should recognize the opposition as the legitimate winners.
In Europe, for example, the focus is on demanding Maduro present the minutes. It’s time to acknowledge that the election was a farce and the numbers were falsified. There are pictures on social networks showing the election screens with results favoring the opposition. The Carter Center, a credible international observer, did not receive valid official counts and has denied the validity of Maduro’s numbers.
We are wasting time due to a lack of courage to face the truth and its consequences. This lack of action from the European Union is shameful. They should ratify the opposition as winners, which is evident today. Perhaps it wasn’t clear on the first few days, but with all the analyzed and public minutes and Maduro’s inability to dismantle them, it is clear that the opposition should be recognized as the winners.
Truth is often not recognized because of the consequences. The consequences would include expelling people from embassies, refusing to recognize the legitimacy of those in the embassies, not recognizing Maduro’s government, breaking relations with Maduro, and acknowledging the harsh realities that are hard for some to accept. Many people prefer to avoid problems.
One day, back in 1939, Europe had a lot of problems, and Britain and the United States came to rescue Europe. Now, we are not acting in accordance with the help we received. We were granted freedom by countries like the United States and Great Britain, which were not invaded but saved us from the hell of Hitler.
Now, we are doing nothing for those countries governed by tyrants, and that is a shame for me. It’s common during politically repressive times, especially when official minutes are not provided and independent analyses show at least 1,100 prisoners.
Jacobsne: Whether they are prisoners of conscience or political prisoners, what is the status of such events when there are large-scale arrests and reactions from the international community? Typically, has the response been moderate, or have there been stronger applications of international pressure to address and correct human rights abuses?
Calafat: We call them human rights violations.Arbitrary detentions and imprisonments by the government are crimes against humanity. In Venezuela, we are witnessing crimes against humanity. The official number, set publicly by Maduro a few days ago, indicated 2,000 detainees in maximum security prisons. Given the time that has passed, the number is likely higher.
Human rights organizations in Venezuela have verified around 1,100 prisoners, but the official count of over 2,000 stands because Maduro publicly admitted it. It is very sad because these people have been, and continue to be, tortured over the past decade. In Europe, we are still asking Maduro for the minutes. It’s not the time to ask for the minutes; it’s time to recognize the opposition, sever ties with Maduro’s regime, and act according to international law.
Jacobsen: What about threats from Attorney General Tarek William Saab against organizations reporting on these arrests?
Calafat: That should be the final straw. But it seems that those in charge of foreign affairs in Europe tend to think that problems will eventually go away, which they do not. If you look elsewhere, things don’t get better. You have to act. And I like what Biden did. I like it very much. He was very congruent with the situation.
Maduro is a dictator. Maduro is committing crimes against humanity. Maduro did not win the election. Maduro did not fulfill the Venezuelan law to present the minutes to the opposition and demonstrate he won the election. In contrast, the opposition presented 80% of the minutes they could obtain, despite being impeded from getting the remaining 20%, which is against Venezuelan law. What more can we ask from a nonviolent opposition? They deserve our support.
It seems like in the European Union, we are cowards, and those problems will come back to us. It’s not effective to look elsewhere and hope the sun will shine tomorrow on its own. Human rights do not prevail unless governments worldwide fight for them.
I see the numbers here in one press release: 67% of the votes were for the opposition, while Maduro only achieved 30%. This should be a straightforward transition of power. Even if the missing 20% were all for Maduro, he would still have lost. The situation is very clear.
Jacobsen: Are opposition leaders like María Corina Machado currently in hiding, or were they previously in hiding and have now emerged to make public statements?
Calafat: María Corina Machado was hiding because Maduro wants her detained. She appeared in a public demonstration with tens of thousands of Venezuelans in Caracas. She’s doing the right thing. If Maduro imprisons Maria Corina, Edmundo, and their team, countries in the European Union will not be pressured to speak the truth about what is happening. They are acting wisely by hiding from Maduro’s political police, but they are in Venezuela, risking their lives.
It’s sad. Many people have the courage to risk their lives, and in Europe, we don’t do enough. It’s shameful. I’m ashamed of the European Union’s foreign policies and the lack of support we provide to the civil societies of Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus.
We support Zelensky, but this should be our war too, not just Zelensky’s or Ukraine’s. It’s sad because these issues will come back to us, as they did with Hitler, Poland, and Austria. They will surely come back to us.
Jacobsen: What about the support from Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico?
Calafat: They are playing the fool, giving Maduro time, basically. They cannot support Maduro because it’s a shameful farce, what Maduro did. So what they are doing is just giving him time and telling others not to recognize that Maduro lost, which aligns with Maduro’s interests. I believe former American President Trump was refusing to condemn Maduro at some point recently. As for what Trump does now, I don’t follow him much because I follow what the president says since that’s important. Now he’s in a campaign, like Kamala Harris. I don’t pay much attention to politicians when they are in a campaign. I focus on what the men and women in charge are saying.
Jacobsen: Is there anything else we’re not covering on this topic, or is that pretty much it for now?
Calafat: No, not really. That is the situation. I received a message from Antonio Ledesma, the international coordinator for María Corina Machado. I have a close relationship with him. It’s very sad. He’s saying the same thing: it’s not the time to ask for the minutes. It’s time to press Maduro and not recognize him as the legitimate president.
That’s all they have to do, but they don’t. In the European Union and other countries, they don’t follow that step. It’s sad to see that, in these situations, the United States often act more congruently than the country I live in. It’s pretty sad to see it happening repeatedly.
Even though they committed fatal errors like the war in Iraq and the Afghanistan occupation, I pay attention to 100% of their decisions. Support from democratic countries is crucial. I regret what the European Union does, and I tend to think that the United States often supports democratic civil societies in many countries, more so than the errors they committed, even if those errors were grave.
Because of their previous president, how was his name? It doesn’t come to mind now. George Bush Jr. entered Iraq just to name an enemy that wasn’t behind the terrorist attacks. But those were different administrations and different people. I don’t see Biden committing those errors. I hope the European Union does better in the near future.
Jacobsen: I hope so. Did you want to give any commentary on Daniel Ferrer?
Calafat: I think it’s been more than 6 months. He has not been able to talk to anyone. We don’t know if he’s alive or not. 6 months or 4 months, something like that. In February or March, he was seen for 2 minutes. I think I told you about it. He was on the floor, beaten badly, but for the past 4 months, he has not been seen or heard from.
I’m very worried about him. That’s another person with courage, and the European Union is missing in action. They don’t even post a Twitter message about all the people imprisoned in Cuba without reason, who are so innocent and brave. The whole situation is very sad, and I’m worried about Jose Ferrer.
I’m worried about his health. I’m worried about his whereabouts. I don’t know what will happen there. But if you let the dog bite you, he will bite you again. And we are letting these dogs bite the democrats—Maduro, Diaz-Canel, Ortega, and so on. So I don’t know how these politicians in Europe think things will get better if they let the dogs bite the democrats. The dogs will grow, bite more, and become more dangerous. That’s an obvious thing.
Jacobsen: Recently, there was a political prisoner swap with Russia. What do you make of this?
Calafat: I was very impressed.
Jacobsen: What do you think some of the thinking was behind that? Not that there was a release and an exchange, which was good, but it’s so unusual it raises questions. What do you think was the context for them?
Calafat: I don’t really know the benefit for the Russian government in doing that. I don’t have it very clear. The exchange, yes. I don’t know exactly the details of the exchange, but when I see Americans being liberated by their government. It’s because their government has been working very hard to get them out of that hell. That is completely opposite to what is happening to Luis Frometa, for example, in Cuba.
We talked about Luis Frometa, the German who is in prison in Cuba. The German government has not done enough. Up to now, or up to some months ago, they did almost nothing to liberate him. They were saying, “Well, it’s up to the Cuban authorities, and we cannot do anything.” Yes, you can. See what the Americans do for their citizens? It’s important to protect your citizens. It’s important to say to your citizens, when you have a problem, your government is behind you. Even if it becomes an international crisis, the government will support you. That is very important.
By the way, Jose Ferrer had his birthday on July 29th. We released a video on his case that day, remembering him, and we released a video with his whole life story. His wife and kids tried to see him in jail, and again, they could not. Every week, they go to the prison to try to see him, and the authorities don’t let them. So we don’t know about his whereabouts. They are very worried. I know him very well and consider him a very close person. It’s a very sad situation.
Calafat: Javier, thank you very much for your time again. Appreciate it.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/24
Hardayal Singh works for United Sikhs. UNITED SIKHS is a U.N. affiliated, international, non-profit, non-governmental, humanitarian relief, education, human development and advocacy organization that aims to empower those in need, especially disadvantaged and minority communities around the world. UNITED SIKHS is head-quartered in New York and registered as a non-profit, tax exempt organization, in New York pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code and registered as a charity in the State of New York. It is also registered as a Charity in England and Wales under the Charities Act 1993, Charity Number 111 2055; registered in Australia as a non-profit NGO (ABN 24 317 847 103); a registered NGO in Belgium; is a registered charity organization in Canada with Canada Revenue Agency; registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 in Punjab, as a tax exempt organization under section 80G of the Income Tax Act 1961; under the French Association Law 1901; under the Societies Registration Act 1860 in Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa, Pakistan; as a registered society under the Registrar of Societies in Malaysia (registered as UNITED SIKHS Malaysia Humanitarian Aid Organisation- Reg. No: PPM-015-14-06042015); and as an NGO pending registration in the Republic of Ireland.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Hardeep Singh from the United Sikhs. When did the organization get started, and how has its development been for the Sikh community over time?
Hardayal Singh: The organization was started in 1999. It began in New York City and then spread to other countries. That’s how it initially began and grew.
Jacobsen: What about Canada, expanding outside New York to another country?
Singh: It was registered in 2008. It happened after the initial establishment in New York City. So I know it started in the US and then went to the UK. The UK expansion was around 2002 or 2003. From there, it went to India, then to Canada, and subsequently to France, Belgium, and Ukraine. Ukraine’s expansion happened recently, and we are also in Australia, New Zealand, and Pakistan. Those are the countries we are in, along with the United States.
Jacobsen: How do you get recognized by the UN regarding affiliation to expand services and reputation?
Singh: To get recognized by the UN, you must work in disaster relief. When you go to disaster sites, you meet with UN officials and realize there’s a whole process of registering as an NGO. We started that process, and it took us almost a year and a half to two years to register. They go through a series of queries, financial reports, and data. Once we went through that, we were able to get registered as an affiliation with the United Nations, which gives a lot of credibility and value. You can collaborate with the UN’s resources during disasters, which is very helpful.
Jacobsen: How do you work with communities, families, and individuals to help them become economically self-sufficient again, especially those affected by disasters?
Singh: Project QT allows us to work with individuals to help them get back on their feet. Many people lost their ability to meet their economic and financial requirements during COVID-19, leading to job losses. We look at the person’s profession and see what training and funding they need. For example, if someone is a taxi driver or repairs mobile phones or windshields, we help them get the necessary training and bank loans to resume work.
Sometimes, we have significant guarantors for them because we thoroughly check the background to ensure we can vouch for any person. Then, we guide them through the entire marketing process and the aspects needed to set up independently, enabling them to care for their families. We also have numerous other programs, such as resources for helping with school bullying, which is a significant project.
Jacobsen: What are the issues that kids are facing in terms of school bullying?
Singh: As Sikhs, we look different and have our own identity. This difference is a primary reason for bullying, especially among Sikh boys. Girls may get bullied because of their long hair, braids, or maybe the colour, but it’s mostly boys who face bullying. Boys are bullied because of the turban or dastar they wear, or sometimes the colour or the kirpan they carry. Kids don’t wear the kirpan much, but some do. Mostly, the bullying is due to how they look and the beard they keep. Youngsters tie on their heads it’s mainly because of the small turban, called a patka. They face name-calling, such as “What’s that bandaid you’re wearing on your head?” or other derogatory terms.
Bullying is rampant, and any negative reaction to it is not good. We must train parents and students on what steps to take if they get bullied, how to approach the school, what to say to the supervisors, and how to handle the situation. We also visit schools and give presentations on what Sikhism is. Through dialogue, we educate people, helping them understand that we’re all human beings and appearance should not be a means to make judgments. Coexistence is key as long as nobody is harmful.
Jacobsen: How do you link up with Gurdwaras to help build community support, whether it’s helping those trying to get back on their feet economically or helping kids who are being bullied?
Singh: Gurdwaras are the central point, much like churches, where people gather for congregations. They connect, bond, and discuss what affects them and their families in their free time. It’s a place where people hook up, connect, and talk about their problems.
It’s a word-of-mouth system that has already spread among a few people, specifically with the management. The management is aware of what we do and recommends to the congregation members who to go to when such things happen. There is a huge benefit in bringing awareness to the Gurdwaras so that they and their schools can leverage the management, including posters and flyers, to raise awareness about who to contact in such situations. Farming is a big part of life for many, but hard times can come to anyone.
Jacobsen: How does farmers relief work in India?
Singh: Farming is currently facing a crisis. Right now, we are only helping from a humanitarian perspective, as the farmers in India are asking for certain rights and requirements. They want at least a minimum value of a fixed price from the government to meet their needs. When the industry is privatized, private owners dictate the pricing, and everyone wants a cheaper price. The concern is that big companies may negotiate better prices with large landowners, which smaller farmers cannot match. It’s similar to how big stores like Walmart affect small mom-and-pop shops.
Certain areas have restrictions to prevent big stores from dominating, ensuring the town retains some control. Modernization is important for survival, but more effort must be needed to streamline and find a solution. This is why farmers are protesting in India, particularly in Punjab, after seeing the high suicide rates among farmers in other regions. They realize that the current system is not working, so they are taking a stand and blocking rules until the government develops a strategy and does not privatize the sector.
Jacobsen: I’m heading to Ukraine for work correspondence in soon.
Singh: Wow, that’s going to be interesting. This will be my second trip, and I’ll be there for another few weeks. Where are you going in Ukraine?
Singh: We will land in Chisinau, Moldova, then go to Kyiv and several other cities. Last time, we went to Odesa, Mykolaiv, Kherson (about 5 kilometres from the front line), back to Mykolaiv, then to Dnipro, Kharkiv, and finally Kyiv. It’s quite a lot of movement.
Jacobsen: Air raid alarms are on every night.
Singh: I’m sure. It’s a constant concern for the relief workers.
Jacobsen: What kind of relief work are you providing for Ukrainians?
Singh: We are focused on humanitarian aid, providing essential supplies and support to those affected by the conflict.
In a national situation, our headquarters are at Shehyni, the entrance point from southern Poland into Ukraine. Shehyni is the first entrance point there, and we have a base camp and a warehouse where all the refugees coming in and out can take shelter and receive breakfast and other necessary supplies.
In Kyiv, we have a small warehouse where we work in various regions based on feedback from the mayor’s office and others to deliver food and emergency supplies as needed. We collaborate with the local systems, where each city has a mayor. The oblast, a larger administrative area, contains smaller cities. For instance, the Kyiv oblast encompasses numerous smaller cities.
In Kharkiv, we have another center in Chuhuiv, closer to Russia but still in Ukraine. We recently completed building two bomb shelters there, and the inauguration ceremony is scheduled for August 26th. These shelters, supported by the United States, are for senior citizens, women with children, and older women.
The needs shift to winter clothes, socks, and similar items during winter. People often question where the aid money goes, and the reality is that it first supports the army, which is defending the country. It also goes to civilians supporting the army’s camps in nearly all towns. Many older adults and those unable to join the army are left behind; they are the population we primarily serve.
We also support many orphanages. The situation remains tense, though less reported due to the Middle Eastern crisis. Every day and night in Ukraine brings uncertainty, but the people are resilient and strong-willed. Their resilience inspires us to ensure they get the support they need. When you’re there, you meet the people and see their adaptability to daily air raid alarms, which have become a normal part of their lives.
Jacobsen: So, Hardayal, thank you very much for your time today.
Singh: Let me know if you’re going to Ukraine and if you need to meet with somebody there. We can connect you. Are you just going for journalism, or are you going to fight or something?
Jacobsen: No, no, it’s going to be war correspondence journalism. I’m going with a Romanian guy doing much live reporting there. He’s probably been there at least 200 days since the full-scale invasion.
Singh: But are you going to the war zone? You’re going quite close. Kharkiv is a very hot spot. That area where you’re going is very intense.
Jacobsen: We’ve been to Kharkiv before, so at least we will start in Kyiv this time. It’s one of the safer areas. He has the entire itinerary planned out because he works for Newsweek, Romania.
Jacobsen: Yes, we’re going to be visiting several cities. Once I know which cities, we can figure something out.
Singh: The bomb shelters are in Chuhuiv, very close to Russia. If you intend to go there or in that area, it’s quite intense, with fires and bombs falling here and there. You hope to be lucky to avoid those spots. I have some pictures of the shelters; I can send them to you.
Jacobsen: Yes, please. I’m doing a series if you have any relief or aid workers willing to be interviewed. The Center for Civil Liberties, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, has conducted a series of interviews with me. It would be interesting to get more perspectives. I even interviewed a restaurateur who turned her restaurant into a shelter, with tables becoming beds and the kitchen running 24/7 to provide food for civilians and soldiers.
Singh: Lots of opportunities indeed. All the best, and we’ll be in touch.
Jacobsen: Thank you, sir. Take care. Safe travels. Be safe.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/23
Cassandra Happe is a WalletHub Analyst. Here we talk about some states most and least affected by drug issues based on a report by WalletHub.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for disconnected youth?
Cassandra Happe: Louisiana, New Mexico, and West Virginia are the worst states for disconnected youth, which means high rates of young adults neither working nor in school, and facing significant challenges like poverty, low education levels, and poor health. In contrast, states like New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Illinois offer the best environments for youth, marked by better education, employment opportunities, and healthier lifestyles.”
Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for the percentage of disconnected youth?
Happe: Louisiana, Alaska, and Arkansas have the highest percentages of disconnected youth, which indicates significant challenges in education and employment for young adults in these states. The District of Columbia, North Dakota, and Nebraska, however, have the lowest rates because of their stronger support systems and opportunities for youth. These disparities highlight the need for targeted interventions in states with higher rates to prevent long-term socio-economic issues.
Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for the percentage of youth without a high school diploma?
Happe: New Mexico ranks worst in the nation for the percentage of youth without a high school diploma, with 15.5% of its 18-24-year-olds lacking this key educational achievement. This severely limits their future job prospects and earning potential. On the other hand, Hawaii boasts the best performance, with only around half that percentage, making it a leader in ensuring its youth complete their high school education.
Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for the percentage of overweight and obese youth?
Happe: States vary widely in terms of youth obesity rates, which is a reflection of broader disparities in health and resources. West Virginia has the highest percentage of overweight and obese youth, indicating significant challenges in promoting healthy lifestyles among its young population. Other states with concerning rates include Oklahoma, Ohio, Arkansas, and New Mexico.
On the other hand, New Hampshire, Colorado, California, Vermont, and Massachusetts have the lowest percentages, which suggests that these states may offer better environments or resources that support healthier youth outcomes. Addressing these disparities is crucial for ensuring the future well-being of all young Americans.
Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for the percentage of youth drug users?
Happe: Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Oregon rank as the worst states for youth drug use, or in other words, the highest percentages of young individuals engaged in illicit drug activities. On the other hand, Alabama, Utah, and Texas rank among the best, as their low rates of youth drug use are the result of more favorable environments or effective preventive measures.
Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for youth labor force participation rates?
Happe: States with high youth labor force participation rates, like Wisconsin and Utah, are providing better opportunities for young adults to engage in the workforce, which is critical for their development and future economic stability. In contrast, states like Hawaii, Mississippi, and New York face challenges with low participation rates, indicating a need for more support and resources to help young people transition smoothly into the labor market. Without intervention, these states risk long-term negative effects on their economic and social progress.
Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for the youth poverty rate?
Happe: Youth poverty rate is a critical indicator of future economic stability, and the disparities between states are striking. The District of Columbia, West Virginia, and Louisiana rank among the worst, with significantly high youth poverty rates. These states face compounded challenges such as low educational attainment and high rates of disconnected youth, which further entrench poverty. On the other end, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Hawaii have the lowest youth poverty rates, as they are likely benefiting from stronger social safety nets and better educational and employment opportunities for young adults.
Jacobsen: Which states are the worst and best for the percentage of homeless youth?
Happe: The states with the highest percentage of homeless youth include the District of Columbia, Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and California. These states face significant challenges that contribute to youth homelessness, such as high rates of poverty, lack of affordable housing, and insufficient support services. On the other hand, Mississippi, Delaware, Indiana, Virginia, and Louisiana report the lowest percentages of homeless youth, which suggests better support systems or fewer economic pressures affecting this vulnerable population. The stark difference between the worst and best states underscores the critical need for focused efforts in areas with high youth homelessness.
Jacobsen: What can be done to reduce the number of youth disconnected from work and education?
Happe: States should focus on comprehensive reforms targeting both educational and socio-economic factors to effectively address the issue of youth disconnected from work and education. Investments in stable housing, improved access to education, and robust youth programs are crucial. Enhanced role models and mentorship programs can provide guidance, while financial support and healthcare access can alleviate barriers to success. States with high youth disconnection rates, such as Louisiana and New Mexico, must prioritize these areas to prevent long-term negative effects on future economic and social progress.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/22
*Updated August 23, 2024.*
Dr. Alon Milwicki is a senior research analyst in the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Alon Milwicki. So, I am from Canada. I live in the rural areas outside of Vancouver while you are in Texas. I say “Vancouver” because that is the common city international people will know, but I live in a smaller semi-tourist/semi-retirement community now, temporarily. So, anyway, I will open with a Canadian apology for the Proud Boys. It seems polite in an extensive series. Gavin McInnes, as far as I know, is Canadian. Then, he moved to the United States to spread the hateful ideology.
While looking at some of my town’s history, I found out that only a few years ago, there was a group called the Northern Order. They presented themselves as either a white nationalist or a white supremacist group at Fort Langley National Historic Site. They took pictures, about a dozen ‘brave’ young men decided to take the photo and then blur their faces(Facebook).
They had a Facebook page and defined themselves as wanting to preserve something akin to Anglo-Saxon European stock, heritage, etc. So, that’s a common theme in North American history right up to the present. Naturally, it’s a statistical phenomenon: some rise, some fall, some are long-term, and some are short-term. So, antisemitism has been a focus of many groups. Let’s start with definitions; what is the most appropriate way to define antisemitism? What is the source for that? How do these groups stand?
Milwicki: I will give you the way we talk about it. The biggest problem is within the question. Defining antisemitism as something static is problematic. It’s the same way that defining racism is problematic because it changes. It changes depending on the period we’re talking about, who’s talking about it, and how it’s being discussed.
It also depends on the society. Sure, there are commonalities. It boils down to dehumanizing and attacking Jewish people. But when you look to give it a finite definition, you will run into problems. What antisemitism means today is not what antisemitism meant before October 7; you can be damn sure of that. You go back 100 years, bring it into a European or Australian context, then it becomes something different. But I would direct you to this:
That’s the way that I would say antisemitism is not defined but should be talked about. It is a starting point for a discussion about not so much what it is but how it operates and why it matters, if that makes sense. What this does and differentiates from other organizations is that we have in bold right there: the way to combat and understand antisemitism is not by defining it but by discussing it, understanding how it affects people, and looking at how it is presenting itself right now. This document is going to be updated. We give examples of the most prominent narratives.
The likelihood of the demonization of queer people and male supremacy will still be there. However, other things about antisemitism are presenting themselves in American society more openly right now, like the utilitarianism of the Jews and how Jews are utilized as tools, whether it’s by Christian nationalists or right-wing politicians. They’re a means to an end. Supporting Jews gets you X, a lot of that has to do with believing in the tropes of Jewish power and Jewish influence.
What do we make up? We make up one to two percent of this country and 0.2 percent of the world’s population; yet somehow, it’s believed that we control 80 to 90 to even 100 percent of the world’s wealth and influence. One of the most important things to recognize is that seeking a finite definition is flawed, if that makes sense.
It’s easy to say, “Look, antisemitism is hatred against Jews.” Great, but how does that help us? How does saying that help us? It doesn’t. Some of the best examples I’ll give are, in the wake of the Gaza war and Israel’s retaliation, if somebody graffitis “Free Gaza” on a wall in the middle of a freeway or something, great. Criticism of Israel, support for Palestinians, whatever; however, when they decide to do it in a synagogue or a Jewish institution, it’s not the message that makes it antisemitic. It’s the decision on the location that does. This person decided that Jews are synonymous with Israel and that a Jewish religious institution or a Jewish institution is responsible or at least connected to what Israel is or isn’t doing. That’s antisemitic. That decision is antisemitic. That nuance needs to be pointed out because, in these finite definitions, the more finite they get, the less nuance is included. That becomes a problem. That was a very long-winded non-answer to your question. But does that make sense?
Jacobsen: Yes, I know a counselling psychologist, a Métis doctoral counselling psychologist, who specializes in the self. He views cultures and the self as non-static. They’re dynamic entities, so, similarly, with this definition.
Milwicki: That’s the thing. I’ve always been a grassroots historian, a social historian. As long as people are the driving engines of these actions and beliefs, they’ll never be static. You can say things like racism is hatred of someone of a different race, or you could say things like anti-Islam is hatred of Muslims. You can say all those things. They’re obvious. That’s obvious. You don’t need an academic to tell you that antisemitism has to do with hating Jews. You don’t need me for that. Where others and I are valuable in pointing out that these things are not static; it is important to continue to study them so that we can keep up with them and understand how they’re presenting themselves. The fact that antisemitism is so baked into American society is so baked in that most people utilize antisemitic tropes without realizing it. The amount of people in this country who are talking about a deep state have no idea that at its core, it has roots in antisemitism, in recent antisemitism. That’s Henry Ford’s stuff. You can probably trace that back before the protocols.
And the person using that deep state term might not be an overtly antisemitic person, might not even be hateful. They might be someone who thinks there’s a shadow government. There’s a lot of Americans that do. But the very concept of that shadow government, of that puppet master, of people controlling things behind the scenes, has its core in antisemitism. We see this often, for example, with George Soros, right? It doesn’t matter. I’ve written about the George Soros trope twice for SPLC alone. The George Soros trope, it doesn’t matter who the man is or what he does. It doesn’t matter. The “Soros,” George Soros’s name, is no longer about the person.
Soros has become a convenient stand-in for Jews. In one of the articles, I’d have to find out if it was two years ago or last year that I wrote that we did a study. We took a month and looked at if you look at the Soros tropes – “Soros is behind,” “Soros backed power,” and “Soros greed” – they even got Soros involved with causing the Holocaust. A couple of years ago, I believe it was a GOP convention in either Minnesota or Michigan or even more recently, they have these pictures of George Soros as the puppet master. Those are the exact images the Nazis used of Jews. Whatever your thoughts about George Soros as a businessman, I don’t understand business.
But it’s not a criticism of George Soros or his business. Put it this way: nobody is saying Elon Musk backed prosecutors or Elon Musk backed D.A.s. No one cares about that. And you have to ask yourself why. There’s this one significant difference: Soros is Jewish. Everything they’re accusing Soros of fits into these antisemitic tropes.
Jacobsen: I found another one where I’ve been seeing this one thrown around, too, this bigger picture is the greatreplacement theory. That Jews are behind all this. What’s the antisemitic grounding for a clear conspiracy hypothesis or whatever you want to call it?
Milwicki: I wrote the recent Soros article. Looking at this one, you’ll see the graph I told you about from 2022. This is the far-right using that. This is the George Soros trope one. We used two graphs in this on. It was for a month that we did this little study. But if you also scroll down a little bit more and you look at the tropes there, or the idea that Soros controlled every single one of them, then these are all things that are said by people still to this day and have been said for arguably 20-plus years. If you replace the word “Jew” in place of “Soros” or “George Soros” with any of those, those are all standard antisemitic tropes, every single one. But this is palatable. Because it says “George Soros.” It’s so palatable that the country has become so inflamed by this that talking about George Soros like this isn’t considered antisemitic in mainstream or at least in right-wing politics. I would love to say left-wing politics also, but it’s everywhere. That’s how baked it is.
Jacobsen: Are these done consciously to shuttle these extremist, antisemitic ideas into the mainstream–Left and Right?
Milwicki: You could make it. The question is, which is worse? On the one hand, combating hatred is something you can do. Hateful people can disassociate from you or vice versa. That can happen. You can help that. However, ignorance is a lot more tricky because, at least in our lifetimes, ignorance has become considerably more willful. People are not like, “Well, I didn’t know, I’d like to learn.” People say, “I don’t want to know, and what you’re saying is wrong because it counters my beliefs or things that I already know.” There needs to be more openness or intellectual inquiry among people nowadays. People know. The people who think George Soros is a villain, there’s almost nothing I could ever do. I’ve been told, “Don’t you think that because you have a PhD, it means you’re tainted by academia?”
Milwicki: If you scratch the surface of any conspiracy theory, you’ll find antisemitism. That’s a cold-hearted fact. I can give you an example. I don’t even know the headline. This might not have to do directly with the great replacement, but this theme is here. George Soros is behind the move to make abortions legal because California is like a godless country. The great replacement is the idea of minorities replacing white people.
In racist dogmas and racist theologies, there’s a belief that the other, the non-white, are not capable. This is traceable a long way back. The long-standing history of anti-Black racism in this country is obvious. At least, it should be to most people anyway. I’m sure, as an outsider looking in, you might know more about America’s racist history than the average high school student because that’s a whole other thing. So there has to be someone behind it who has the money, knowledge, and ability to pull the strings and use these things.
I say “things” on purpose because that’s the way they believe these other races are. Who’s behind it all? Jewish people, always, always pulling the strings. So again, please read through our website to see why the Great Replacement Theory is still popular, Tucker Carlson loves to talk about it all the time. Unfortunately, he still has a following. It’s not with Black people. The migrant caravans, who do you think is behind all that? Soros. Now, the people saying Soros is behind it might not realize that they’re buying into antisemitic tropes. A lot of those people would fall into the category of the “I’m-not-racist-but” people. Like, “I’m not racist; I got a lot of Jewish friends. I’m not racist, but you have to believe Jews have lots of money. I’m not racist, but you gotta believe there’s more black and brown people in jail.” I’ve always said that when I used to teach, I used to say, if anyone ever says to you, “I’m not racist, but” tell them to stop. Because whatever comes after that “but” is going to be racist. It’s as close to a universal truth as you will get. If someone says, “I’m not racist, but” be like, “Bro, I’m out. Come on, stop.”
So, one of the hallmarks of antisemitism is conspiracy. So, any conspiracy you find, I guarantee you, you can find an antisemitic rationale behind it or some antisemitic explanation of it. Remember Jews, and if you read Mein Kampf, even got through the first four chapters of it, you’ll realize that Jews are the only people who can be both communist and capitalist, greedy and poor, dirty rich. If there’s one thing the Nazis did well, it’s that they consolidated all of their enemies into one.
It’s hard to hate so many different things. Who are we hating now? Whose fault is this? It doesn’t have to be all of those; it’s the Jew. Because Jews represent such a small part of the population, that makes them even more dangerous; that makes the hidden hand much more viable because you can’t see them. Look at me; I look like a white guy, right?
My long hair is the only thing that gives me away. I might be a little weird to these people. The amount of times in myclasses when I got told, “You don’t seem Jewish.” What does a Jew seem like? They weren’t coming from a place of hatred. The one kid who flipped over his thing and gave me a Confederate flag was, but I called him out and said, “Yes, yes, like that. That’s bigotry, that’s racism. What you’re showing right there.”
Jacobsen: What about the tragedy of some who have come from a history of experiencing a variety of racism, then use antisemitic tropes and conspiracies to bolster their community? A common claim against Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
Milwicki: Antisemitism is the great unifier. If there’s one thing that can connect the Hebrew Israelites to the Proud Boys, to the Ku Klux Klan, to Patriot Front, to Neo-Volkish, you name it. The one thing that can tie them all together is antisemitism. If you find any form of racism, you can find antisemitism. It’s not as irregular as it sounds. A lot of the stuff that the radical Hebrew Israelites would like to say is Christian identity repackaged.
Jacobsen: I’ve mentioned something in other interviews, but I’ll say it again. My background is that I did my 23andMe and came out 100% Northwestern European. So, by that definition of ‘white,’ if we have to use ‘race’ pseudoscience, that would be categorized into that. My nationality is Canadian; my heritage is Dutch, Norwegian, and so on. So, I have a bunch of people who are Jewish friends. I learned that around 1810, Israel Jacobson founded Reform Judaism. If there’sany relation at all, I have no idea. I have yet to do a formal research project into it. One of my longest-term writing friends is Rick Rosner. He wrote for Jimmy Kimmel for 12 years. He’s part of the Mega Society. He does well on these high-range tests. So, he’s a wacky character. He is a former child prodigy in physics. He did non-genius things like roller skating, waiting, stripper, bouncer, nude art modelling, and comedy writing for his career. He’s in his 60s. Another gentleman did identically on some of these more famous tests with large sample sizes and recent statistical analysis, measuring pretty high. But not as high as originally stated. A guy who was featured in Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, by Cynthia McFadden in 20/20 (also), Rick Montgomery in The Kansas City Star, John R. Quain in Popular Science, Ray Preston in KMOV, Louis Finley in KTVO, with Spike Jonze, with Aaron Henry, in Esquire by Mike Sager, NBC, Errol Morris in First Person, SuperScholar, Christopher Michael Langan. They claimed an IQ of 195. He has claimed 190 to 210. Based on more recent sober analysis, these are not true but are believed. [Ed. Probably closer to 163 to 170+ S.D. 16, as with Rosner.]
Milwicki: Geniuses can be racist, too.
Jacobsen: Correct. So you have very high scores on these reasonably researched high-range test set sample – Mega Test and Titan Test. As a case study, he’s interesting as a independent, freelance journalist, leaning more into investigative journalism in this instance, a complex figure. He has expressed views around conspiracy theories and the 9-11 truth movement, opposition to interracial relationships, and getting a following by people’s freedom to, generally speaking, say something about them, as well as using what has been termed dog whistles around antisemitism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, among other things), particularly in some articles by Justin Ward in The Baffler, Talbert Gregson of Cracked, and Ari Feldman in The Forward. So, opinions differ in the extreme on him. People might disagree with the applications of people’s articles or orientations. Still, it allows a little bit of individual reflection, but, anyway, what that’s got methinking about is how people who are antisemitic, at least in this stream, have their opposition to interracial relationships. Not the interracial relationship itself but the fact that somehow the Jews are behind them. That, to me, is hilarious. What’sthe thinking there?
Milwicki: It goes back to what I said before, which is that these demographics are incapable of doing things independently. Or that Jews have this desire to remake the world. Many anti-Semites will call it the “Jew world order,” for example. They’re very clever. So, when things are going in a bad direction, there’s this belief that there has to be someone behind it. There are demographers. In the United States, there’s this belief, or there’s this study that was done that says by 2050, this country’s going to be predominantly Latino. That’s been something that’s been around for a while. For me, I don’t give a crap. But that scares the crap out of many people. There’s this belief, think about it. Every year in this country, there’s a war on Christmas.
Every year: I am sorry, but I am not inundated by menorahs and Hanukkah music every December. I don’t see Ramadan parties or Eid parties. I don’t get a federal holiday for Yom Kippur. But this all plays into it—this victimization of the white Christian male, cis-gendered male, specifically, the white Christian man. So that’s a tale as old as time, dude, with the risk of being the Beast myself. Anyway, it’s not rational. Racism of any kind, any discrimination, is not rational. That’sa key point. People will point to evidence and instances, but an instance of something happening.
That’s not evidence. The personal does not reflect the whole, right? The fact that you got robbed by a Latino man does not mean that all Latino men are criminals. Do you get what I’m saying? But that’s the belief. However, when it’s a white man who is raping a girl, not all white men are rapists. That’s wrong. That only applies to minorities. So you have the combination of the demonization of minorities coupled with the puppet mastery of the Jew. The fact that society is changing: Who benefits from that? Who’s the financial backer? Who’s the one behind this?
Listen, if I was half of what anti-Semites believed I was… I used to tell my students this in classes: all of their tuition would be going into my right pocket. I’d be sharing it equally with my left pocket because I’m both communist and capitalist. The only demographic of people who are capable of this level of betrayal, this level of duplicity, this level of banality and evil, while simultaneously being godless and whatever, are Jews. I’m the worst kind. I look like everyone else.
Jacobsen: What would be the centrist examples and leftist examples of antisemitism?
Milwicki: Buying into tropes and buying into tropes because they are so difficult. That would be my best answer. Look, here’s the thing. The way I used to explain it is that it’s the right that hates Jews. It’s the left that doesn’t like Israel.
It’s in this world we’re living in now where we’re seeing that mix. While it is true that there have been some right-wing racist organizations that have come out supporting Palestinians and Holocaust revisionists, right? Other researchers might have seen more, but I’ve seen this. The people who are–let’s say–vandalizing synagogues or Holocaust museums with “Free Gaza” aren’t necessarily right-wing. I would argue they’re probably progressives. The trope that they’re falling into there is the conflation of Jews with Israel. So that would be my best example. That’s a recent one. I can’t tell you how many progressives have done that because nobody sticks around.
That’s the thing about these. I track antisemitic incidents for SPLC. I can tell you that since Gaza, vandalism, bomb threats, and graffiti of Jewish institutions have gone up like this.
Jacobsen: It’s on the rise in Canada, too.
Milwicki: So, I see much stuff happening in Canada, too. It does not look like antisemitism. Like I said, I said antisemitism is baked into America. That’s true. But the reason is because it’s baked into Western civilization. I’m not the first historian to tell you that it’s the world’s oldest racism. As long as there have been Jews, there have been people who have been against Jews. One of the facts of Western history is that you can barely go a half-century without a pogrom against Jews. You can’t. If there’s one true thing, it’s that in periods of heightened tension, whether economic, racial, political, social, or even spiritual. You will find antisemitism accompanying it.
What Herzl said in the 1890s about the Jewish question, right? He said something along the lines of, ‘The Jewish question persists wherever Jews live in appreciable numbers, and it’s brought in because they are allowed to live there.’ The question becomes the same question that Goebbels ripped off, except he was like, “What do we do with the Jews?” Herzl intended: “What happens to us when they turn?” One of the best examples of this is if I were to ask you point blank, between 1870 and roughly 1917, what do you think the safest place in the world for Jews was?
Jacobsen: Germany.
Milwicki: German Jews were allowed to join the army. German Jews fought for the Central Powers. They were granted citizenship. They flocked en masse to fight for the Central Powers. Hitler’s commander was Jewish, and he was awarded a medal. There was even talk among them once Herzl died in “Zionist headquarters.” Instead of finding it in historic Jewish history in the Middle East in what was then the British protectorate of Palestine, there was talk about…
Jacobsen: Germany?
Milwicki: Germany. There were a lot of moderate Zionist Jews. Remember, I’m using the word “Zionism” in the context of the 19th century and early 20th century. It’s another social construct that’s gone out of control, especially how people use it. That’s a side issue or another issue we can talk about. But then, things went bad. Things got bad. You have Jews living in appreciable numbers in Germany. So you get things like the stab-in-the-back myth. We start seeing political cartoons of Jews stabbing German soldiers in the trenches from the back. There’s a whole legend about Ludendorff and a British admiral that’s probably not true. Where the British admiral says at tea time, “Well, it sounds like you were stabbed in the back,” and Ludendorff is like, “Son of a bitch.” And then you get Mein Kampf in 1923. That’s all she wrote.
Or look at Spain or France; France was the most dangerous place in the world to be Jewish, or Russia had pogroms against Jews; the Soviet Union, you name it, it’s everywhere. So it’s that insider-outsider thing. I’m not going to go full Herzlian here. He’s right on one thing. Jews move to places where they’re allowed to live freely. That is a fact of history.
Jacobsen: Could you make a social and group psychology statement? If you look at the demographics of how many Jewish people living in a country and rank them by country with the most antisemitic country to the country with the least, you could make a social psychological statement. Generally speaking, this is the portion of people where they feel safest to live, where more Jewish people are; then there’s a safer feeling. And wherever any Jew lives, the reason they live there is because either they or someone before them felt safer.
Milwicki: I can’t. I’m not a sociologist; I’m not a psychologist. I know psychology or sociology through two dear colleagues, one of whom was my mentor. Let me tell you, that woman was a psych M.D. in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. That woman has seen some shit. So, I know psychology through a very limited lens. My sociology colleague and friend deals with the sociology of power. He’s convinced me that that’s the most important construct: power and the absence of power. I used to think it was identity in my naive youth four years ago. Power or the perception of it. But here’s the thing. The two universal truths I have are: that the Nazis never had any good ideas, and the Civil War was about slavery, cut and print. I won’t accept any argument over that. But there are two things that I’ve heard that I have not been able to disprove in any way, shape, or form. I can’t take credit for saying this. I was in grad school for 395,000 years and heard it somewhere.
Subjugation always requires “Justification,” not for the people being subjugated but for the backers. Perception always, always, always matters more than reality, always. Nobody cares what’s happening. It’s the same reason most people base their understanding of today’s world on headlines. No one, no one, no one goes deeper. That’s why academics are being attacked or schools are being shut down, not physically, maybe physically, why books are being attacked. People don’twant reality. People don’t want to learn what these people think. People don’t want to listen to people like me. “Please give me the top line. Could you give me the headline?” That’s all people want.
I have never found an instance where that isn’t true. I’m open to being told I’m wrong, except for the Nazis and the Civil War thing. Now that’s true. At the beginning of every semester, I would tell students I would like them to argue anything with me. I will allow any argument. If you attempt this argument, I will destroy you. You will be too embarrassed to return to class. So yes, I hope that even addressed your question.
So there are 53 members of the Canadian forces who have been identified as members of these styles of hate groups, antisemitic groups. It’s in a not-very-large army. So that is reasonable and a claim for alarm because these people are looking to the army for resources and training, especially with weapons.
Milwicki: You also have to keep in mind that those are the people who are card-carrying members. That’s a difference. That’s a matter of rhetoric.
Jacobsen: It travels. As it happens, these guys tend to talk. As I did in the follow-up article on the sexual assault scandals in the Canadian Armed Forces, there was this one officer called Officer X. He had cases going back more than ten years. So, this Officer X reportage found that everyone in senior officership had his case brought to them at some point, including the current highest-ranking general. Nothing has been done. So, what this got me thinking about was after writing that article on the white nationalists in the Canadian Armed Forces and then following up on the sexual assault scandal in the Canadian Armed Forces, one, they’re happening. They’re real. The prevalence is going to be underreported, as we know, at least in the sexual assault case. We know in the white nationalist white supremacist case because, as they say, those 53 are according to their internal documents. Then they will say, “We didn’t have enough resources. We didn’thave enough staff.”
What needs to be stated is that they need a formal procedure for identification; you can easily see in those three gaps that there are many more in an army of only 80,000, potentially fewer if you’re considering active and full-time alone. So these people want training, especially weapons. It’s different from other contexts. If you’re a baker, mail carrier, or clerk, it’s a different context because you are trained in lethality. So then the question is, does this change the threat level of antisemitism when these types of groups are going for that training?
Milwicki: So then they can then be of use, so to speak, for their movement. It could, but keep in mind that the difference between Canada and America is that we have more guns than people. So far, there have been more shootings than there have been days of 2024. One thing that Americans do have is that they have more guns than people.
Jacobsen: You have as many registered guns as Canadians have registered guns.
Milwicki: So I could probably drive 10 minutes and see a gun show any day of the week. Look, the dude who shot at Donald Trump had his dad’s AK-47. What the hell does a civilian need with a military-grade weapon? No idea. They’ll say the Second Amendment. If you base it on the Second Amendment, you best get a musket based on that time. You best be going out hunting with that musket. You can put a scope on it if you want. It’s going to go differently than you want it. On another topic, there was an award for a non-Nazi citizen or a non-German Nazi. If you look, this is a lecture I gave. Henry Ford was awarded the Grand Cross of Germany.
Jacobsen: And let’s see. [Read Milwicki’s slides] “Jews have always controlled the business… The motion picture influence of the United States and Canada… is exclusively under the control, moral and financial, of the Jewish manipulators of the public mind.”
“There is nothing that the international Jew fears so much as the truth or any hint of the truth about himself or his plans.”
Milwicki: So, not for nothing, that dude didn’t work out. You don’t need my slides to find Henry Ford’s quotes. You can also find countless copies of The International Jew online. One of those other things is not to wait to read it in public. I’vemade that mistake several times. 90% of my dissertation was written in a coffee shop, but look how far it goes back. This is Martin Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies. His is from the 16th century. So, we’re staying strong here. We’re not breaking new ground here. Why do you need to? The answer is you don’t. If it isn’t broken, right? That’s the brilliance of racism. You don’t need evidence. All you need is someone else to say it to you, before and after.
“Why isn’t the white man a native anywhere? You’re not a native Palestinian, no you’re not. You didn’t originate there. But if you did, then you’re the real Semitic people. But the Ashkenazi European, he has no connection at all to the Holy Land. None! So in a showdown prove to us that you are Semitic. Let’s go on with it, it’s our time now!” — Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 11/18/18
“Do you know that many of us who go to Hollywood seeking a chance, we have to submit to anal sex and all kids of debauchery, and they give you a little part? The couch where you have to sit, it’s called the ‘casting couch.’ That’s Jewish power.” — Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 5/27/18
“You and I are going to have to learn to distinguish between the righteous Jew and the Satanic Jews who have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.” — Speech at Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 5/27/18
“But when you’ve got revelation that came to you from God through all these prophets, then that’s your test because if you use God’s truth that makes you wiser than others and use it to promote evil when you should be promoting good, then you’re no longer a Jew. And that’s why the scripture says, “I will make those who say they are Jews,” this is Revelation 2 and 9, ‘Who say they are Jews, but they are not, I will make them of the Synagogue of Satan.’ — Interview on WCGI 107.5 Chicago, 5/11/18
“When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“Satan is going down. Farrakhan has pulled the cover of the eyes of the Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through. You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“The Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out: turning men into women, and women into men.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“I don’t care what they put on me. The government is my enemy, the powerful Jews are my enemy.” — Saviours’ Day speech, 2/25/18
“Members of the Jewish community, who owned a lot of plantations, please don’t get angry and upset because this is real history, you put us back on the plantation as share croppers and began riding down on us, and if any of us escaped the plantation many of the Irish that were coming over, they call them the paddy wagon, they would come after us and bring us back to the plantation; those were hard days, hard days.” — Speech at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC, 11/11/17
“But there are righteous Jews, good Jews, Jews that want to practice the teachings of the prophets, but then there are others who don’t wish to practice, and it is they that hated Reverend [Jesse] Jackson’s desire to be President.” — Speech at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, DC, 11/11/17
“Those who call themselves ‘Jews,” who are not really Jews, but are in fact Satan: You should learn to call them by their real name, ‘Satan;’ you are coming face-to-face with Satan, the Arch Deceiver, the enemy of God and the enemy of the Righteous.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17
“To my Jewish friends, I shouldn’t use the word ‘friends’ so lightly, you have been a great and master deceiver, but God is going to pull the covers all off of you.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), 2/26/17
“I want to disabuse the Jews today of the false claim that you are ‘The Chosen of God,’ and that Israel, or Palestine, belongs to you; I want to disabuse you of that…And I’m going to tell you about your future: You that think you have power to frighten and dominate the peoples of the world. I am here to announce the end of your time.” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 1), 2/19/17
“This past December we organized a boycott of Christmas and our theme was ‘Up with Jesus! Down with Santa!’ Here is the white man, many of whom that have these businesses, they don’t believe in Jesus. I’m going to say it again: Many of the biggest business people are called Jews, and they don’t believe in Jesus. But you love Jesus so magnificently, that now they can make money—a lot of money—off of your love. So, they set up Christmas.” — Speech delivered at Mosque Maryam at the second annual “Boys to Men Empowerment Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 4/20/2016
“We are feeling the effect of the planning of a small group of Zionists and some so-called Christians as well. The Synagogue of Satan and its companions are working day and night to destroy any unity among Muslims.” — Speech delivered in Iran, 2/10/16
“Do you know that the enemies of Jesus were the Jews of his day and the Roman authorities? That wasn’t 2000 years ago alone. That’s today!” — Saviours’ Day speech (part 2), Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois 3/2/14
“David — even though he may have made a mistake — he submitted and repented before God. This you false Jews have not done. No. You are not a Jew! I say you’re a so-called Jew. You are Satan masquerading as a covenanted people of God. You must be exposed, regardless of the consequences…” — The Time and What Must Be Done: Part 57, 2/8/14
“Did you know that Jesus had a real problem with the Jewish community? They had power, the rabbis of that day, over the Roman authorities just as they have power today over our government.” — Remarks at Indianapolis Convention Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, 12/1/13
“In all of these cities on a Jewish holiday, business stops because they are the masters not only in America’s cities but in cities throughout Europe and the Western world.” — The Time and What Must Be Done, Part 20: Making Satan Known, 5/25/13
“The Jewish media has normalized sexual degeneracy, profanity, and all kinds of sin.” — The Time and What Must Be Done, Part 20: Making Satan Known, 5/25/13
“Socialism or communism is a doctrine they have to fight cause it ends their wealth and their power, wherever socialism rises, capitalism begins to die…So the International Jew is affected by the rise of socialism, it is in their DNA to fight anything that will raise the common man. This is why they fight any voice that the little man will listen to.” — The Time and What Must Be Done, Part 17, 5/4/13
“You that think that those who refer to themselves as Jews are the real Children of Israel? No. You have made a real theological mistake and some of you have made a theological error because you know the truth, but yet you consider your wickedness in promoting a deceptive lie.” — The Time and What Must Be Done, Part 5, 2/9/13
“Now you know I’m going to be lambasted and called anti-Semitic… They’ll say Farrakhan was up to his old canards; he said Jews control Hollywood. Well, they said it themselves! Jews control the media. They said it themselves! Jews and some gentiles control the banking industry, international banks. They do! In Washington right next to the Holocaust Museum is the Federal Reserve where they print the money. Is that an accident?” — Holy Day of Atonement Keynote Address (part 2) Mosque Maryam, Chicago, Illinois, 10/21/12
Farrakhan: How many of you are lawyers? Only have one in the house? No wonder we go to jail so much, brother! But at the top of the law profession, who are the top in law?
Audience: Jews.
Farrakhan: Sorry I didn’t hear you. Audience: Jews! Farrakhan: Any doctors in the house? Ain’t got no doctors? Oh there’s one way in the back. At the top of the medical profession, the top in that are members of the Jewish community. Anybody in media? Who’s the top in that field?
Audience: Jews.
Farrakhan: Anybody a rapper in the house? There’s rappers. You can rap, ain’t nothing wrong with that, but at the top of that are those that control the industry. Any of you have Hollywood ambitions, Broadway ambitions? Who’s the top of that? Audience: Jews. Farrakhan: Same people! They’re masters in business. Well I’m not a businessman I’m a banker. Well who’s the master of the bankers?
Audience: Jews.
Farrakhan: TALK TO ME!
Audience: Jews!
Farrakhan: You don’t discredit them because they’re masters, you discredit them by the way they use their mastery.
Audience: [applause]
Farrakhan: Now, I close.
Milwicki: Oh, it’s all kinds. “Satanic Jew” is a straight Christian identity, radical Hebrew Israelites. Where I used to teach in downtown Dallas, every so often, there used to be radical Hebrew Israelites protesting there. I would be amazed at how identical this was to Christian identity. I don’t track them here. One of my other colleagues does. But I know about them because they are essentially Christians who replace white male Christendom with black male Christians. Antisemitism, like I said, is the great unifier. It doesn’t matter. It brings the strangest bedfellows.
Jacobsen: It’s unsurprising and believable. What emotions arise for many Jewish people when talking to all types of Jewish communities? What are the words of commonalities?
Milwicki: I can only speak to what I’ve witnessed. There is much fear and also much resignation. There’s also a lot of like, “Oh, who gives a shit?” It’s enough. The exhaustion: if we’re going to put it like this, things will be terrifying. Of course, “It’s this way” and “isn’t it enough already?” Those are the best ways I would explain it. But again, I can only speak to my own experience here regarding what I’ve seen. You’d have to put anger in there, too. A lot of the anger is directed not necessarily at, I don’t want to say, accurate, but useful targets. It’s easy to get angry at the world. That’s one of the greatest ways to be for birthing extremists. Like I said before, why is having one enemy so beneficial?
Like how the Nazis made it so beneficial to have all your problems in one thing, antisemitism comes from so many different ways. Antisemitism comes from so many different places and different modalities that it can make you angry and tired. Now, look, I lived this life. I chose to study this stuff.
And usually, I’m able to disconnect. But there are times when this has happened more since I’ve had kids. There are some times when it’s like, “Are you kidding me right now?” It’s like the fact that it didn’t take more than a couple of hours for people to blame Jews for what happened to Trump or people to blame Jews. It’s almost instantaneous. I don’t want to say it’s not like that in other countries, but at the same time, it’s not as loud in other countries. Or at least, it could be more instantaneously vociferous. If that makes sense, other countries have laws about this stuff. We don’t have a First Amendment right to be an asshole.
Jacobsen: You see this in those that don’t put the self first, too. For instance, the current Catholic Pope—I believe Discordianism likes to joke that that’s the guy who thinks he’s the only Pope—basically, he is liberalizing much of, not necessarily church doctrine but, perception in the public eye of the Catholic Church. He’s even meeting with the leader of the second largest sect of Christianity.
250-300 million, which is the Eastern Orthodox Church, they met with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, in Cairo of all places! There are times of meetup. But when you were talking about alternative places for people who don’t really find themselves buying majoritarian mythologies very much, two things came to mind.
One was a United Church of Canada Minister. For context, the United Church of Canada is probably considered the most liberalised Christian church in Canada. I use it as a benchmark. Whatever is controversial to them, it is what Christianity will allow in this country. Not sure about America, things are different in America. The minister’s name is Gretta Vosper.
She lost her faith while in the church. She went from the progression of theist to deist to atheist. Her congregation were fine with the minister. Recently, late 2016, she was under review for her suitability for being in the church. She was giving – for that particular group – moral lessons. Another case I was thinking about was the secular church in, what some would consider the equivalent of the Bible Belt in America, Calgary, Alberta.
So I think there are ways this stuff is cropping up more, and more. And it is heartening to hear this. Media representation is interesting. The United States has very powerful public relations, previously termed propaganda, industry. When I watch interviews with Lucien Greaves, for instance, there’s talking over him. There’s stereotypes. There’s not taking him seriously.
Any bad journalistic practice. He undergoes. Is there a bettering trend in the representation of the media of Satanism?
de Haan: No.
Shortt: No. A Fox News thing posted an article for our veterans’ memorial in Minnesota. First line: “Devil Worshippers Erecting Monument in Bell Plains.”
de Haan: It’s like they won’t even give the courtesy of a Google search, sometimes.
Jacobsen: [Laughing].
de Haan: If you want to see how we’re treated personally, you can Google it. A councilman in Phoenix, Arizona compared us to ISIS. Michelle and I have personally been called terrorists by public officials. We’ve been called bullies, as they tell us to go to hell.
Jacobsen: These would be the same person, same personality type, that would bully you in work and then wouldplay the victim.
de Haan: What we see in Christianity a lot is if they don’t get 100% of their way 100% of the time, they play the victim.
Jacobsen: [Laughing] of course.
de Haan: That they’re being persecuted. Part of what we do is expose this. I think a lot of stuff people don’t realize is going on until you have someone who comes up, and who is an easy standard to call the ‘wrong religion’.
Shortt: We definitely do not see them being any fairer in their representation of us at all, to answer the question. In fact,almost anything like pizzagate. Or the satanic panic being underway with religious freedom now being the thing. It’s going to happen.
de Haan: Moral panics are on the rise. It is a bit concerning. As they are calling it in the Trump Era, the Post-Fact Era, the facts simply do not matter anymore. What makes you maddest? That’s the truth. You see the things like pizzagate. Where a pizza parlour, they say they’re going to have children sacrifices in the basement. In 2017, this is a throwback to the McMartin babysitter case, which happened in the 80s.
You’re seeing stuff like this happening. Luckily, you have debunking of this pretty quickly. People know about Snopes, and so on. Michelle and I have been the subject of conspiracy theories in Phoenix, in our own cities. There are websites slandering us personally. It is what we deal with, especially if you’re in a leadership position.
Regarding your expertise, it’s not necessarily the wrong religion. It’s the wrong type of person.
Milwicki: It’s also the wrong belief system. It’s not about religion. That’s about politics and society and everything. I could be judged immoral because I support gay marriage. I support marriage equality.
Jacobsen: Don Lemon said, “Am I in a state of sin, or am I sinning because I…” And Candace Owens says, “Yes, you are.” Without a flinch.
Milwicki: Without a flinch. And she also thinks that the Holocaust didn’t happen the way we thought it did because she’s an expert in everything.
Jacobsen: I listen to a lot of these American preachers of this type, a lot of them. Mark Driscoll comes to mind. And these things from the FRC, they’re terrible. These individuals are now told by their leaders to their congregants to be bold. That they will come across X, Y, and Z resistance. You don’t have to have fear and be bold in your affirmations. Candace Owens, I’m seeing this pop up more where many aren’t having feedback; they need to hold to the regular social contract where you’ve cut off the feedback at that point. That’s what I noticed in Candace Owens and Don Lemon’s interaction.
Milwicki: No, you can’t have any; they’re all cowards. The second you give them any form of criticism, they fall back on bullshit tropes or whataboutism. They’re all cowards. They’re all cowards. They don’t have evidence to back them up. They abuse faith by saying, “I’ll quote this scripture.” Look, Wesley Swift, one of the most mind-blowing things when I was working on my dissertation. One of the major, probably the most important, voices is the focus of my entire dissertation, the major voice of Christian identity. Every time he quoted scripture, he was on point—every time. I would be like, there’s no way this isn’t… There were a couple of words missing, like a “thou” or a “thee” or a “shall,” whatever, but everything he quoted was on point. Now, that doesn’t mean that scripture is inherently racist. It means it’s not hard to make scripture racist and exclusionary. It is not hard.
I used to say, and take this with a grain of salt, but I used to say that history is a very subjective study that relies on objectivity. We know that Germany invaded Poland in September of 1939, and that was the beginning of World War II. We can say that. That is as close to an objective historical fact as we can say. There are, however, that Germany did invade Poland. Some historians would argue that that’s not the beginning of World War II, and they’ll provide evidence to say, “No, it began when Japan invaded Manchuria.” But there is an element of some form of objectivity. Where theology becomes dangerous is that it’s equally subjective; that’s why if you take Protestantism: How many different kinds of Protestants are there?
So there’s a difference. But the backbone is faith, and you cannot prove or disprove faith. So, if you build a racial or racist ideology or theology around faith, it cannot be disproved. Because the only thing the person using it has to say is “what I believe… That’s not my faith, which is real.” That’s a danger in every religion. Facts are useless if you believe them, and belief is the core of your evidence. And that was a very sad thing to mention.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/21
Tianxi Yu（余天曦）is a man who’s interested in IQ tests. Here we talk some updates in his work and professional life when applying his intelligence to work and personal situations.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With an increasingly globalized world, especially for the younger generations, do you think it’s still appropriate to talk about East and West as placeholders about the global order?
Tianxi Yu: The dominant group in globalization is not necessarily governments; the development of civilization is inevitably accompanied by a diminution of governmental power and the rise of individual sovereignty. Thus there are no two different symbols, East and West, but rather the cognitive consensus of individual human beings serves as a placeholder.
Jacobsen: What seems like the first instance of true human civilization to you? What is the foundational mark of a civilization?
Yu:Maybe humans learned to make fire? Or learned to use tools? Or learned to trade? It’s also possible that nothing that happens to humans now is enough to make up a collection. It seems to me that “civilization” gets its bearings when you fully realize that past actions were stupid, and that’s the beginning of civilization.
Jacobsen: What have been the historical trajectories or patterns of civilizations over time?
Yu: Based on artificial intelligence and cryptography, the evolution towards personal sovereignty begins
Jacobsen: What would demarcate the different periods of history into the present?
Yu: By the winners in history, may be based on technology, may be based on tactics, in short these winners make our history books read in order.
Jacobsen: What would best characterize the contemporary period of civilization?
Yu: It’s a hard choice, but for each person, it could be themselves
Jacobsen: How might this characterization be helpful in making predictions about the future stages of human civilization or, at least, the next likely steps?
Yu: The evolution of human society is long and tortuous; the slowness of evolution stems mainly from the corrosion of interest groups, and the collapse of interest groups inevitably accompanies every advance in civilization. So still from a human perspective, the more disgruntled humans there are, the more likely the next stage will come.
Jacobsen: What seems like the difference between European, American, and Asian, academics, academic communities, and academic output?
Yu: It’s hard for me to give a very in-depth judgment because I’m still only in the sewer of academia. But as most people believe, Europe and the United States tend to be more original in their academic output, while China tends to be more replicative and transcendent.
Jacobsen: What might be the rise and fall of nations in the midst of global politics, aging populations, low birth rates, populism, war, and the like, on the rise?
Yu: Decline due to war, political persecution, continued decline of newborn.; prosperity due to entering new narratives, creating hope, granting individual sovereignt.
Jacobsen: What contributes to a cyclical nature of economies?
Yu: On a micro level, it can be attributed to technological development, human mental activity, regime change …… But I prefer it to be a by-product of God’s creation. God exists and is immortal. And the economy is a pseudo-god, the only way to acquire divinity as a mortal.
Jacobsen: I’ve had anxiety too. What are your strategies for re-centering yourself, calming down?
Yu: Read psychology books, meditate on Buddhist scriptures, go for a walk and let yourself go
Jacobsen: Do you have any time to balance professional responsibilities and relaxation, and self-care?
Yu: Time is enough, but it’s hard to get yourself to really relax, especially when you’re done relaxing and facing reality.
Jacobsen: You have been an outspoken person. What were the reasons for the more recent outspoken posts on Facebook? How should they be interpreted? What were the reactions to those posts?
Yu: On a very offensive note, the vast majority of them are not intelligent, and in my opinion stupid, and I don’t get what I want within this group. I’m outspoken in many groups, even in my workplace, and I’m outspoken because I understand that I’m much better than the vast majority of these groups. That’s my backbone, but it’s also the source of my anxiety. A lot of my anxiety still stems from my loneliness, and while I say I believe in the existence of God, God is not the most powerful, and above God is the indescribable void. I know I can’t be an all-knowing, all-powerful God if I live 1000 years, but I want to go after Him too. God is not alone because He created the world and has countless children from whom He derives His emotions. But I don’t, and am far from God, and that has led to constant self-doubt and doubts about my abilities. Suffice it to say that acquiring more divinity is my goal in life, making money and a good job is just me finding something for me to do with myself. As for these posts, they were made because my emotions weren’t well relieved. I don’t think there’s much to explain, what other people think has nothing to do with me.
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/08/20
Daniel Seymour is UN Women’s Strategic Partnerships Director. He previously worked at Save the Children UK as its first Human Rights Officer and in government as an advisor on child rights to the UK Foreign Secretary. He joined the UN with UNICEF, working on child protection, gender, and human rights. He was seconded to UN Women in 2010 to support its establishment.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Daniel Seymour, the Director of Strategic Partnerships at UN Women. I have been working on and off around women’s rights initiatives or human rights initiatives generally, focusing on women in this context. Now that I have more time, I’m seeking more exploratory work and profiling in that domain. So, how did you get involved with UN Women? How did you get involved in the area of strategic partnerships?
Daniel Seymour: I joined UN Women from UNICEF. My career path was serendipitous, as many career paths are. I found myself as the Head of Gender and Human Rights at UNICEF. While I was in that role, then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed, and member states accepted, the establishment of UN Women, the youngest UN entity. I was involved in various internal UN discussions representing UNICEF in the early days. I was then asked to help set up UN Women, which I did on a secondment from UNICEF. Our first Executive Director, Michelle Bachelet, asked me to be her Deputy Chief of Staff.
That was about 15 years ago, and I’ve had various roles since then. I applied for the partnerships role for a reason. It’s an interesting area of work involving real partnerships. More specifically, one of the reasons I felt more at home at UN Women than at other UN entities is that UN Women, because of its mission and approach, is inherently political. It’s about advocacy, influence, enabling, convening, and supporting more than it is about doing things itself.
In all my roles, I’ve been on the human rights side, believing that our development and global multilateral challenges are less about knowing what to do and more about finding ways to incentivize and encourage those in power to act differently. The challenges we face are about applying power more than capacity and knowledge. This made UN Women a natural home for me, and partnerships, which involve engaging with others to work together to drive change, are also a natural fit. I’m happy to give you some examples of what we do in this job. It’s a tough job, but I’ve learned a lot, and it’s been satisfying for me most of the time.
Jacobsen: Regarding the development of UN Women over time, as you noted and as I know, UN Women is the youngest organization emerging from probably the largest bureaucratic organization in the world, the United Nations. So, how does an organization like that develop, expand, build partnerships, and increase its impact on its goals and the broader aims of the United Nations?
Seymour: We were given a mandate by the General Assembly that’s not necessarily unique but is quite particular. They asked us to work in the intergovernmental space with member states to help them collectively find the highest common denominator on gender issues and develop ways to promote accountability and country-level progress. That’s been a big part of what we’ve done over the years, such as working during the General Assembly to ensure that gender issues are properly integrated into its work, the high-level week, and the resolutions of the Assembly. We’ve also focused on integrating gender and issues of women, peace, and security, or women in crisis, into the work of the Security Council. We make sure that the Commission on the Status of Women, the big annual global gender equality event, works well and produces good outcomes. Recently, we focused on gender and technology, discussing technology-facilitated violence and related issues. In the intergovernmental space, we’ve been trying to ensure that gender issues get the attention they deserve for the best results at the country level.
The second thing they asked us to do was coordinate within the UN system. We have promoted a system-wide approach, making people report on how well they’re integrating gender into their tracking expenses, expenditures on gender equality and so on. We also participate with other parts of the system and coordinate collective action, such as the big Spotlight Initiative on gender-based violence. Third, we do catalytic programming—small but smart programs that have a bigimpact and demonstrate what works so that other entities, especially governments, can scale them up. Domestic finance is where the big money is. So, we’re still a work in progress, I would say.
Fifteen years is a lot younger than other parts of the UN, and we’re learning how to have more and more impact. For example, we have much innovative thinking about engaging the private sector, which my team is acutely aware of. We’re also doing more around women in crisis and conflict. Since we were established, depending on how you count it, we’re the third fastest-growing part of the UN by a conservative measure. You grow only because people have confidence in you. People invest in you because they think you’re a good investment.
The track record is good, and the indicators of success are relatively strong. I’m blowing our trumpet, but it reflects that the mandate we were given and the way the General Assembly set us up made sense.
Jacobsen: What are some of the easiest ways to build those partnerships when you’re looking to combat inequalities in government systems, income insecurity, unremunerated work, violence against women, and things like this? To me and you, it is a pretty straightforward argument to make when you’re in the right spaces. Yet, to build those partnerships, you need diplomacy and tact. So, how do you do it?
Seymour: Yes, it’s variable. My facile answer is that all partnership comes from understanding the win-win. It’s not so different from sales. It would help if you found the convergence of interests with potential partners, framing things in ways that make sense to them.
One of the challenges is that we work in an organization full of people who are super focused on gender. We know all about gender, but we don’t necessarily know about gender and whatever it is that our partners care about. For example, if we’re talking to advertising companies, they know much more about advertising than we do. We have to figure out that convergence. Similarly, our colleagues who work on climate have hundreds of climate experts. We know about gender but must also figure out how to connect with them. There’s a job to understand the perspectives, priorities, interests, and incentives of the partners you’re trying to work with.
You also need to be able to make a case that explains the why. There is a belief, somewhat reductive, that it’s a self-interest argument. To convince a government to close the gender pay gap or have more rigorous legislation to prevent workplace discrimination against women who’ve had children, you have to instrumentalize the cause. You might say, “If you do that, you’ll make more money,” or “Your economy will grow more.” Those are valuable arguments, but some moral people are just as attracted to the argument of principle.
I’ve come across many influential people looking for a space to contribute. I don’t spend my whole time saying, “If you do this, it’s good for you.” Many people are super committed to these issues. Another thing about partnerships is that bigchange requires big questions. One of the skills of a partnership person is figuring out what that jigsaw looks like.
Jacobsen: Who are the different actors that must come together to make something happen? For example, my colleagues working on women’s economic empowerment focus on unpaid care—looking after kids, older people, people with disabilities, etc.
The basic idea is that if you can distribute care responsibilities more evenly and subsidize care, you free up women’s labour force participation. That’s a big economic benefit. It’s good for them because, if they choose to, they don’t have to drive the labour force, which they may not want to do. It’s better for the kids and the context.
We are assembling a coalition of governments to address various legislative and domestic investment issues around the care question and big companies. We want them to offer maternity leave and, if they have a big office somewhere, to have a creche in the office or offer flexible working arrangements for care purposes. We’re looking at academic institutions for collaboration because much research needs to be done to figure out how all of that works. We’re also looking at media collaborations or partnerships with organizations that can influence attitudinal change about care work being a woman’s job and not a job for men.
So, you have this issue: women do far more unpaid care work than men. It’s not good, and we need to fix it. Then, what constellation of different actors do we need to bring on board to drive change?
The other part of the partnership puzzle is more than just figuring out the convergent interests or the right arguments. It’s figuring out the right cast of characters to make something big happen.
Seymour: Our friends in Iceland have rightly held that top spot. It’s been 14 years, and their gender gap is over 90% closed, which is way ahead of pretty much everyone else. They are high-performing. If you visit Iceland, you can sense the equality. In terms of what you do, Scott, the concept of masculinity in Iceland is a fascinating area of investigation. You can feel that you are in a more equal society, which is nice. But to your question, what are they getting right? It’s a simple thing.
Let me give you an analogy. Gender inequality doesn’t fix itself. If you wait for it to happen, you’ll be waiting a long time—at least 300 years on the current trajectory to achieve equality. It’s almost certain that we will have humans on the moon before we achieve gender equality at the pace we’re going, which is slow and frustrating.
What countries like Iceland do is acknowledge that things will only change if they do something serious to alter them. For example, Iceland’s Gender Equality Act mandates that board membership for Icelandic companies must be 40% female. Other countries have similar rules for the ratio of men and women elected to their parliaments on party lists. Some countries make special investments to support women reentering the workplace.
People talk about a level playing field. As a British person who likes football (the game you play with your feet), imagine a situation where two teams play a match on the same pitch with the same boots, rules, and referee.
Everything is equal, so people say, “Yes, it’s a level playing field. What’s the problem?” But for the past two years, one of those teams has been free to spend all its time practicing. They’ve been working out and have massive, powerful leg muscles. Their coach has drilled them to perfection. They’re professionals. The other team has had to do another job. They’ve had no special training or preparation.
When they go out to play, the second team gets completely crushed by the first team. That’s what we have to understand. We are starting from a place of inequality, and that’s what countries like Iceland understand. More than just having the same rules for both women and men when you start from a place of inequality is required.
You have to implement what often gets called temporary special measures until you have genuinely removed the inequality of advantage and disadvantage. This way, you have a level playing field in a real sense, not a trivial, superficial sense. In my experience, whenever you see a country performing well, you can see that they have deliberately done things to even things up because they recognize they’re starting from a point of inequality. That’s the key. As long as you’re not willing to say things are unequal now and we’re going to have to do something special to get us to equality, and then when we’re there, that’s fine, we can ease off, but something extraordinary has to be done now.
Those are the countries and companies that perform better. It doesn’t happen by itself; more than that, having the same rules for everybody today is needed. You must recognize that you’re coming from a place of inequality, which requires special effort to get you equal.
Jacobsen: Now, on the opposite side of that spectrum, on the same report from the World Economic Forum, the countries listed at the lower end are Sudan, Pakistan, Chad, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Guinea, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Niger, Morocco, Oman, and so on. What internally restricts the advancement of women in these particular economies and cultures? Are the factors typically more historical, or are they more rooted in a contemporary culture of wanting to stick to the way things are now? Gender equality is often seen as a Western idea. Therefore, some do not want it, or it’s seen as a globalist idea, and there’s a desire to maintain the culture. Are certain factors considered nationalistic or traditional that prevent moving towards a more gender-equal environment?
Seymour: Yes. Good question. Two things to highlight. One is whether it’s a long-standing tradition or something more contemporary. It’s often a combination of the two when you have underlying gender inequality. Then, place stresses on that society, or even if you have a moment of change, that inequality is often amplified. COVID was a good example of that. COVID took existing problems of domestic violence and turbocharged them. A number of the countries you’re talking about, or on that WEF list, are countries experiencing some form of crisis where essentially what’s happening is that the pre-existing inequality is having a match thrown on it. That’s one angle. Of course, there’s this question of social norms and attitudes. You might be interested in taking a look at it.
A report we did in partnership with a market research company is interesting. It looks at attitudes on gender equality in 20 countries. What you see is striking: many beliefs that are inimical to gender equality are stubbornly persistent, such as whether women make as good political leaders as men, whether it’s appropriate for women to work outside the home, or whether working mothers harm their children. You find significant numbers of people in various countries—especially in the ones you’re talking about—holding regressive attitudes.
What stands out when you look at this is not just the correlation with economic development; while the correlation is there, it’s not perfect. What’s scary about some of these attitudes, such as the percentage of people who think it’s acceptable in certain circumstances to hit your spouse, is that when you break down the demographics of our gender equality attitude study, you find that the group most likely going in the wrong direction is young men. I feel, and this is somewhat personal, that there is a crisis with young men that is reflected as a misogyny crisis. This is concerning because, as you said, there are plenty of worrying numbers, for example, in the WEF report. But even more concerning is that 17-year-old boys, growing into their twenties and thirties, are carrying regressive and problematic attitudes on issues like domestic violence, women in leadership, and women in the economy. That’s worrying.
Jacobsen: People will interpret this interview through a gender lens, too—two men talking about gender equality. As I’ve written for the Good Men Project, I’ve done many interviews with religious and non-religious leaders, particularly those involved in ethical culture, humanism, free thought, atheism, etc. My own bias is towards non-religion. Yet, even within that bias, I see religion, when interpreted in a dogmatic frame with men as leaders and heads and the portrayal of God as basically a divine male person, being used as a means to restrict women and, in turn, restrict men because they can only engage in certain roles and behaviours. In any analysis done by UN Women, is religion taken into account in ways that can both help and hinder the furtherance of gender equality?
Seymour: Most people would understand exactly where you’re coming from. I’m a Jewish atheist myself, which in my culture is not necessarily a contradiction in terms. I recognize the concern you raised. It’s certainly true that, for example, the arguably biggest gender crisis we have in the world right now—our executive director has described it as gender apartheid—is the situation in Afghanistan. There, a significant driver of the views or at least an argument used to justify this gender apartheid is a religious argument. One of the characteristics of religious belief is its diversity.
I have come across far more people of faith who argue strongly for human rights and gender equality and who contest the idea that their God is male. They argue that their God is beyond gender and vehemently oppose ideas of male domination in their faith, advocating for women priests and women rabbis. Yes, religion can be both a help and a hindrance in the pursuit of gender equality.
Of course, just as people make all sorts of calls to tradition or use very wobbly economic arguments to try and justify discriminatory beliefs, including on gender, we have worked with many people of faith and faith-based organizations who are very much on the same side of the gender equality argument as we are. We have country offices in many countries worldwide where religion plays a significant part in women’s and men’s daily lives, and I appreciate that. It’s important to point out that inequality, whether it’s based on religion or anything else, is bad for men too.
I’m a strong believer in that, and it’s an important argument to make. I have colleagues worldwide who are navigating complicated cultural situations, including religion. So, yes, of course, nobody denies it’s often difficult. But the good news is that there are always allies. That’s our job as facilitators, enablers, advocates, and so on—to work with those allies and alongside them to make progress. That’s what we do.
Jacobsen: Just looking at time, we have four minutes left on this call. How can people partner with UN Women? How can they get involved directly if they want volunteer opportunities or employment?
Seymour: It depends on where you are. We love people who come and work with us. Every job at UN Women is advertised on the website publicly and is competitive. We’re lucky to have many people wanting to work with us. We also have UN Volunteers. You can just Google UNV. They’re not unpaid; they receive a stipend. I ought to know the proper term for what you get as a UNV, but your contribution to the UN is valuable.
So, working with us directly through UN Volunteers and the third option is we have 13 national committees, and people can support us through those national committees. There are also other ways to get involved through our campaigns. A good one, obviously from where you’re sitting, is the HeForShe campaign, which is about male allyship. It has various ideas for what you can do as a man in your workplace, in your family, with your friends, around calling out sexism, and so on. Our website is a good place to start and find engagement ideas. We’d love to have people get involved.
Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time today, Daniel. I appreciate it.
Seymour: It was a pleasure talking to you and a good discussion. We appreciate it. Take care.
Jacobsen: It was a pleasure talking to you, Daniel. Thank you.
“I shit you not that is what he decided to do,” writes a junior enlisted service member to the MilitaryReligious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) in an e-mail about their fundamentalist Christian commander’s plan to keep his unit safe from demonic forces by replacing the unit’s Halloween party with a “New Testament Holiday Costume Party.”
WikiIslam is under attack!
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) tells me that a U.S. Air Force Academy cadet claims the school’s leader is stifling a Jewish group activity while sharing evangelical Christian content internally at the academy.
Ed Asner receives MRFF 2010 Thomas Jefferson Award from MRFF Founder & President Mikey Weinstein
Joe was a loyal, fierce, and steadfast advocate of MRFF’s mission to ensure constitutionally-mandated church-state separation in the U.S. armed forces and Veterans Administration for over 13 years. 
Christian Flag for Illustrative Purposes added by MRFF
Click to watch (2:10) video
Back in 1992, political consultant James Carville coined the phrase “It’s the economy, stupid” to help explain the essence of what was then at stake in the pending Presidential election between Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush.
The land subject to taxes is highlighted in red.
In-Sight Publishing 
.jpg){kind=link}
